Helicobacter pylori eradication for primary prevention of peptic ulcer bleeding in older patients prescribed aspirin in primary care (HEAT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Peptic ulcers in patients receiving aspirin are associated with Helicobacter pylori infection. We aimed to investigate whether H pylori eradication would protect against aspirin-associated ulcer bleeding. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Helicobacter Eradication Aspirin Trial [HEAT]) at 1208 primary care centres in the UK, using routinely collected clinical data. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older who were receiving aspirin at a daily dose of 325 mg or less (with four or more 28-day prescriptions in the past year) and had a positive C13 urea breath test for H pylori at screening. Patients receiving ulcerogenic or gastroprotective medication were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either a combination of oral clarithromycin 500 mg, metronidazole 400 mg, and lansoprazole 30 mg (active eradication), or oral placebo (control), twice daily for 1 week. Participants, their general practitioners and health-care providers, and the research nurses, trial team, adjudication committee, and analysis team were all masked to group allocation throughout the trial. Follow-up was by scrutiny of electronic data in primary and secondary care. The primary outcome was time to hospitalisation or death due to definite or probable peptic ulcer bleeding, and was analysed by Cox proportional hazards methods in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with EudraCT, 2011-003425-96. FINDINGS: Between Sept 14, 2012, and Nov 22, 2017, 30 166 patients had breath testing for H pylori, 5367 had a positive result, and 5352 were randomly assigned to receive active eradication (n=2677) or placebo (n=2675) and were followed up for a median of 5·0 years (IQR 3·9-6·4). Analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant departure from proportional hazards assumptions (p=0·0068), requiring analysis over separate time periods. There was a significant reduction in incidence of the primary outcome in the active eradication group in the first 2·5 years of follow-up compared with the control group (six episodes adjudicated as definite or probable peptic ulcer bleeds, rate 0·92 [95% CI 0·41-2·04] per 1000 person-years vs 17 episodes, rate 2·61 [1·62-4·19] per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR] 0·35 [95% CI 0·14-0·89]; p=0·028). This advantage remained significant after adjusting for the competing risk of death (p=0·028) but was lost with longer follow-up (HR 1·31 [95% CI 0·55-3·11] in the period after the first 2·5 years; p=0·54). Reports of adverse events were actively solicited; taste disturbance was the most common event (787 patients). INTERPRETATION: H pylori eradication protects against aspirin-associated peptic ulcer bleeding, but this might not be sustained in the long term. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment.

Allopurinol versus usual care in UK patients with ischaemic heart disease (ALL-HEART): a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial.

