A Multi-method Exploratory Evaluation of a Service Designed to Improve Medication Safety for Patients with Monitored Dosage Systems Following Hospital Discharge.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Medication safety problems are common post-hospital discharge, and an important global healthcare improvement target. The Transfers of Care Around Medicines (TCAM) service was launched by a National Health Service Trust in the North-West of England, initially focusing on patients with new or existing Monitored Dosage Systems (MDS). The TCAM service is designed to enable the prompt transfer of medication information, with referrals made by hospitals at discharge to a named community pharmacy. This study aimed to explore the utilisation and impact of the TCAM service on medication safety. METHODS: The evaluation included a descriptive analysis of 3033 anonymised patient referrals to 71 community pharmacies over a 1-year period alongside an assessment of the impact of the TCAM service on unintentional medication discrepancies and adverse drug events using a retrospective before-and-after study design. Impact data were collected across 18 general practices by 16 trained clinical pharmacists. RESULTS: Most patient referrals (70%, 2126/3033) were marked as 'completed' by community pharmacies, with 15% of completed referrals delayed beyond 30 days. Screening of 411 patient records by clinical pharmacists yielded no statistically significant difference in unintentional medication discrepancies or adverse drug event rates following TCAM implementation using a multivariable regression analysis (unintentional medication discrepancies adjusted odds ratio = 0.79 [95% confidence interval 0.44-1.44, p = 0.46]; and adverse drug events adjusted odds ratio = 1.19 [95% confidence interval 0.57-2.45, p = 0.63]), although there remained considerable uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: The TCAM service facilitated a number of community pharmacy services offered to patients with monitored dosage systems; but the impact of the intervention on unintentional medication discrepancies and adverse drug event rates post-hospital discharge for this patient group was uncertain. The results of this exploratory study can inform the ongoing implementation of the TCAM service at hospital discharge and highlight the need to understand service implementation in different contexts, which may influence its impact on medication safety.

Development of the adult complexity tool for pharmaceutical care (ACTPC) in hospital: A modified Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Hospital pharmacists play an essential role in patient care; however, a lack of resources means pharmacists are unable to review all patients daily. Consequently, there is a demand for reliable screening tools to allocate care to patients with urgent and/or complex pharmaceutical needs. Several tools have been developed, but no broad consensus exists on the design of a screening tool to be used in the adult hospital setting. OBJECTIVE: To obtain expert consensus on the design of a pharmaceutical care complexity screening tool for use on admission to hospital. METHODS: Two Delphi studies were conducted: the first sought to gain consensus from experts including pharmacists, academics and physicians on the components of a pharmaceutical complexity tool, the second to achieve consensus from UK chief pharmacists and clinical service pharmacy managers on the clinical appropriateness and practicality of the tool. Tool components and Delphi statements were identified and refined from our previous systematic review, UK survey and interview study of prioritisation tools. A valid definition for consensus was used. RESULTS: Over 300 components were extracted from the interview data and systematic review and then refined for inclusion in the first Delphi study. Thirty-three experts completed Delphi One and consensus was reached on 92 components. Components were grouped into demographic, clinical and medication components and condensed to 33 items, which were included in the first draft of the Adult Complexity Tool for Pharmaceutical Care (ACTPC). The tool stratified patients into highly, moderately or least complex. Forty expert panellists completed Delphi Two and consensus was reached on review frequency and experience of pharmacy practitioner at each level. These decisions were incorporated into the final version of the ACTPC. CONCLUSIONS: The ACTPC is the first systematically designed and internationally agreed tool for use on medical admission to hospital. It has potential to enable the delivery of targeted patient-centred pharmaceutical care.

