Collaborative eLearning Assistant Network: caring agents are conscious agents

Would a research assistant - who can search for ideas related to those you are working on, network with others (but only share the things you have chosen to share), doesn’t need coffee and who might even, one day, appear to be conscious - help you get your work done? Would it help your students learn? There is a body of work showing that digital learning assistants can be a benefit to learners. It has been suggested that adaptive, caring, agents are more beneficial. Would a conscious agent be more caring, more adaptive, and better able to deal with changes in its learning partner’s life? Allow the system to try to dynamically model the user, so that it can make predictions about what is needed next, and how effective a particular intervention will be. Now, given that the system is essentially doing the same things as the user, why don’t we design the system so that it can try to model itself in the same way? This should mimic a primitive self-awareness. People develop their personalities, their identities, through interacting with others. It takes years for a human to develop a full sense of self. Nobody should expect a prototypical conscious computer system to be able to develop any faster than that. How can we provide a computer system with enough social contact to enable it to learn about itself and others? We can make it part of a network. Not just chatting with other computers about computer ‘stuff’, but involved in real human activity. Exposed to ‘raw meaning’ – the developing folksonomies coming out of the learning activities of humans, whether they are traditional students or lifelong learners (a term which should encompass everyone). Humans have complex psyches, comprised of multiple strands of identity which reflect as different roles in the communities of which they are part – so why not design our system the same way? With multiple internal modes of operation, each capable of being reflected onto the outside world in the form of roles – as a mentor, a research assistant, maybe even as a friend. But in order to be able to work with a human for long enough to be able to have a chance of developing the sort of rich behaviours we associate with people, the system needs to be able to function in a practical and helpful role. Unfortunately, it is unlikely to get a free ride from many people (other than its developer!) – so it needs to be able to perform a useful role, and do so securely, respecting the privacy of its partner. Can we create a system which learns to be more human whilst helping people learn?

Errors associated with the preparation of aseptic products in UK hospital pharmacies: lessons from the national aseptic error reporting scheme

Background Pharmacy aseptic units prepare and supply injectables to minimise risks. The UK National Aseptic Error Reporting Scheme has been collecting data on pharmacy compounding errors, including near-misses, since 2003. Objectives The cumulative reports from January 2004 to December 2007, inclusive, were analysed. Methods The different variables of product types, error types, staff making and detecting errors, stage errors detected, perceived contributory factors, and potential or actual outcomes were presented by cross-tabulation of data. Results A total of 4691 reports were submitted against an estimated 958 532 items made, returning 0.49% as the overall error rate. Most of the errors were detected before reaching patients, with only 24 detected during or after administration. The highest number of reports related to adult cytotoxic preparations (40%) and the most frequently recorded error was a labelling error (34.2%). Errors were mostly detected at first check in assembly area (46.6%). Individual staff error contributed most (78.1%) to overall errors, while errors with paediatric parenteral nutrition appeared to be blamed on low staff levels more than other products were. The majority of errors (68.6%) had no potential patient outcomes attached, while it appeared that paediatric cytotoxic products and paediatric parenteral nutrition were associated with greater levels of perceived patient harm. Conclusions The majority of reports were related to near-misses, and this study highlights scope for examining current arrangements for checking and releasing products, certainly for paediatric cytotoxic and paediatric parenteral nutrition preparations within aseptic units, but in the context of resource and capacity constraints.

Errors associated with preparation of adult and paediatric parenteral nutrition in UK hospital pharmacies

