Implementing prescribing safety indicators in prisons: A mixed methods study.

AIMS: To examine the prevalence of potentially hazardous prescribing in the prison setting using prescribing safety indicators (PSIs) and explore their implementation and use in practice. METHODS: PSIs were identified and reviewed by the project team following a literature review and a nominal group discussion. Pharmacists at 2 prison sites deployed the PSIs using search protocols within their electronic health record. Prevalence rates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were generated for each indicator. Semi-structured interviews with 20 prison healthcare staff across England and Wales were conducted to explore the feasibility of deploying and using PSIs in prison settings. RESULTS: Thirteen PSIs were successfully deployed mostly comprising drug-drug interactions (n = 9). Five yielded elevated prevalence rates: use of anticholinergics if aged ≥65 years (Site B: 25.8% [95%CI: 10.4-41.2%]), lack of antipsychotic monitoring for >12 months (Site A: 39.1% [95%CI: 27.1-52.1%]; Site B: 28.6% [95%CI: 17.9-41.4%]), prolonged use of hypnotics (Site B: 46.3% [95%CI: 35.6-57.1%]), antiplatelets prescribed with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs without gastrointestinal protection (Site A: 12.5% [95%CI: 0.0-35.4%]; Site B: 16.7% [95%CI: 0.4-64.1%]), and selective serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors prescribed with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs/antiplatelets without gastrointestinal protection (Site A: 39.6% [95%CI: 31.2-48.4%]; Site B: 33.3% [95%CI: 20.8-47.9%]). Prison healthcare staff supported the use of PSIs and identified key considerations to guide its successful implementation, including staff engagement and PSI 'champions'. To respond to PSI searches, stakeholders suggested contextualised patient support through intraprofessional collaboration. CONCLUSION: We successfully implemented a suite of PSIs into 2 prisons, identifying those with higher prevalence values as intervention targets. When appropriately resourced and integrated into staff workflow, PSI searches may support prescribing safety in prisons.

Learning to nurse: combining simulation with key theory.

Following a recent Nursing and Midwifery Council revalidation of a university undergraduate nursing programme, simulation skills sessions and anatomy and physiology theory were integrated into one unit (module). This was done in order to integrate the basis for patient assessment and care provision with the anatomical and physiological theory and thereby enhance student learning and nursing practice. Students evaluated the new unit well and valued the close link between theory and practice simulation. Improvements were seen in the simulation skills sessions as students were better able to apply their underlying theory to their actions. Learning was enhanced as both simulation and theory were seen as more meaningful to practice and patient care.

Assessing the Impact of Evidence-Based Mental Health Guidance During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review and Qualitative Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Oxford Precision Psychiatry Lab (OxPPL) developed open-access web-based summaries of mental health care guidelines (OxPPL guidance) in key areas such as digital approaches and telepsychiatry, suicide and self-harm, domestic violence and abuse, perinatal care, and vaccine hesitancy and prioritization in the context of mental illness, to inform timely clinical decision-making. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the practice of creating evidence-based health guidelines during health emergencies using the OxPPL guidance as an example. An international network of clinical sites and colleagues (in Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom) including clinicians, researchers, and experts by experience aimed to (1) evaluate the clinical impact of the OxPPL guidance, as an example of an evidence-based summary of guidelines; (2) review the literature for other evidence-based summaries of COVID-19 guidelines regarding mental health care; and (3) produce a framework for response to future global health emergencies. METHODS: The impact and clinical utility of the OxPPL guidance were assessed using clinicians' feedback via an international survey and focus groups. A systematic review (protocol registered on Open Science Framework) identified summaries or syntheses of guidelines for mental health care during and after the COVID-19 pandemic and assessed the accuracy of the methods used in the OxPPL guidance by identifying any resources that the guidance had not included. RESULTS: Overall, 80.2% (146/182) of the clinicians agreed or strongly agreed that the OxPPL guidance answered important clinical questions, 73.1% (133/182) stated that the guidance was relevant to their service, 59.3% (108/182) said that the guidelines had or would have a positive impact on their clinical practice, 42.9% (78/182) that they had shared or would share the guidance, and 80.2% (146/182) stated that the methodology could be used during future health crises. The focus groups found that the combination of evidence-based knowledge, clinical viewpoint, and visibility was crucial for clinical implementation. The systematic review identified 2543 records, of which 2 syntheses of guidelines met all the inclusion criteria, but only 1 (the OxPPL guidance) used evidence-based methodology. The review showed that the OxPPL guidance had included the majority of eligible guidelines, but 6 were identified that had not been included. CONCLUSIONS: The study identified an unmet need for web-based, evidence-based mental health care guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic. The OxPPL guidance was evaluated by clinicians as having a real-world clinical impact. Robust evidence-based methodology and expertise in mental health are necessary, but easy accessibility is also needed, and digital technology can materially help. Further health emergencies are inevitable and now is the ideal time to prepare, including addressing the training needs of clinicians, patients, and carers, especially in areas such as telepsychiatry and digital mental health. For future planning, guidance should be widely disseminated on an international platform, with allocated resources to support adaptive updates.