General practitioner practice-based pharmacist input to medicines optimisation in the UK: pragmatic, multicenter, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Changing demographics across the UK has led to general practitioners (GPs) managing increasing numbers of older patients with multi-morbidity and resultant polypharmacy. Through government led initiatives within the National Health Service, an increasing number of GP practices employ pharmacist support. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of a medicines optimisation intervention, delivered by GP practice-based pharmacists, to patients at risk of medication-related problems (MRPs), on patient outcomes and healthcare costs. METHODS: A multi-centre, randomised (normal care or pharmacist supplemented care) study in four regions of the UK, involving patients (n = 356) from eight GP practices, with a 6-month follow-up period. Participants were adult patients who were at risk of MRPs. RESULTS: Median number of MRPs per intervention patient were reduced at the third assessment, i.e. 3 to 0.5 (p < 0.001) in patients who received the full intervention schedule. Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) scores were reduced (medications more appropriate) for the intervention group, but not for control group patients (8 [4-13] to 5 [0-11] vs 8 [3-13] to 7 [3-12], respectively; p = 0.001). Using the intention-to-treat (ITT) approach, the number of telephone consultations in intervention group patients was reduced and different from the control group (1 [0-3] to 1 [0-2] vs 1 [0-2] to 1 [0-3], p = 0.020). No significant differences between groups were, however, found in unplanned hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, number of A&E attendances or outpatient visits. The mean overall healthcare cost per intervention patient fell from £1041.7 ± 1446.7 to £859.1 ± 1235.2 (p = 0.032). Cost utility analysis showed an incremental cost per patient of - £229.0 (95% CI - 594.6, 128.2) and a mean QALY gained of 0.024 (95% CI - 0.021 to 0.065), i.e. indicative of a health status gain at a reduced cost (2016/2017). CONCLUSION: The pharmacist service was effective in reducing MRPs, inappropriateness of medications and telephone consultations in general practice in a cost-effective manner. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov, NCT03241498. Registered 7 August 2017-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03241498.

Evaluation of a pharmaceutical assessment screening tool to measure patient acuity and prioritise pharmaceutical care in a UK hospital.

OBJECTIVE: A service evaluation project was conducted to design a pharmaceutical assessment screening tool (PAST) to assign all inpatients a patient acuity level (PAL) to then help teams of clinical pharmacists prioritise the frequency of, and the seniority of, pharmacists performing patient reviews; assess clinical pharmacists' adherence to the tool; and identify when pharmacists do not adhere to the tool. METHODS: The PAST was developed by consensus methodology to prioritise departmental workflow for clinical pharmacists. The most pharmaceutically complex patients at the greatest risk of adverse drug events were expected to receive a PAL score of 3, while the least complex receive a PAL of 1. A quasi-experimental service evaluation study was conducted 6 months after implementation of the tool to quantify agreement between pharmacist-documented and expected per-guidance PALs. Patients were selected via random clusters from wards. For each patient, a PAL was calculated by the researcher and compared with the pharmacist-documented PAL. RESULTS: 20 patients (57%) had documented PALs that matched the expected PAL based on pharmacy departmental guidance. Seven of nine patients with overvalued pharmacist-documented PALs had no high-risk medications and no organ dysfunction. Four of six patients with undervalued pharmacist-documented PALs had cystic fibrosis, who should all automatically score the maximum level. CONCLUSIONS: Until electronic health records allow the calculation of PALs automatically, the utilisation of the current tool may be improved by eliminating unclear and unused portions of the tool and reiterating the true purpose of the tool to all pharmacists.

Pharmacists' attitudes towards a pharmaceutical assessment screening tool to help prioritise pharmaceutical care in a UK hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To establish the thoughts of pharmacists using the pharmaceutical assessment screening tool (PAST) when assigning a patient acuity level (PAL) and establish other decision factors. A PAL is a pharmaceutical assessment of a patient (lowest=1 to highest=3), higher PALs highlight the requirement for a more intensive pharmaceutical input to reduce potential harm. METHOD: A questionnaire designed to elicit attitudes about the PAST was circulated to 32 pharmacists working in a 900 bed UK university teaching hospital. Respondents were asked to document what PAL they would assign for six theoretical patient cases with an explanation. The data collected was analysed using Microsoft Excel and further analysis was undertaken about the strength of agreement to PAST using the κ statistic using Stata V.12 (StataCorp, Texas, USA). RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 28/32 pharmacists (87.5% response rate). The mean confidence (SD) for assigning a PAL was 81% (±20%). 26/28 pharmacists (93%) agreed or strongly agreed that professional judgement guided them most when allocating a PAL. The PAL assigned to the case studies presented both overestimations and underestimations compared with the guidance but overall the strength of agreement was considered to be 'fair' (κ=0.202). CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists feel confident about using PAST to help them assign a PAL. However, the use of professional judgement to assign an acuity level overrides any predicted level from PAST.

