Towards understanding and improving medication safety for patients with mental illness in primary care: A multimethod study.

INTRODUCTION: Medication safety incidents have been identified as an important target to improve patient safety in mental healthcare. Despite this, the causes of preventable medication safety incidents affecting patients with mental illness have historically been poorly understood, with research now addressing this knowledge gap through a healthcare professional lens. However, patients and carers can also provide complimentary insight into safety issues, and as key stakeholders in healthcare, it is vital to consider their needs when designing effective interventions. METHODS: A two-stage approach was adopted by (i) conducting three focus groups (FG) comprising 13 patients with mental illness and their carers to develop a holistic picture of medication safety in primary care with extraction of themes guided by the P-MEDS framework; (ii) conducting two separate nominal group consensus workshops with seven patients with mental illness/carers and seven healthcare professionals to identify priority areas for targeted interventions. RESULTS: Seven themes were identified in the FGs: communication; trust, involvement and respect; continuity and support; access; the healthcare professional; the patient and carer; and the organisation. Priority areas identified for intervention by key stakeholders included improving communication within and between clinical services, enhancing patient support with holistic continuity of care, maximising shared decision-making and empowerment, ensuring timely access to medicines and services, strengthening healthcare professional knowledge regarding mental illnesses and associated medications, and increasing patient dignity and respect. CONCLUSION: This study has developed a holistic picture of contributors to medication safety incidents affecting patients with mental illness in primary care. This theory was then used by key stakeholders to inform and generate priority recommendations for targeted interventions. These findings can be used to inform future intervention research, as they consider the needs of those who access or work within primary care services. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: An advisory group consisting of three expert patients with lived experience of mental illness was consulted on the design of both stages of this study. Patients with mental illness and/or their carers were recruited and participated in both stages of this study. Patients/carers aided with data analysis and interpretation during the patient/carer nominal group consensus workshop.

Understanding the medication safety challenges for patients with mental illness in primary care: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Mental illness and medication safety are key priorities for healthcare systems around the world. Despite most patients with mental illness being treated exclusively in primary care, our understanding of medication safety challenges in this setting is fragmented. METHOD: Six electronic databases were searched between January 2000-January 2023. Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant/included studies were also screened for studies. Included studies reported data on epidemiology, aetiology, or interventions related to medication safety for patients with mental illness in primary care. Medication safety challenges were defined using the drug-related problems (DRPs) categorisation. RESULTS: Seventy-nine studies were included with 77 (97.5%) reporting on epidemiology, 25 (31.6%) on aetiology, and 18 (22.8%) evaluated an intervention. Studies most commonly (33/79, 41.8%) originated from the United States of America (USA) with the most investigated DRP being non-adherence (62/79, 78.5%). General practice was the most common study setting (31/79, 39.2%) and patients with depression were a common focus (48/79, 60.8%). Aetiological data was presented as either causal (15/25, 60.0%) or as risk factors (10/25, 40.0%). Prescriber-related risk factors/causes were reported in 8/25 (32.0%) studies and patient-related risk factors/causes in 23/25 (92.0%) studies. Interventions to improve adherence rates (11/18, 61.1%) were the most evaluated. Specialist pharmacists provided the majority of interventions (10/18, 55.6%) with eight of these studies involving a medication review/monitoring service. All 18 interventions reported positive improvements on some medication safety outcomes but 6/18 reported little difference between groups for certain medication safety measures. CONCLUSION: Patients with mental illness are at risk of a variety of DRPs in primary care. However, to date, available research exploring DRPs has focused attention on non-adherence and potential prescribing safety issues in older patients with dementia. Our findings highlight the need for further research on the causes of preventable medication incidents and targeted interventions to improve medication safety for patients with mental illness in primary care.

Supporting carers to improve patient safety and maintain their well-being in transitions from mental health hospitals to the community: A prioritisation nominal group technique.