Exploring the challenges to safer prescribing and medication monitoring in prisons: A qualitative study with health care staff.

INTRODUCTION: Research suggests that patients who are prisoners experience greater morbidity, increased health inequalities and frequent preventable harm, compared to the general population. Little is known about the process and influencing factors for safe prescribing in the unique prison environment, which may limit the development efforts to improve the quality of care in prisons. This study aimed to understand the process and challenges associated with prescribing in prisons, explore the causes and impact of these challenges, and explore approaches to improve prescribing safety in prisons. METHODS: Grounded theory informed data collection and analysis of a nominal group discussion by seven participants and semi-structured telephone interviews with twenty prison healthcare staff, including GPs, pharmacists, psychiatrists and nurses. FINDINGS: The underlying complexity of prescribing in prison settings increased the level of challenge and influenced the safety of this process. Multiple contributors to the challenges of safe prescribing were identified (comprising governance and policy; the prison structure; staff retention, training and skill mix; IT systems and interface; polypharmacy and co-morbidity; tradability and patient behaviour) with overarching constructs of variations in practice/policy and the influence of prison culture. Participants identified measures to address these challenges through multi-disciplinary collaborative working, increased consistency in processes, and the need for more innovation and education/training. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlighted that healthcare provision in prisons is unique and needs to tailor the care provided to patients without enforcing a model focused on primary, secondary or tertiary care. Participants emphasised a necessary shift in workplace culture and behaviour change to support improvements. The COM-B model of behaviour change may be effectively applied to develop interventions in organisations that have in-depth understanding of their own unique challenges.

'20 days protected learning' - students' experiences of an overseas nurses programme - 4 years on: a retrospective survey.

BACKGROUND: From September 2005 the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) introduced new arrangements for the registration of non-EU overseas nurses which requires all applicants to undertake '20 days of protected learning' time in the UK and for some, a period of supervised practice. A survey was undertaken at Bournemouth University, which offers a '20 days protected learning only' programme, to elicit overseas nurses' demographic details, experiences in completing the programme and their 'final destinations' once registered. METHODS: An online survey was devised which contained a mixture of tick box and open ended questions which covered demographic details, views on the programme and final destinations This was uploaded to http://www.surveymonkey.com/ and sent out to nurses who had completed the Overseas Nurses Programme (ONP) with Bournemouth University (n = 1050). Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and the qualitative data were coded and analysed using content analysis. RESULTS: There were 251 respondents (27.7% response rate). The typical 'profile' of a nurse who responded to the survey was female, aged 25-40 years and had been qualified for more than 5 years with a bachelors degree. The majority came from Australia on a 2 year working holiday visa and the key final destination in the UK, on registration with the NMC, was working for an agency.There were five key findings regarding experience of the programme. Of those surveyed 61.2% did not feel it necessary to undergo an ONP; 71.6% felt that they should be able to complete the programme on-line in their own country; 64.2% that the ONP should only contain information about delivery of healthcare in UK and Legal and professional (NMC) issues; 57% that European nurses should also undergo the same programme and sit an IELTS test; and 68.2% that the programme was too theory orientated; and should have links to practice (21%). CONCLUSIONS: The NMC set the admissions criteria for entry to the register and Standards for an ONP. The findings of this survey raise issues regarding the perceived value and use of this approach for overseas nurses, and it may be helpful to take this into account when considering future policy.