BACKGROUND: Allopurinol is a urate-lowering therapy used to treat patients with gout. Previous studies have shown that allopurinol has positive effects on several cardiovascular parameters. The ALL-HEART study aimed to determine whether allopurinol therapy improves major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease. METHODS: ALL-HEART was a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial done in 18 regional centres in England and Scotland, with patients recruited from 424 primary care practices. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older, with ischaemic heart disease but no history of gout. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a central web-based randomisation system accessed via a web-based application or an interactive voice response system, to receive oral allopurinol up-titrated to a dose of 600 mg daily (300 mg daily in participants with moderate renal impairment at baseline) or to continue usual care. The primary outcome was the composite cardiovascular endpoint of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. The hazard ratio (allopurinol vs usual care) in a Cox proportional hazards model was assessed for superiority in a modified intention-to-treat analysis (excluding randomly assigned patients later found to have met one of the exclusion criteria). The safety analysis population included all patients in the modified intention-to-treat usual care group and those who took at least one dose of randomised medication in the allopurinol group. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT 2013-003559-39, and ISRCTN, ISRCTN32017426. FINDINGS: Between Feb 7, 2014, and Oct 2, 2017, 5937 participants were enrolled and then randomly assigned to receive allopurinol or usual care. After exclusion of 216 patients after randomisation, 5721 participants (mean age 72·0 years [SD 6·8], 4321 [75·5%] males, and 5676 [99·2%] white) were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, with 2853 in the allopurinol group and 2868 in the usual care group. Mean follow-up time in the study was 4·8 years (1·5). There was no evidence of a difference between the randomised treatment groups in the rates of the primary endpoint. 314 (11·0%) participants in the allopurinol group (2·47 events per 100 patient-years) and 325 (11·3%) in the usual care group (2·37 events per 100 patient-years) had a primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04 [95% CI 0·89-1·21], p=0·65). 288 (10·1%) participants in the allopurinol group and 303 (10·6%) participants in the usual care group died from any cause (HR 1·02 [95% CI 0·87-1·20], p=0·77). INTERPRETATION: In this large, randomised clinical trial in patients aged 60 years or older with ischaemic heart disease but no history of gout, there was no difference in the primary outcome of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death between participants randomised to allopurinol therapy and those randomised to usual care. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Frequency and impact of medication reviews for people aged 65 years or above in UK primary care: an observational study using electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: Medication reviews in primary care provide an opportunity to review and discuss the safety and appropriateness of a person's medicines. However, there is limited evidence about access to and the impact of routine medication reviews for older adults in the general population, particularly in the UK. We aimed to quantify the proportion of people aged 65 years and over with a medication review recorded in 2019 and describe changes in the numbers and types of medicines prescribed following a review. METHODS: We used anonymised primary care electronic health records from the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD GOLD) to define a population of people aged 65 years or over in 2019. We counted people with a medication review record in 2019 and used Cox regression to estimate associations between demographic characteristics, diagnoses, and prescribed medicines and having a medication review. We used linear regression to compare the number of medicines prescribed as repeat prescriptions in the three months before and after a medication review. Specifically, we compared the 'prescription count' - the maximum number of different medicines with overlapping prescriptions people had in each period. RESULTS: Of 591,726 people prescribed one or more medicines at baseline, 305,526 (51.6%) had a recorded medication review in 2019. Living in a care home (hazard ratio 1.51, 95% confidence interval 1.40-1.62), medication review in the previous year (1.83, 1.69-1.98), and baseline prescription count (e.g. 5-9 vs 1 medicine 1.41, 1.37-1.46) were strongly associated with having a medication review in 2019. Overall, the prescription count tended to increase after a review (mean change 0.13 medicines, 95% CI 0.12-0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Although medication reviews were commonly recorded for people aged 65 years or over, there was little change overall in the numbers and types of medicines prescribed following a review. This study did not examine whether the prescriptions were appropriate or other metrics, such as dose or medicine changes within the same class. However, by examining the impact of medication reviews before the introduction of structured medication review requirements in England in 2020, it provides a useful benchmark which these new reviews can be compared with.

Scaling-up a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER) to reduce hazardous prescribing in general practices: Multiple interrupted time series study.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported on a randomised trial demonstrating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER). We sought to investigate whether PINCER was effective in reducing hazardous prescribing when rolled out at scale in UK general practices. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used a multiple interrupted time series design whereby successive groups of general practices received the PINCER intervention between September 2015 and April 2017. We used 11 prescribing safety indicators to identify potentially hazardous prescribing and collected data over a maximum of 16 quarterly time periods. The primary outcome was a composite of all the indicators; a composite for indicators associated with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding was also reported, along with 11 individual indicators of hazardous prescribing. Data were analysed using logistic mixed models for the quarterly event numbers with the appropriate denominator, and calendar time included as a covariate. PINCER was implemented in 370 (94.1%) of 393 general practices covering a population of almost 3 million patients in the East Midlands region of England; data were successfully extracted from 343 (92.7%) of these practices. For the primary composite outcome, the PINCER intervention was associated with a decrease in the rate of hazardous prescribing of 16.7% (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 0.86) at 6 months and 15.3% (aOR 0.85, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.90) at 12 months postintervention. The unadjusted rate of hazardous prescribing reduced from 26.4% (22,503 patients in the numerator/853,631 patients in the denominator) to 20.1% (11,901 patients in the numerator/591,364 patients in the denominator) at 6 months and 19.1% (3,868 patients in the numerator/201,992 patients in the denominator). The greatest reduction in hazardous prescribing associated with the intervention was observed for the indicators associated with GI bleeding; for the GI composite indicator, there was a decrease of 23.9% at both 6 months (aOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.80) and 12 months (aOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.82) postintervention. The unadjusted rate of hazardous prescribing reduced from 31.4 (16,185 patients in the numerator/515,879 patients in the denominator) to 21.2% (7,607 patients in the numerator/358,349 patients in the denominator) at 6 months and 19.5% (2,369 patients in the numerator/121,534 patients in the denominator). We adjusted for calendar time and practice, but since this was an observational study, the findings may have been influenced by unknown confounding factors or behavioural changes unrelated to the PINCER intervention. Data were also not collected for all practices at 6 months and 12 months postintervention. CONCLUSIONS: The PINCER intervention, when rolled out at scale in routine clinical practice, was associated with a reduction in hazardous prescribing by 17% and 15% at 6 and 12 months postintervention. The greatest reductions in hazardous prescribing were for indicators associated with risk of GI bleeding. These findings support the wider national rollout of PINCER in England.