INTRODUCTION: Carers of people with mental illness may face distinct challenges, including navigating fragmented health and social services during discharge from mental health hospitals. Currently, limited examples of interventions that support carers of people with mental illness in improving patient safety during transitions of care exist. We aimed to identify problems and solutions to inform future carer-led discharge interventions, which is imperative for ensuring patient safety and the well-being of carers. METHODS: The nominal group technique was used which combines both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods in four distinct phases: (1) problem identification, (2) solution generation, (3) decision making and (4) prioritisation. The aim was to combine expertise from different stakeholder groups (patients, carers and academics with expertise in primary/secondary care, social care or public health) to identify problems and generate solutions. RESULTS: Twenty-eight participants generated potential solutions that were grouped into four themes. The most acceptable solution for each was as follows: (1) 'Carer Involvement and Improving Carer Experience' a dedicated family liaison worker, (2) 'Patient Wellness and Education' adapting and implementing existing approaches to help implement the patient care plan, (3) 'Carer Wellness and Education' peer/social support interventions for carers and (4) 'Policy and System Improvements' understanding the co-ordination of care. CONCLUSION: The stakeholder group concurred that the transition from mental health hospitals to the community is a distressing period, where patients and carers are particularly vulnerable to safety and well-being risks. We identified numerous feasible/acceptable solutions to enable carers to improve patient safety and maintain their own mental wellbeing. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient and public contributors were represented in the workshop and the focus of the workshop was to identify the problems they faced and co-design potential solutions. Patient and public contributors were involved in the funding application and study design.

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.

Incidence and nature of adverse drug events in paediatric intensive care units: A prospective multicentre study.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the incidence, nature, preventability and severity of adverse drug events (ADEs) across three paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) in England. METHODS: A prospective observational cohort study was conducted across three PICUs over a three-month period during 2019. Included patients were aged ≤18 years and stayed in PICU for a minimum of 24 hours. Identification of suspected ADEs was performed by trained PICU pharmacists. A multidisciplinary expert panel assessed causality, preventability and severity of events. RESULTS: A total of 302 patients were included and 62 ADEs were confirmed (definite/probable causality). One in six patients experienced one or more ADEs. The estimated incidence of ADEs were 20.5 per 100 patients (95% CI 15.3-27.5) and 16.7 per 1000 patient-days (95% CI 9.3-29.9). The majority of ADEs were judged preventable by the expert panel (36/62, 58.1%). ADEs were commonly involved with medicines prescribing (29/62, 46.8%) and caused temporary patient harm (42/62, 67.7%). Medications for the central nervous system (14/62, 22.6%), infections (13/62, 20.9%) and cardiovascular system (12/62, 19.4%) were commonly implicated with ADEs. Multivariable analysis revealed that patients who stayed in PICU for ≥7 days (OR 6.29, 95% CI 2.42-16.32) were more likely to experience an ADE compared to patients with a stay of 1-6 days. CONCLUSION: ADEs are common in English PICUs and most of them may be preventable. There is a strong association between ADE occurrence and duration of PICU stay, which represents a target for remedial interventions. Exploring contributory factors of preventable ADEs is now necessary to inform preventive policies.

Development of prescribing safety indicators related to mental health disorders and medications: Modified e-Delphi study.

AIM: To develop a set of prescribing safety indicators related to mental health disorders and medications, and to estimate the risk of harm associated with each indicator. METHOD: A modified two-stage electronic Delphi. The first stage consisted of two rounds in which 31 experts rated their agreement with a set of 101 potential mental health related prescribing safety indicators using a five-point scale and given the opportunity to suggest other indicators. Indicators that achieved 80% agreement were accepted. The second stage comprised a single round in which 29 members estimated the risk of harm for each accepted indicator by assessing the occurrence likelihood and outcome severity using two five-point scales. Indicators were considered high or extreme risk when at least 80% of participants rated each indicator as high or extreme. RESULTS: Seventy-five indicators were accepted in the first stage. Following the second stage, 42 (56%) were considered to be high or extreme risk for patient care. The 42 indicators comprised different types of hazardous prescribing, including drug-disease interactions (n = 12), drug-drug interactions (n = 9), inadequate monitoring (n = 5), inappropriate duration (n = 4), inappropriate dose (n = 4), omissions (n = 4), potentially inappropriate medications (n = 3) and polypharmacy (n = 1). These indicators also covered different mental health related medication classes, including antipsychotics (n = 14), mood stabilisers (n = 8), antidepressants (n = 6), sedative, hypnotics and anxiolytics (n = 6), anticholinergic (n = 6) and nonspecific psychotropics (n = 2). CONCLUSION: This study has developed the first suite of prescribing safety indicators related to mental health disorders and medications, which could inform the development of future safety improvement initiatives and interventional studies.