Pharmacist-led feedback workshops increase appropriate prescribing of antimicrobials.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether and how structured feedback sessions can increase rates of appropriate antimicrobial prescribing by junior doctors. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods study, with a conceptual orientation towards complexity and systems thinking. Fourteen junior doctors, in their first year of training, were randomized to intervention (feedback) and 21 to control (routine practice) groups in a single UK teaching hospital. Feedback on their antimicrobial prescribing was given, in writing and via group sessions. Pharmacists assessed the appropriateness of all new antimicrobial prescriptions 2 days per week for 6 months (46 days). The mean normalized prescribing rates of suboptimal to all prescribing were compared between groups using the t-test. Thematic analysis of qualitative interviews with 10 participants investigated whether and how the intervention had impact. RESULTS: Data were collected on 204 prescriptions for 166 patients. For the intervention group, the mean normalized rate of suboptimal to all prescribing was 0.32 ±â€Š0.36; for the control group, it was 0.68 ±â€Š0.36. The normalized rates of suboptimal prescribing were significantly different between the groups (P = 0.0005). The qualitative data showed that individuals' prescribing behaviour was influenced by a complex series of dynamic interactions between individual and social variables, such as interplay between personal knowledge and the expectations of others. CONCLUSIONS: The feedback intervention increased appropriate prescribing by acting as a positive stimulus within a complex network of behavioural influences. Prescribing behaviour is adaptive and can be positively influenced by structured feedback. Changing doctors' perceptions of acceptable, typical and best practice could reduce suboptimal antimicrobial prescribing.

Prevalence, Nature, Severity and Risk Factors for Prescribing Errors in Hospital Inpatients: Prospective Study in 20 UK Hospitals.

INTRODUCTION: It has been suggested that doctors in their first year of post-graduate training make a disproportionate number of prescribing errors. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the prevalence of prescribing errors made by first-year post-graduate doctors with that of errors by senior doctors and non-medical prescribers and to investigate the predictors of potentially serious prescribing errors. METHODS: Pharmacists in 20 hospitals over 7 prospectively selected days collected data on the number of medication orders checked, the grade of prescriber and details of any prescribing errors. Logistic regression models (adjusted for clustering by hospital) identified factors predicting the likelihood of prescribing erroneously and the severity of prescribing errors. RESULTS: Pharmacists reviewed 26,019 patients and 124,260 medication orders; 11,235 prescribing errors were detected in 10,986 orders. The mean error rate was 8.8 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 8.6-9.1) errors per 100 medication orders. Rates of errors for all doctors in training were significantly higher than rates for medical consultants. Doctors who were 1 year (odds ratio [OR] 2.13; 95 % CI 1.80-2.52) or 2 years in training (OR 2.23; 95 % CI 1.89-2.65) were more than twice as likely to prescribe erroneously. Prescribing errors were 70 % (OR 1.70; 95 % CI 1.61-1.80) more likely to occur at the time of hospital admission than when medication orders were issued during the hospital stay. No significant differences in severity of error were observed between grades of prescriber. Potentially serious errors were more likely to be associated with prescriptions for parenteral administration, especially for cardiovascular or endocrine disorders. CONCLUSION: The problem of prescribing errors in hospitals is substantial and not solely a problem of the most junior medical prescribers, particularly for those errors most likely to cause significant patient harm. Interventions are needed to target these high-risk errors by all grades of staff and hence improve patient safety.