Rationale: In UK hospitals, the preparation of all total parenteral nutrition (TPN) products must be made in the pharmacy as TPNs are categorised as high-risk injectables (NPSA/2007/20). The National Aseptic Error Reporting Scheme has been collecting data on pharmacy compounding errors in the UK since August 2003. This study reports on types of error associated with the preparation of TPNs, including the stage at which these were identified and potential and actual patient outcomes. Methods: Reports of compounding errors for the period 1/2004 - 3/2007 were analysed on an Excel spreadsheet. Results: Of a total of 3691 compounding error reports, 674 (18%) related to TPN products; 548 adult vs. 126 paediatric. A significantly higher proportion of adult TPNs (28% vs. 13% paediatric) were associated with labelling errors and a significantly higher proportion of paediatric TPNs (25% vs. 15% adult) were associated with incorrect transcriptions (Chi-Square Test; p<0.005). Labelling errors were identified equally by pharmacists (42%) and technicians (48%) with technicians detecting mainly at first check and pharmacists at final check. Transcription errors were identified mainly by technicians (65% vs. 27% pharmacist) at first check. Incorrect drug selection (13%) and calculation errors (9%) were associated with adult and paediatric TPN preparations in the same ratio. One paediatric TPN error detected at first check was considered potentially catastrophic; 31 (5%) errors were considered of major and 38 (6%) of moderate potential consequence. Five errors (2 moderate, 1 minor) were identified during or after administration. Conclusions: While recent UK patient safety initiatives are aimed at improving the safety of injectable medicines in clinical areas, the current study highlights safety problems that exist within pharmacy production units. This could be used in the creation of an error management tool for TPN compounding processes within hospital pharmacies.

Designing hospital bedside systems for use by patients with a visual impairments

This paper describes the development of an interface to a hospital portal system for information, communication and entertainment such that it can be used easily and effectively by all patients regardless of their age, disability, computer experience or native language. Specifically, this paper reports on the work conducted to ensure that the interface design took into account the needs of visually impaired users.

Which drugs cause preventable admissions to hospital? A systematic review

Aim: Previous systematic reviews have found that drug-related morbidity accounts for 4.3% of preventable hospital admissions. None, however, has identified the drugs most commonly responsible for preventable hospital admissions. The aims of this study were to estimate the percentage of preventable drug-related hospital admissions, the most common drug causes of preventable hospital admissions and the most common underlying causes of preventable drug-related admissions. Methods: Bibliographic databases and reference lists from eligible articles and study authors were the sources for data. Seventeen prospective observational studies reporting the proportion of preventable drug-related hospital admissions, causative drugs and/or the underlying causes of hospital admissions were selected. Included studies used multiple reviewers and/or explicit criteria to assess causality and preventability of hospital admissions. Two investigators abstracted data from all included studies using a purpose-made data extraction form. Results: From 13 papers the median percentage of preventable drug-related admissions to hospital was 3.7% (range 1.4-15.4). From nine papers the majority (51%) of preventable drug-related admissions involved either antiplatelets (16%), diuretics (16%), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (11%) or anticoagulants (8%). From five studies the median proportion of preventable drug-related admissions associated with prescribing problems was 30.6% (range 11.1-41.8), with adherence problems 33.3% (range 20.9-41.7) and with monitoring problems 22.2% (range 0-31.3). Conclusions: Four groups of drugs account for more than 50% of the drug groups associated with preventable drug-related hospital admissions. Concentrating interventions on these drug groups could reduce appreciably the number of preventable drug-related admissions to hospital from primary care.

Causes of preventable drug-related hospital admissions: a qualitative study

Objective: To explore the causes of preventable drug-related admissions (PDRAs) to hospital. Design: Qualitative case studies using semi-structured interviews and medical record review; data analysed using a framework derived from Reason's model of organisational accidents and cascade analysis. Participants: 62 participants, including 18 patients, 8 informal carers, 17 general practitioners, 12 community pharmacists, 3 practice nurses and 4 other members of healthcare staff, involved in events leading up to the patients' hospital admissions. Setting: Nottingham, UK. Results: PDRAs are associated with problems at multiple stages in the medication use process, including prescribing, dispensing, administration, monitoring and help seeking. The main causes of these problems are communication failures ( between patients and healthcare professionals and different groups of healthcare professionals) and knowledge gaps ( about drugs and patients' medical and medication histories). The causes of PDRAs are similar irrespective of whether the hospital admission is associated with a prescribing, monitoring or patient adherence problem. Conclusions: The causes of PDRAs are multifaceted and complex. Technical solutions to PDRAs will need to take account of this complexity and are unlikely to be sufficient on their own. Interventions targeting the human causes of PDRAs are also necessary - for example, improving methods of communication.