Evaluation of a pharmacist-led actionable audit and feedback intervention for improving medication safety in UK primary care: An interrupted time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the impact of the pharmacist-led Safety Medication dASHboard (SMASH) intervention on medication safety in primary care. METHODS AND FINDINGS: SMASH comprised (1) training of clinical pharmacists to deliver the intervention; (2) a web-based dashboard providing actionable, patient-level feedback; and (3) pharmacists reviewing individual at-risk patients, and initiating remedial actions or advising general practitioners on doing so. It was implemented in 43 general practices covering a population of 235,595 people in Salford (Greater Manchester), UK. All practices started receiving the intervention between 18 April 2016 and 26 September 2017. We used an interrupted time series analysis of rates (prevalence) of potentially hazardous prescribing and inadequate blood-test monitoring, comparing observed rates post-intervention to extrapolations from a 24-month pre-intervention trend. The number of people registered to participating practices and having 1 or more risk factors for being exposed to hazardous prescribing or inadequate blood-test monitoring at the start of the intervention was 47,413 (males: 23,073 [48.7%]; mean age: 60 years [standard deviation: 21]). At baseline, 95% of practices had rates of potentially hazardous prescribing (composite of 10 indicators) between 0.88% and 6.19%. The prevalence of potentially hazardous prescribing reduced by 27.9% (95% CI 20.3% to 36.8%, p < 0.001) at 24 weeks and by 40.7% (95% CI 29.1% to 54.2%, p < 0.001) at 12 months after introduction of SMASH. The rate of inadequate blood-test monitoring (composite of 2 indicators) reduced by 22.0% (95% CI 0.2% to 50.7%, p = 0.046) at 24 weeks; the change at 12 months (23.5%) was no longer significant (95% CI -4.5% to 61.6%, p = 0.127). After 12 months, 95% of practices had rates of potentially hazardous prescribing between 0.74% and 3.02%. Study limitations include the fact that practices were not randomised, and therefore unmeasured confounding may have influenced our findings. CONCLUSIONS: The SMASH intervention was associated with reduced rates of potentially hazardous prescribing and inadequate blood-test monitoring in general practices. This reduction was sustained over 12 months after the start of the intervention for prescribing but not for monitoring of medication. There was a marked reduction in the variation in rates of hazardous prescribing between practices.

Preventable medication harm across health care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mitigating or reducing the risk of medication harm is a global policy priority. But evidence reflecting preventable medication harm in medical care and the factors that derive this harm remain unknown. Therefore, we aimed to quantify the prevalence, severity and type of preventable medication harm across medical care settings. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to compare the prevalence of preventable medication harm. Searches were carried out in Medline, Cochrane library, CINAHL, Embase and PsycINFO from 2000 to 27 January 2020. Data extraction and critical appraisal was undertaken by two independent reviewers. Random-effects meta-analysis was employed followed by univariable and multivariable meta-regression. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic, and publication bias was evaluated. PROSPERO: CRD42020164156. RESULTS: Of the 7780 articles, 81 studies involving 285,687 patients were included. The pooled prevalence for preventable medication harm was 3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2 to 4%, I2 = 99%) and for overall medication harm was 9% (95% CI 7 to 11%, I2 = 99.5%) of all patient incidence records. The highest rates of preventable medication harm were seen in elderly patient care settings (11%, 95% 7 to 15%, n = 7), intensive care (7%, 4 to 12%, n = 6), highly specialised or surgical care (6%, 3 to 11%, n = 13) and emergency medicine (5%, 2 to 12%, n = 12). The proportion of mild preventable medication harm was 39% (28 to 51%, n = 20, I2 = 96.4%), moderate preventable harm 40% (31 to 49%, n = 22, I2 = 93.6%) and clinically severe or life-threatening preventable harm 26% (15 to 37%, n = 28, I2 = 97%). The source of the highest prevalence rates of preventable harm were at the prescribing (58%, 42 to 73%, n = 9, I2 = 94%) and monitoring (47%, 21 to 73%, n = 8, I2 = 99%) stages of medication use. Preventable harm was greatest in medicines affecting the 'central nervous system' and 'cardiovascular system'. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest meta-analysis to assess preventable medication harm. We conclude that around one in 30 patients are exposed to preventable medication harm in medical care, and more than a quarter of this harm is considered severe or life-threatening. Our results support the World Health Organisation's push for the detection and mitigation of medication-related harm as being a top priority, whilst highlighting other key potential targets for remedial intervention that should be a priority focus for future research.