Understanding the causes of intravenous medication administration errors in hospitals: a qualitative critical incident study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the underlying causes of intravenous medication administration errors (MAEs) in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. SETTING: Two NHS teaching hospitals in the North West of England. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty nurses working in a range of inpatient clinical environments were identified and recruited using purposive sampling at each study site. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Semistructured interviews were conducted with nurse participants using the critical incident technique, where they were asked to discuss perceived causes of intravenous MAEs that they had been directly involved with. Transcribed interviews were analysed using the Framework approach and emerging themes were categorised according to Reason's model of accident causation. RESULTS: In total, 21 intravenous MAEs were discussed containing 23 individual active failures which included slips and lapses (n=11), mistakes (n=8) and deliberate violations of policy (n=4). Each active failure was associated with a range of error and violation provoking conditions. The working environment was implicated when nurses lacked healthcare team support and/or were exposed to a perceived increased workload during ward rounds, shift changes or emergencies. Nurses frequently reported that the quality of intravenous dose-checking activities was compromised due to high perceived workload and working relationships. Nurses described using approaches such as subconscious functioning and prioritising to manage their duties, which at times contributed to errors. CONCLUSIONS: Complex interactions between active and latent failures can lead to intravenous MAEs in hospitals. Future interventions may need to be multimodal in design in order to mitigate these risks and reduce the burden of intravenous MAEs.

Prevalence, nature and predictors of prescribing errors in mental health hospitals: a prospective multicentre study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence, nature and predictors of prescribing errors (PEs) in three mental health hospitals. SETTING: Inpatient units in three National Health Service (NHS) mental health hospitals in the North West of England. PARTICIPANTS: Trained clinical pharmacists prospectively recorded the number of PEs in newly written or omitted prescription items screened during their routine work on 10 data collection days. A multidisciplinary panel reviewed PE data using established methods to confirm (1) the presence of a PE, (2) the type of PE and (3) whether errors were clinically relevant and likely to cause harm. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency, nature and predictors of PEs. RESULTS: Of 4427 screened prescription items, 281 were found to have one or more PEs (error rate 6.3% (95% CI 5.6 to 7.1%)). Multivariate analysis revealed that specialty trainees (OR 1.23 (1.01 to 1.51)) and staff grade psychiatrists (OR 1.50 (1.05 to 2.13)) were more likely to make PEs when compared to foundation year (FY) one doctors, and that specialty trainees and consultant psychiatrists were twice as likely to make clinically relevant PEs (OR 2.61 (2.11 to 3.22) and 2.03 (1.66 to 2.50), respectively) compared to FY one staff. Prescription items screened during the prescription chart rewrite (OR 0.52 (0.33 to 0.82)) or at discharge (OR 0.87 (0.79 to 0.97)) were less likely to be associated with PEs than items assessed during inpatient stay, although they were more likely to be associated with clinically relevant PEs (OR 2.27 (1.72 to 2.99) and 4.23 (3.68 to 4.87), respectively). Prescription items screened at hospital admission were five times more likely (OR 5.39 (2.72 to 10.69)) to be associated with clinically relevant errors than those screened during patient stay. CONCLUSIONS: PEs may be more common in mental health hospitals than previously reported and important targets to minimise these errors have been identified.

Impact of interventions designed to reduce medication administration errors in hospitals: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to identify effective interventions to minimize the threat posed by medication administration errors (MAEs). OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to review and critically appraise interventions designed to reduce MAEs in the hospital setting. DATA SOURCES: Ten electronic databases were searched between 1985 and November 2013. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled trials (CTs) reporting rates of MAEs or related adverse drug events between an intervention group and a comparator group were included. Data from each study were independently extracted and assessed for potential risk of bias by two authors. Risk ratios (RRs, with 95 % confidence intervals [CIs]) were used to examine the effect of an intervention. RESULTS: Six RCTs and seven CTs were included. Types of interventions clustered around four main themes: medication use technology (n = 4); nurse education and training (n = 3); changing practice in anesthesia (n = 2); and ward system changes (n = 4). Reductions in MAE rates were reported by five studies; these included automated drug dispensing (RR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.53-1.00), computerized physician order entry (RR 0.51, 95 % 0.40-0.66), barcode-assisted medication administration with electronic administration records (RR 0.71, 95 % CI 0.53-0.95), nursing education/training using simulation (RR 0.17, 95 % CI 0.08-0.38), and clinical pharmacist-led training (RR 0.76, 95 % CI 0.67-0.87). Increased or equivocal outcome rates were found for the remaining studies. Weaknesses in the internal or external validity were apparent for most included studies. LIMITATIONS: Theses and conference proceedings were excluded and data produced outside commercial publishing were not searched. CONCLUSIONS: There is emerging evidence of the impact of specific interventions to reduce MAEs in hospitals, which warrant further investigation using rigorous and standardized study designs. Theory-driven efforts to understand the underlying causes of MAEs may lead to more effective interventions in the future.