Prevalence, nature and predictors of omitted medication doses in mental health hospitals: A multi-centre study.

OBJECTIVE: Limited evidence concerning the burden and predictors of omitted medication doses within mental health hospitals could severely limit improvement efforts in this specialist setting. This study aimed to determine the prevalence, nature and predictors of omitted medication doses affecting hospital inpatients in two English National Health Service (NHS) mental health trusts. METHODS: Over 6 data collection days trained pharmacy teams screened inpatient prescription charts for scheduled and omitted medication doses within 27 adult and elderly wards across 9 psychiatric hospitals. Data were collected for inpatients admitted up to two weeks prior to each data collection day. Omitted doses were classified as 'time critical' and 'preventable' based on established criteria. Omitted dose frequencies were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Multilevel logistic regression analyses determined the predictors of omitted dose occurrence, with omission risks presented as adjusted odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI. RESULTS: 18,664 scheduled medication doses were screened for 444 inpatients and 2,717 omissions were identified, resulting in a rate of 14.6% (95% CI 14.1-15.1). The rate of 'time critical' omitted doses was 19.3% (95% CI 16.3-22.6%). 'Preventable' omitted doses comprised one third of all omissions (34.5%, 930/2694). Logistic regression analysis revealed that medicines affecting the central nervous system were 55% less likely to be omitted compared to all other medication classes (9.9% vs. 18.8%, OR 0.45 (0.40-0.52)) and that scheduled doses administered using non-oral routes were more likely to be omitted compared the oral route (inhaled OR 3.47 (2.64-4.57), topical 2.71 (2.11-3.46), 'other' 2.15 (1.19-3.90)). 'Preventable' dose omissions were more than twice as likely to occur for 'time critical' medications than non-time critical medications (50.4% vs. 33.8%, OR 2.24 (1.22-4.11)). CONCLUSIONS: Omitted medication doses occur commonly in mental health hospitals with 'preventable' omissions a key contributor to this burden. Important targets for remedial intervention have been identified.

What causes medication administration errors in a mental health hospital? A qualitative study with nursing staff.

OBJECTIVE: Medication administration errors (MAEs) are a common risk to patient safety in mental health hospitals, but an absence of in-depth studies to understand the underlying causes of these errors limits the development of effective remedial interventions. This study aimed to investigate the causes of MAEs affecting inpatients in a mental health National Health Service (NHS) hospital in the North West of England. METHODS: Registered and student mental health nurses working in inpatient psychiatric units were identified using a combination of direct advertisement and incident reports and invited to participate in semi-structured interviews utilising the critical incident technique. Interviews were designed to capture the participants' experiences of inpatient MAEs. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and subject to framework analysis to illuminate the underlying active failures, error/violation-provoking conditions and latent failures according to Reason's model of accident causation. RESULTS: A total of 20 participants described 26 MAEs (including 5 near misses) during the interviews. The majority of MAEs were skill-based slips and lapses (n = 16) or mistakes (n = 5), and were caused by a variety of interconnecting error/violation-provoking conditions relating to the patient, medicines used, medicines administration task, health care team, individual nurse and working environment. Some of these local conditions had origins in wider organisational latent failures. Recurrent and influential themes included inadequate staffing levels, unbalanced staff skill mix, interruptions/distractions, concerns with how the medicines administration task was approached and problems with communication. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge this is the first published in-depth qualitative study to investigate the underlying causes of specific MAEs in a mental health hospital. Our findings revealed that MAEs may arise due to multiple interacting error and violation provoking conditions and latent 'system' failures, which emphasises the complexity of this everyday task facing practitioners in clinical practice. Future research should focus on developing and testing interventions which address key local and wider organisational 'systems' failures to reduce error.

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.