Understanding the utilisation of a novel interactive electronic medication safety dashboard in general practice: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Improving medication safety is a major concern in primary care settings worldwide. The Salford Medication safety dASHboard (SMASH) intervention provided general practices in Salford (Greater Manchester, UK) with feedback on their safe prescribing and monitoring of medications through an online dashboard, and input from practice-based trained clinical pharmacists. In this study we explored how staff working in general practices used the SMASH dashboard to improve medication safety, through interactions with the dashboard to identify potential medication safety hazards and their workflow to resolve identified hazards. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods study design involving quantitative data from dashboard user interaction logs from 43 general practices during the first year of receiving the SMASH intervention, and qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with 22 pharmacists and physicians from 18 practices in Salford. RESULTS: Practices interacted with the dashboard a median of 12.0 (interquartile range, 5.0-15.2) times per month during the first quarter of use to identify and resolve potential medication safety hazards, typically starting with the most prevalent hazards or those they perceived to be most serious. Having observed a potential hazard, pharmacists and practice staff worked together to resolve that in a sequence of steps (1) verifying the dashboard information, (2) reviewing the patient's clinical records, and (3) deciding potential changes to the patient's medicines. Over time, dashboard use transitioned towards regular but less frequent (median of 5.5 [3.5-7.9] times per month) checks to identify and resolve new cases. The frequency of dashboard use was higher in practices with a larger number of at-risk patients. In 24 (56%) practices only pharmacists used the dashboard; in 12 (28%) use by other practice staff increased as pharmacist use declined after the initial intervention period; and in 7 (16%) there was mixed use by both pharmacists and practice staff over time. CONCLUSIONS: An online medication safety dashboard enabled pharmacists to identify patients at risk of potentially hazardous prescribing. They subsequently worked with GPs to resolve risks on a case-by-case basis, but there were marked variations in processes between some practices. Workload diminished over time as it shifted towards resolving new cases of hazardous prescribing.

Evaluating the implementation and impact of a pharmacy technician-supported medicines administration service designed to reduce omitted doses in hospitals: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Of the various types of medication administration error that occur in hospitals, dose omissions are consistently reported as among the most common. It has been suggested that greater involvement from pharmacy teams could help address this problem. A pilot service, called pharmacy TECHnician supported MEDicines administration (TECHMED), was introduced in an English NHS hospital for a four-week period in order to reduce preventable medication dose omissions. The objective of this study was to evaluate the implementation, delivery and impact of the pilot TECHMED service using qualitative methods. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with pharmacy technicians, nursing staff and senior management involved with the pilot service were undertaken to evaluate TECHMED. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using the framework approach, guided by Weiss's Theory Based Evaluation model. RESULTS: Twenty-two stakeholder interviews were conducted with 10 ward-based pharmacy technicians, nine nurses and three members of senior management. Most technicians performed a range of activities in line with the service specification, including locating drugs from a variety of sources, and identified situations where they had prevented missing doses. Nurses reported positive impacts of TECHMED on workload. However, not all technicians fully adhered to the service specification in regard to directly following nursing staff during each medication round, citing reasons related to productivity or perceived intrusiveness towards nursing staff. Some participants also reported a perceived lack of impact of TECHMED on medicine omissions. Seventeen of the 22 interviewees supported an extension of the service. There were however, concerns about the impact on technician workload and some participants advocated support for targeted service extension to wards/rounds with high schedule dose volumes and omitted dose rates. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that the implementation of a pharmacy technician-supported medicines administration scheme to reduce omitted doses may be acceptable to staff in an NHS hospital, and that issues with service fidelity, staff resource/capacity and perceived interventions to avoid dose omissions have important implications for the feasibility of extending the service. The study has identified targets for future development in relation to individual and system factors to improve operationalisation of technician-led initiatives to reduce medicines omissions.