BSACI guideline for the set-up of penicillin allergy de-labelling services by non-allergists working in a hospital setting.

The Standards of Care Committee of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI) and a committee of experts and key stakeholders have developed this guideline for the evaluation and testing of patients with an unsubstantiated label of penicillin allergy. The guideline is intended for UK clinicians who are not trained in allergy or immunology, but who wish to develop a penicillin allergy de-labelling service for their patients. It is intended to supplement the BSACI 2015 guideline "Management of allergy to penicillin and other beta-lactams" and therefore does not detail the epidemiology or aetiology of penicillin allergy, as this is covered extensively in the 2015 guideline (1). The guideline is intended for use only in patients with a label of penicillin allergy and does not apply to other beta-lactam allergies. The recommendations include a checklist to identify patients at low risk of allergy and a framework for the conduct of drug provocation testing by non-allergists. There are separate sections for adults and paediatrics within the guideline, in recognition of the common differences in reported allergy history and likelihood of true allergy.

Association Between Gout Flare and Subsequent Cardiovascular Events Among Patients With Gout.

Importance: Gout is associated with cardiovascular diseases. The temporal association between gout flares and cardiovascular events has not been investigated. Objective: To investigate whether there is a transient increase in risk of cardiovascular events after a recent gout flare. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective observational study was conducted using electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in England between January 1, 1997, and December 31, 2020. A multivariable nested case-control study was performed among 62 574 patients with gout, and a self-controlled case series, adjusted for season and age, was performed among 1421 patients with gout flare and cardiovascular event. Exposures: Gout flares were ascertained using hospitalization, primary care outpatient, and prescription records. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a cardiovascular event, defined as an acute myocardial infarction or stroke. Association with recent prior gout flares was measured using adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs in a nested case-control study and adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% CIs in a self-controlled case series. Results: Among patients with a new diagnosis of gout (mean age, 76.5 years; 69.3% men, 30.7% women), 10 475 patients with subsequent cardiovascular events were matched with 52 099 patients without cardiovascular events. Patients with cardiovascular events, compared with those who did not have cardiovascular events, had significantly higher odds of gout flare within the prior 0 to 60 days (204/10 475 [2.0%] vs 743/52 099 [1.4%]; adjusted OR, 1.93 [95% CI, 1.57-2.38]) and within the prior 61 to 120 days (170/10 475 [1.6%] vs 628/52 099 [1.2%]; adjusted OR, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.26-1.96]). There was no significant difference in the odds of gout flare within the prior 121 to 180 days (148/10 475 [1.4%] vs 662/52 099 [1.3%]; adjusted OR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.84-1.34]). In the self-controlled case series (N = 1421), cardiovascular event rates per 1000 person-days were 2.49 (95% CI, 2.16-2.82) within days 0 to 60; 2.16 (95% CI, 1.85-2.47) within days 61 to 120; and 1.70 (95% CI, 1.42-1.98) within days 121 to 180 after a gout flare, compared with cardiovascular event rates of 1.32 (95% CI, 1.23-1.41) per 1000 person-days within the 150 days before or the 181 to 540 days after the gout flare. Compared with 150 days before or the 181 to 540 days after a gout flare, incidence rate differences for cardiovascular events were 1.17 (95% CI, 0.83-1.52) per 1000 person-days, and adjusted IRRs were 1.89 (95% CI, 1.54-2.30) within days 0 to 60; 0.84 (95% CI, 0.52-1.17) per 1000 person-days and 1.64 (95% CI, 1.45-1.86) within days 61 to 120; and 0.38 (95% CI, 0.09-0.67) per 1000 person-days and 1.29 (95% CI, 1.02-1.64) within days 121 to 180 after a gout flare. Conclusions and Relevance: Among individuals with gout, those who experienced a cardiovascular event, compared with those who did not experience such an event, had significantly higher odds of a recent gout flare in the preceding days. These findings suggest gout flares are associated with a transient increase in cardiovascular events following the flare.