Causes of medication administration errors in hospitals: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence.

BACKGROUND: Underlying systems factors have been seen to be crucial contributors to the occurrence of medication errors. By understanding the causes of these errors, the most appropriate interventions can be designed and implemented to minimise their occurrence. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically review and appraise empirical evidence relating to the causes of medication administration errors (MAEs) in hospital settings. DATA SOURCES: Nine electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, ASSIA, PsycINFO, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, Health Management Information Consortium and Social Science Citations Index) were searched between 1985 and May 2013. STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to identify eligible publications through title analysis followed by abstract and then full text examination. English language publications reporting empirical data on causes of MAEs were included. Reference lists of included articles and relevant review papers were hand searched for additional studies. Studies were excluded if they did not report data on specific MAEs, used accounts from individuals not directly involved in the MAE concerned or were presented as conference abstracts with insufficient detail. DATA APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: A total of 54 unique studies were included. Causes of MAEs were categorised according to Reason's model of accident causation. Studies were assessed to determine relevance to the research question and how likely the results were to reflect the potential underlying causes of MAEs based on the method(s) used. RESULTS: Slips and lapses were the most commonly reported unsafe acts, followed by knowledge-based mistakes and deliberate violations. Error-provoking conditions influencing administration errors included inadequate written communication (prescriptions, documentation, transcription), problems with medicines supply and storage (pharmacy dispensing errors and ward stock management), high perceived workload, problems with ward-based equipment (access, functionality), patient factors (availability, acuity), staff health status (fatigue, stress) and interruptions/distractions during drug administration. Few studies sought to determine the causes of intravenous MAEs. A number of latent pathway conditions were less well explored, including local working culture and high-level managerial decisions. Causes were often described superficially; this may be related to the use of quantitative surveys and observation methods in many studies, limited use of established error causation frameworks to analyse data and a predominant focus on issues other than the causes of MAEs among studies. LIMITATIONS: As only English language publications were included, some relevant studies may have been missed. CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence from studies included in this systematic review suggests that MAEs are influenced by multiple systems factors, but if and how these arise and interconnect to lead to errors remains to be fully determined. Further research with a theoretical focus is needed to investigate the MAE causation pathway, with an emphasis on ensuring interventions designed to minimise MAEs target recognised underlying causes of errors to maximise their impact.

Risk factors for hospital admissions associated with adverse drug events.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To identify predictors of hospital admissions associated with adverse drug events (ADEs) and to determine the preventability of ADEs in patients admitted to two hospitals. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Medical admission units at two British National Health Service hospitals in the United Kingdom. PATIENTS: 3904 adults age 16 years or older who were admitted to the two hospitals between June 2006 and November 2007. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Clinical pharmacists identified hospital admissions associated with drug-related problems by using medical record review, supplemented by patient interview for those identified as having an ADE. The contribution of ADEs to hospital admission and the causality, severity, and preventability of the events were independently assessed by a multidisciplinary clinical team. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors of hospital admissions associated with ADEs, and a maximum-likelihood multinomial model was used to examine predictors of the preventability of ADEs. Of the 3904 patients included in the analysis, 439 (11.2%) were judged by the review panel to have experienced ADEs. Of these, 209 patients (47.6%) experienced preventable ADEs. Four independent variables were found to have significant relationships with ADE admissions and preventability of ADEs: patient age, length of time since starting new drug, total number of prescription drugs, and hospital site. Drug classes most commonly associated with preventable ADEs were antiplatelet drugs, anticoagulants, diuretics (loop and thiazide diuretics), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and antiepileptic drugs. CONCLUSION: Adverse drug events are an important cause of hospital admission. Better systems for health care practitioners to identify patients at high risk of preventable hospital admissions associated with ADEs (e.g., age > 65 years old, receiving more than five drugs, and starting new high-risk drugs) should be implemented in order to minimize the risks to patients and the burden on the health care system.