Estimating the impact on patient safety of enabling the digital transfer of patients' prescription information in the English NHS.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the number and burden of medication errors associated with prescription information transfer within the National Health Service (NHS) in England and the impact of implementing an interoperable prescription information system (a single digital prescribing record shared across NHS settings) in reducing these errors. METHODS: We constructed a probabilistic mathematical model. We estimated the number of transition medication errors that would be undetected by standard medicines reconciliation, based on published literature, and scaled this up based on the annual number of hospital admissions. We used published literature to estimate the proportion of errors that lead to harm and applied this to the number of errors to estimate the associated burden (healthcare resource use and deaths). Finally, we used reported effect sizes for electronic prescription information sharing interventions to estimate the impact of implementing an interoperable prescription information system on number of errors and resulting harm. RESULTS: Annually, around 1.8 million (95% credibility interval (CrI) 1.3 to 2.6 million) medication errors were estimated to occur at hospital transitions in England, affecting approximately 380 000 (95% CrI 260 397 to 539 876) patient episodes. Harm from these errors affects around 31 500 (95% CrI 22 407 to 42 906) patients, with 36 500 (95% CrI 25 093 to 52 019) additional bed days of inpatient care (costing around £17.8 million (95% CrI £12.4 to £24.9 million)) and >40 (95% CrI 9 to 146) deaths. Assuming the implementation of an interoperable prescription information system could reduce errors by 10% and 50%, there could be 180 000-913 000 fewer errors, 3000-15 800 fewer people who experience harm and 4-22 lives saved annually. CONCLUSIONS: An interoperable prescription information system could provide major benefits for patient safety. Likely additional benefits include healthcare professional time saved, improved patient experience and care quality, quicker discharge and enhanced cross-organisational medicines optimisation. Our findings provide vital safety and economic evidence for the case to adopt interoperable prescription information systems.

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.

Potential Risk Factors of Drug-Related Problems in Hospital-Based Mental Health Units: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Reducing the occurrence of drug-related problems is a global health concern. In mental health hospitals, drug-related problems are common, leading to patient harm, and therefore understanding their potential risk factors is key for guiding future interventions designed to minimise their frequency. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to explore the potential risk factors of drug-related problems in mental health inpatient units. METHODS: Six databases were searched between 2000 and 2021 to identify studies that investigated the potential risk factors of drug-related problems in adults hospitalised in mental health inpatient units. Data extraction was performed by two authors independently and Allan and Barker's criteria were used for study quality assessment. Studies were categorised based on drug-related problem types and potential risk factors were stratified as patient, medication, and hospital related. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies were included. Studies mostly originated in Europe (n = 19/22, 86.4%), and used a multivariable logistic regression to identify potential risk factors (n = 13, 59%). Frequently investigated factors were patient age (n = 14/22), sex (n = 14/22) and the number of prescribed medications (n = 14/22). Of these, increasing the number of prescribed medications was the only factor consistently reported to be significantly associated with the occurrence of most types of drug-related problems (n = 11/14). CONCLUSIONS: A variety of patient, medication and hospital-related potential risk factors of drug-related problems in mental health inpatient units were identified. These factors could guide the development of interventions to reduce drug-related problems such as pharmaceutical screening tools to identify high-risk patients for timely interventions. Future studies could test a wider range of possible factors associated with drug-related problems using standardised approaches. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42021279946.

Analysis of the nature and contributory factors of medication safety incidents following hospital discharge using National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) data from England and Wales: a multi-method study.