A comparative assessment of two tools designed to support patient safety culture in UK general practice.

BACKGROUND: The NHS has recognised the importance of a high quality patient safety culture in the delivery of primary health care in the rapidly evolving environment of general practice. Two tools, PC-SafeQuest and MapSaf, were developed with the intention of assessing and improving patient safety culture in this setting. Both have been made widely available through their inclusion in the Royal College of General Practitioners' Patient Safety Toolkit and our work offerss a timely exploration of the tools to inform practice staff as to how each might be usefully applied and in which circumstances. Here we present a comparative analysis of their content, and describe the perspectives of staff on their design, outputs and the feasibility of their sustained use. METHODS: We have used a content analysis to provide the context for the qualitative study of staff experiences of using the tools at a representative range of practices recruited from across the Midlands (UK). Data was collected through moderated focus groups using an identical topic guide. RESULTS: A total of nine practices used the PC-SafeQuest tool and four the MapSaf tool. A total of 159 staff completed the PC-SafeQuest tool 52 of whom took part in the subsequent focus group discussions, and 25 staff completed the MapSaf tool all of whom contributed to the focus group discussions. PC-SafeQuest was perceived as quick and easy to use with direct questions pertinent to the work of GP practices providing useful quantitative insight into important areas of safety culture. Though MaPSaF was more logistically challenging, it created a forum for synchronous cross- practice discussions raising awareness of perceptions of safety culture across the practice team. CONCLUSIONS: Both tools were able to promote reflective and reflexive practice either in individual staff members or across the broader practice team and the oversight they granted provided useful direction for senior staff looking to improve patient safety. Because PC SafeQuest can be easily disseminated and independently completed it is logistically suited to larger practice organisations, whereas the MapSaf tool lends itself to smaller practices where assembling staff in a single workshop is more readily achieved.

The evaluation of an e-learning prescribing course for general practice.

Prescribed medication may lead to significant morbidity or mortality as a result of these medications causing adverse events, or because of a prescribing error. E-learning is a common tool used in supporting training in prescribing. This paper describes the development of an e-learning course and the subsequent evaluation undertaken by the users with the aim of obtaining an effective e-learning course for prescribing. The e-learning course was developed by general practitioners and pharmacists and focussed on the principles of good prescribing, examined the common reasons for prescribing errors, and was evaluated using self-reported quantitative and qualitative measures. Scores significantly increased on an assessment given before and after the course. The majority of respondents reported that the e-learning course had a positive impact on prescribing knowledge, skills and attitudes, with medication reviews the top area where a change in prescribing practice was reported. Over 90% of the respondents agreed that the e-learning course was easy to use and a useful part of their continuing professional education. This study shows that clinicians recognise the on-going need for training in prescribing, but the lack of training is one of the factors contributing to errors, which suggests that more education is needed, not just for GPs in training, but for qualified GPs as well.

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.

Open-label randomised pragmatic trial (CONTACT) comparing naproxen and low-dose colchicine for the treatment of gout flares in primary care.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of naproxen and low-dose colchicine for treating gout flares in primary care. METHODS: This was a multicentre open-label randomised trial. Adults with a gout flare recruited from 100 general practices were randomised equally to naproxen 750 mg immediately then 250 mg every 8 hours for 7 days or low-dose colchicine 500 mcg three times per day for 4 days. The primary outcome was change in worst pain intensity in the last 24 hours (0-10 Numeric Rating Scale) from baseline measured daily over the first 7 days: mean change from baseline was compared between groups over days 1-7 by intention to treat. RESULTS: Between 29 January 2014 and 31 December 2015, we recruited 399 participants (naproxen n=200, colchicine n=199), of whom 349 (87.5%) completed primary outcome data at day 7. There was no significant between-group difference in average pain-change scores over days 1-7 (colchicine vs naproxen: mean difference -0.18; 95% CI -0.53 to 0.17; p=0.32). During days 1-7, diarrhoea (45.9% vs 20.0%; OR 3.31; 2.01 to 5.44) and headache (20.5% vs 10.7%; 1.92; 1.03 to 3.55) were more common in the colchicine group than the naproxen group but constipation was less common (4.8% vs 19.3%; 0.24; 0.11 to 0.54). CONCLUSION: We found no difference in pain intensity over 7 days between people with a gout flare randomised to either naproxen or low-dose colchicine. Naproxen caused fewer side effects supporting naproxen as first-line treatment for gout flares in primary care in the absence of contraindications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN (69836939), clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01994226), EudraCT (2013-001354-95).