Prevalence and nature of medication administration errors in health care settings: a systematic review of direct observational evidence.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review empirical evidence on the prevalence and nature of medication administration errors (MAEs) in health care settings. DATA SOURCES: Ten electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Scopus, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, PsycINFO, Cochrane Reviews and Trials, British Nursing Index, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Health Management Information Consortium) were searched (1985-May 2012). STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: English-language publications reporting MAE data using the direct observation method were included, providing an error rate could be determined. Reference lists of all included articles were screened for additional studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: In all, 91 unique studies were included. The median error rate (interquartile range) was 19.6% (8.6-28.3%) of total opportunities for error including wrong-time errors and 8.0% (5.1-10.9%) without timing errors, when each dose could be considered only correct or incorrect. The median rate of error when more than 1 error could be counted per dose was 25.6% (20.8-41.7%) and 20.7% (9.7-30.3%), excluding wrong-time errors. A higher median MAE rate was observed for the intravenous route (53.3% excluding timing errors (IQR 26.6-57.9%)) compared to when all administration routes were studied (20.1%; 9.0-24.6%), where each dose could accumulate more than one error. Studies consistently reported wrong time, omission, and wrong dosage among the 3 most common MAE subtypes. Common medication groups associated with MAEs were those affecting nutrition and blood, gastrointestinal system, cardiovascular system, central nervous system, and antiinfectives. Medication administration error rates varied greatly as a product of differing medication error definitions, data collection methods, and settings of included studies. Although MAEs remained a common occurrence in health care settings throughout the time covered by this review, potential targets for intervention to minimize MAEs were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should attend to the wide methodological inconsistencies between studies to gain a greater measure of comparability to help guide any forthcoming interventions.

Understanding the attitudes of hospital pharmacists to reporting medication incidents: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The attitudes of doctors, nurses, and midwives to reporting errors in health care have been extensively studied, but there is very limited literature considering pharmacists' attitudes to medication error reporting schemes, in particular in hospitals. OBJECTIVES: To explore and understand the attitudes of hospital pharmacists to reporting medication incidents. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted with a total of 17 hospital pharmacists from 4 purposively sampled hospitals in the North West of England. The recordings of the focus groups were transcribed verbatim and subject to thematic analysis using a framework analysis approach. RESULTS: Pharmacists agreed that the high prevalence of medication errors, especially prescribing errors of omission, has led to an acceptance of not using hospital reporting systems. There were different personal thresholds for reporting medication errors but pharmacists agreed that the severity of any patient harm was the primary reporting driver. Hospital pharmacists had specific anxieties about the effects of reporting on interprofessional working relationships with doctors and nurses, but felt more confident to report if they had previously witnessed positive feedback and system change following an error. Existing reporting forms were considered too cumbersome and time consuming to complete, as pharmacists felt the need to find and record every possible detail. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital pharmacists understood the importance of reporting medication incidents, but because of the high number of errors they encounter do not report them as often as may be expected. The decision to report was a complex process that depended on the severity of patient harm, anxieties about harming interprofessional relationships, prior experience of the outcomes from reporting, and the perceived effort required to use reporting forms.

Medication errors: how reliable are the severity ratings reported to the national reporting and learning system?