Introduction: Improving medication safety during transition of care is an international healthcare priority. While existing research reveals that medication-related incidents and associated harms may be common following hospital discharge, there is limited information about their nature and contributory factors at a national level which is crucial to inform improvement strategy. Aim: To characterise the nature and contributory factors of medication-related incidents during transition of care from secondary to primary care. Method: A retrospective analysis of medication incidents reported to the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) in England and Wales between 2015 and 2019. Descriptive analysis identified the frequency and nature of incidents and content analysis of free text data, coded using the Patient Safety Research Group (PISA) classification, examined the contributory factors and outcome of incidents. Results: A total of 1121 medication-related incident reports underwent analysis. Most incidents involved patients over 65 years old (55%, n = 626/1121). More than one in 10 (12.6%, n = 142/1121) incidents were associated with patient harm. The drug monitoring (17%) and administration stages (15%) were associated with a higher proportion of harmful incidents than any other drug use stages. Common medication classes associated with incidents were the cardiovascular (n = 734) and central nervous (n = 273) systems. Among 408 incidents reporting 467 contributory factors, the most common contributory factors were organisation factors (82%, n = 383/467) (mostly related to continuity of care which is the delivery of a seamless service through integration, co-ordination, and the sharing of information between different providers), followed by staff factors (16%, n = 75/467). Conclusion: Medication incidents after hospital discharge are associated with patient harm. Several targets were identified for future research that could support the development of remedial interventions, including commonly observed medication classes, older adults, increase patient engagement, and improve shared care agreement for medication monitoring post hospital discharge. Plain language summary: Study using reports about unsafe or substandard care mainly written by healthcare professionals to better understand the type and causes of medication safety problems following hospital discharge Why was the study done? The safe use of medicines after hospital discharge has been highlighted by the World Health Organization as an important target for improvement in patient care. Yet, the type of medication problems which occur, and their causes are poorly understood across England and Wales, which may hamper our efforts to create ways to improve care as they may not be based on what we know causes the problem in the first place.What did the researchers do? The research team studied medication safety incident reports collected across England and Wales over a 5-year period to better understand what kind of medication safety problems occur after hospital discharge and why they happen, so we can find ways to prevent them from happening in future.What did the researchers find? The total number of incident reports studied was 1121, and the majority (n = 626) involved older people. More than one in ten of these incidents caused harm to patients. The most common medications involved in the medication safety incidents were for cardiovascular diseases such as high blood pressure, conditions such as mental illness, pain and neurological conditions (e.g., epilepsy) and other illnesses such as diabetes. The most common causes of these incidents were because of the organisation rules, such as information sharing, followed by staff issues, such as not following protocols, individual mistakes and not having the right skills for the task.What do the findings mean? This study has identified some important targets that can be a focus of future efforts to improve the safe use of medicines after hospital discharge. These include concentrating attention on medication for the cardiovascular and central nervous systems (e.g., via incorporating them in prescribing safety indicators and pharmaceutical prioritisation tools), staff skill mix (e.g., embedding clinical pharmacist roles at key parts of the care pathway where greatest risk is suspected), and implementation of electronic interventions to improve timely communication of medication and other information between healthcare providers.

unDerstandIng the cauSes of mediCation errOrs and adVerse drug evEnts for patients with mental illness in community caRe (DISCOVER): a qualitative study.

Background: It is estimated that 237 million medication errors occur in England each year with a significant number occurring in the community. Our understanding of the causes of preventable medication errors and adverse drug events (ADE) affecting patients with mental illness is limited in this setting. Better understanding of the factors that contribute to errors can support the development of theory-driven improvement interventions. Methods: Remote qualitative semi-structured interviews with 26 community-based healthcare professionals in England and Wales were undertaken between June-November 2022. Recruitment was undertaken using purposive sampling via professional networks. Interviews were guided by the critical incident technique and analysed using the framework method. Any data that involved speculation was not included in the analysis. Independent analysis was carried out by the research team to extract themes guided by the London Protocol. Results: A total of 43 medication errors and 12 preventable ADEs were discussed, with two ADEs having an unknown error origin. Prescribing errors were discussed most commonly (n = 24), followed by monitoring errors (n = 8). Six contributory factor themes were identified: the individual (staff); the work environment; the teams/interfaces; the organisation and management; the patient; and the task and technology. The individual (staff) factors were involved in just over 80% of all errors discussed. Participants reported a lack of knowledge regarding psychotropic medication and mental illnesses which accompanied diffusion of responsibility. There were difficulties with team communication, particularly across care interfaces, such as ambiguity/brevity of information being communicated and uncertainty concerning roles which created confusion amongst staff. Unique patient social/behavioural contributory factors were identified such as presenting with challenging behaviour and complex lifestyles, which caused difficulties attending appointments as well as affecting overall clinical management. Conclusion: These findings highlight that the causes of errors are multifactorial with some unique to this patient group. Key areas to target for improvement include the education/training of healthcare professionals regarding neuropharmacology/mental illnesses and enhancing communication across care interfaces. Future research should explore patient perspectives regarding this topic to help develop a holistic picture. These findings can be used to guide future intervention research to ameliorate medication safety challenges for this patient group.

Defining avoidable healthcare-associated harm in prisons: A mixed-method development study.

BACKGROUND: Reducing avoidable healthcare-associated harm is a global health priority. Progress in evaluating the burden and aetiology of avoidable harm in prisons is limited compared with other healthcare sectors. To address this gap, this study aimed to develop a definition of avoidable harm to facilitate future epidemiological studies in prisons. METHODS: Using a sequential mixed methods study design we first characterised and reached consensus on the types and avoidability of patient harm in prison healthcare involving analysis of 151 serious prison incidents reported to the Strategic Executive Information System (StEIS) followed by in-depth nominal group (NG) discussions with four former service users and four prison professionals. Findings of the NG discussions and StEIS analysis were then synthesised and discussed among the research team and study oversight groups to develop an operational definition of avoidable harm in prison healthcare which was subsequently tested and validated using prison patient safety incident report data derived from the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS). RESULTS: Analysis of StEIS incident reports and NG discussions identified important factors influencing avoidable harm which reflected the unique prison setting, including health care delivery issues and constraints associated with the secure environment which limited access to care. These findings informed the development of a new working two-tier definition of avoidable harm using appropriate and timely intervention, which included an additional assessment of harm avoidability taking into the account the prison regime and environment. The definition was compatible with the NRLS incident report narratives and illustrated how the prison environment may influence identification of avoidable harm and judgements of avoidability. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a working definition of avoidable harm in prison health care that enables consideration of caveats associated with prison environments and systems. Our definition enables future studies of the safety of prison healthcare to standardise outcome measurement.

Using sociotechnical theory to understand medication safety work in primary care and prescribers' use of clinical decision support: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: The concept of safety work draws attention to the intentional work of ensuring safety within care systems. Clinical decision support (CDS) has been designed to enhance medication safety in primary care by providing decision-making support to prescribers. Sociotechnical theory understands that healthcare settings are complex and dynamically connected systems of fluid networks, human agents, changing relationships and social processes. This study aimed to understand the relationship between safety work and the use of CDS. DESIGN AND SETTING: This qualitative study took place across nine different general practices in England. Stakeholders included general practitioners (GPs) and general practice-based pharmacists and nurse prescribers. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to illicit how the system was used by the participants in the context of medication safety work. Data analysis conducted alongside data collection was thematic and drew on socio-technical theory. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-three interviews were conducted with 14 GPs, three nurse prescribers and three practice pharmacists between February 2018 and June 2020. RESULTS: Safety work was contextually situated in a complex network of relationships. Three interconnected themes were interpreted from the data: (1) the use of CDS within organisational and social practices and workflows; (2) safety work and the use of CDS within the interplay between prescribers, patients and populations; and (3) the affordances embedded in CDS systems. CONCLUSION: The use of sociotechnical theory here extends current thinking in patient safety particularly in the ways that safety work was co-constituted with the use of CDS alerts. This has implications for implementation and use to ensure that the contexts into which such CDS systems are implemented are taken into account. Understanding how alerts can adapt safety culture will help improve the efficacy of CDS systems, enhance prescribing safety and help to further understand how safety work is achieved in primary care.