OBJECTIVE: To examine: (1) the reliability of the severity rating scale used by the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) in England and Wales for medication errors; and (2) the likelihood of reporting medication errors among healthcare professionals. SETTING: A 900-bed acute university teaching hospital in the North West of England. PARTICIPANTS: Forty healthcare professionals (10 doctors, 10 nurses, 10 pharmacists and 10 pharmacy technicians). METHODS: Participants were asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire containing nine medication error scenarios on two separate occasions. They were asked to rate the severity of each incident using the NRLS severity rating scale and also the likelihood of reporting the incident via the hospital incident reporting system. The MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: included comparisons of severity ratings and likelihood of reporting by the four health professional groups. Test-retest reliability of the severity ratings was also examined within and between professional groups. RESULTS: Pharmacists and nurses were significantly more likely to report the errors if they had witnessed them (mean scores 36.3 and 36.2, respectively, compared with 27.9 for doctors, P < 0.001). Nurses and pharmacy technicians assigned higher severity ratings for medication errors (mean scores 23.6 and 25, respectively) than pharmacists or doctors (both 19.4). Both within and between healthcare professional groups, there was wide variation in the assignment of medication error severity ratings. CONCLUSIONS: There are marked differences in the severity ratings for medication errors graded against the NRLS severity criteria between different health professional groups and at different time points rated by the same individuals.

Comparison of immunohistochemistry for activated caspase-3 and cleaved cytokeratin 18 with the TUNEL method for quantification of apoptosis in histological sections of PC-3 subcutaneous xenografts.

The terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase (TdT)-mediated dUTP nick-end labelling (TUNEL) technique has been extensively used for the detection and quantification of apoptosis in histological tissue sections. However, the interpretation and specificity of this assay have been controversial. With accumulating knowledge of the molecular mechanisms of cell death and the discovery of the caspases as key mediators of apoptosis, more direct and earlier measurements of apoptosis in tissue sections have emerged. This study, using antibodies that specifically recognize activated caspase-3 and caspase-cleaved cytokeratin (CK) 18, evaluated whether immunohistochemical stains would improve the detection and quantification of apoptosis in tissue sections, compared with the TUNEL assay. Tumour xenografts of the prostate cancer cell line PC-3 were used as an example, since these tissues contain large numbers of cells undergoing apoptosis. Apoptotic cells were quantified and apoptotic indices were calculated by computer-assisted image analysis following identification of apoptotic cells by morphological analysis, the TUNEL assay, activated caspase-3 and cleaved CK18 immunohistochemistry. The results indicated that activated caspase-3 immunohistochemistry was an easy, sensitive, and reliable method for detecting and quantifying apoptosis in this model. An excellent correlation (R = 0.89) between the apoptotic indices obtained using activated caspase-3 and cleaved CK18 immunostaining was observed. A good correlation (R = 0.75) between the apoptotic indices obtained using activated caspase-3 immunostaining and the TUNEL assay was also found. Activated caspase-3 immunohistochemistry is therefore recommended for the detection and quantification of apoptosis in tissue sections.

Prediction of the need for red cell transfusion in newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients undergoing platinum-based treatment.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop a predictive algorithm for the likelihood of red blood cell transfusion in women with ovarian cancer undergoing platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients in this analysis came from two phase III studies conducted by the Southwest Oncology Group and Gynecologic Oncology Group of platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer patients, SWOG 8412 and SWOG 8501/GOG 104. The probability of packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusion was modeled as a function of stage of disease, age, weight, creatinine clearance, hemoglobin (Hb) prior to the start of therapy, the platinum agent administered (i.e., cisplatin vs carboplatin), and the route of drug administration (i.e., intravenous vs intraperitoneal). RESULTS: Overall, 16% of patients developed at least grade 3 anemia (Hb < 8 g/dL) during primary chemotherapy, with 2% experiencing grade 4 anemia (Hb < 6.5 g/dL). PRBC transfusions were administered to 32% of patients. Factors that were determined to be predictive of PRBC transfusions were age and baseline Hb. In patients with bulky stage III or stage IV disease, the odds of transfusion increased by 66% for each 10-year increase in age and by 65% for each 1 g/dL decrease in baseline hemoglobin. Thus a patient aged 65 with a baseline Hb of 10.5 g/dL has approximately a 40% chance of transfusion. CONCLUSIONS: Older ovarian cancer patients (>65 years) with low baseline Hb levels (<10.5) at initiation of platinum-based chemotherapy are likely to become more anemic during treatment and should be considered for prophylactic erythropoietin therapy as an alternative to transfusion.