Transitional Care Interventions From Hospital to Community to Reduce Health Care Use and Improve Patient Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Discharge from the hospital to the community has been associated with serious patient risks and excess service costs. Objective: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness associated with transitional care interventions with different complexity levels at improving health care utilization and patient outcomes in the transition from the hospital to the community. Data Sources: CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were searched from inception until August 2022. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials evaluating transitional care interventions from hospitals to the community were identified. Data Extraction and Synthesis: At least 2 reviewers were involved in all data screening and extraction. Random-effects network meta-analyses and meta-regressions were applied. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were readmission at 30, 90, and 180 days after discharge. Secondary outcomes included emergency department visits, mortality, quality of life, patient satisfaction, medication adherence, length of stay, primary care and outpatient visits, and intervention uptake. Results: Overall, 126 trials with 97 408 participants were included, 86 (68%) of which were of low risk of bias. Low-complexity interventions were associated with the most efficacy for reducing hospital readmissions at 30 days (odds ratio [OR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.92) and 180 days (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.66) and emergency department visits (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.96). Medium-complexity interventions were associated with the most efficacy at reducing hospital readmissions at 90 days (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.92), reducing adverse events (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.75), and improving medication adherence (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.67) but were associated with less efficacy than low-complexity interventions for reducing readmissions at 30 and 180 days. High-complexity interventions were most effective for reducing length of hospital stay (SMD, -0.20; 95% CI, -0.38 to -0.03) and increasing patient satisfaction (SMD, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.82) but were least effective for reducing readmissions at all time periods. None of the interventions were associated with improved uptake, quality of life (general, mental, or physical), or primary care and outpatient visits. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that low- and medium-complexity transitional care interventions were associated with reducing health care utilization for patients transitioning from hospitals to the community. Comprehensive and consistent outcome measures are needed to capture the patient benefits of transitional care interventions.

Patient safety in prisons: a multi-method analysis of reported incidents in England.

OBJECTIVES: Prisoners use healthcare services three times more frequently than the general population with poorer health outcomes. Their distinct healthcare needs often pose challenges to safe healthcare provision. This study aimed to characterise patient safety incidents reported in prisons to guide practice improvement and identify health policy priorities.Design: We carried out an exploratory multi-method analysis of anonymised safety incidents from prisons. SETTING: Safety incidents had been reported to the National Reporting and Learning System by prisons in England between April 2018 and March 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Reports were reviewed to identify any unintended or unexpected incident(s) which could have, or did, lead to harm for prisoners receiving healthcare. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Free-text descriptions were examined to identify the type and nature of safety incidents, their outcomes and harm severity. Analysis was contextualised with subject experts through structured workshops to explain relationships between the most common incidents and contributory factors. RESULTS: Of 4112 reports, the most frequently observed incidents were medication-related (n = 1167, 33%), specifically whilst administering medications (n = 626, 54%). Next, were access-related (n = 559,15%), inclusive of delays in patients accessing healthcare professionals (n = 236, 42%) and managing medical appointments (n = 171, 31%). The workshops contextualised incidents involving contributing factors (n = 1529, 28%) into three key themes, namely healthcare access, continuity of care and the balance between prison and healthcare priorities. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance of improving medication safety and access to healthcare services for prisoners. We recommend staffing level reviews to ensure healthcare appointments are attended, and to review procedures for handling missed appointments, communication during patient transfers and medication prescribing.

Evaluating a co-designed care bundle to improve patient safety at discharge from adult and adolescent mental health services (SAFER-MH and SAFER-YMH): protocol for a non-randomised feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients being discharged from inpatient mental wards often describe safety risks in terms of inadequate information sharing and involvement in discharge decisions. Through stakeholder engagement, we co-designed, developed and adapted two versions of a care bundle intervention, the SAFER Mental Health care bundle for adult and youth inpatient mental health settings (SAFER-MH and SAFER-YMH, respectively), that look to address these concerns through the introduction of new or improved processes of care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two uncontrolled before-and-after feasibility studies, where all participants will receive the intervention. We will examine the feasibility and acceptability of the SAFER-MH in inpatient mental health settings in patients aged 18 years or older who are being discharged and the feasibility and acceptability of the SAFER-YMH intervention in inpatient mental health settings in patients aged between 14 and 18 years who are being discharged. The baseline period and intervention periods are both 6 weeks. SAFER-MH will be implemented in three wards and SAFER-YMH in one or two wards, ideally across different trusts within England. We will use quantitative (eg, questionnaires, completion forms) and qualitative (eg, interviews, process evaluation) methods to assess the acceptability and feasibility of the two versions of the intervention. The findings will inform whether a main effectiveness trial is feasible and, if so, how it should be designed, and how many patients/wards should be included. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the National Health Service Cornwall and Plymouth Research Ethics Committee and Surrey Research Ethics Committee (reference: 22/SW/0096 and 22/LO/0404). Research findings will be disseminated with participating sites and shared in various ways to engage different audiences. We will present findings at international and national conferences, and publish in open-access, peer-reviewed journals.