Development of the prototype concise safe systems checklist tool for general practice.

BACKGROUND: In the course of producing a patient safety toolkit for primary care, we identified the need for a concise safe-systems checklist designed to address areas of patient safety which are under-represented in mandatory requirements and existing tools. This paper describes the development of a prototype checklist designed to be used in busy general practice environments to provide an overview of key patient safety related processes and prompt practice wide-discussion. METHODS: An extensive narrative review and a survey of world-wide general practice organisations were used to identify existing primary care patient safety issues and tools. A RAND panel of international experts rated the results, summarising the findings for importance and relevance. The checklist was created to include areas that are not part of established patient safety tools or mandatory and legal requirements. Four main themes were identified: information flow, practice safety information, prescribing, and use of IT systems from which a 13 item checklist was trialled in 16 practices resulting in a nine item prototype checklist, which was tested in eight practices. Qualitative data on the utility and usability of the prototype was collected through a series of semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: In testing the prototype four of nine items on the checklist were achieved by all eight practices. Three items were achieved by seven of eight practices and two items by six of eight practices. Participants welcomed the brevity and ease of use of the prototype, that it might be used within time scales at their discretion and its ability to engage a range of practice staff in relevant discussions on the safety of existing processes. The items relating to prescribing safety were considered particularly useful. CONCLUSIONS: As a result of this work the concise patient safety checklist tool, specifically designed for general practice, has now been made available as part of an online Patient Safety Toolkit hosted by the Royal College of General Practitioners. Senior practice staff such as practice managers and GP partners should find it a useful tool to understand the safety of less explored yet important safety processes within the practice.

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.

Identifying 'avoidable harm' in family practice: a RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Health care-related harm is an internationally recognized threat to public health. The United Kingdom's national health services demonstrate that upwards of 90% of health care encounters can be delivered in ambulatory settings. Other countries are transitioning to more family practice-based health care systems, and efforts to understand avoidable harm in these settings is needed. METHODS: We developed 100 scenarios reflecting a range of diseases and informed by the World Health Organization definition of 'significant harm'. Scenarios included different types of patient safety incidents occurring by commission and omission, demonstrated variation in timeliness of intervention, and conditions where evidence-based guidelines are available or absent. We conducted a two-round RAND / UCLA Appropriateness Method consensus study with a panel of family practitioners in England to define "avoidable harm" within family practice. Panelists rated their perceptions of avoidability for each scenario. We ran a k-means cluster analysis of avoidability ratings. RESULTS: Panelists reached consensus for 95 out of 100 scenarios. The panel agreed avoidable harm occurs when a patient safety incident could have been probably, or totally, avoided by the timely intervention of a health care professional in family practice (e.g. investigations, treatment) and / or an administrative process (e.g. referrals, alerts in electronic health records, procedures for following up results) in accordance with accepted evidence-based practice and clinical governance. Fifty-four scenarios were deemed avoidable, whilst 31 scenarios were rated unavoidable and reflected outcomes deemed inevitable regardless of family practice intervention. Scenarios with low avoidability ratings (1 s or 2 s) were not represented by the categories that were used to generate scenarios, whereas scenarios with high avoidability ratings (7 s 8 s or 9 s) were represented by these a priori categories. DISCUSSION: The findings from this RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method study define the characteristics and conditions that can be used to standardize measurement of outcomes for primary care patient safety. CONCLUSION: We have developed a definition of avoidable harm that has potential for researchers and practitioners to apply across primary care settings, and bolster international efforts to design interventions to target avoidable patient safety incidents that cause the most significant harm to patients.

Developing a measure of polypharmacy appropriateness in primary care: systematic review and expert consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is an increasing challenge for primary care. Although sometimes clinically justified, polypharmacy can be inappropriate, leading to undesirable outcomes. Optimising care for polypharmacy necessitates effective targeting and monitoring of interventions. This requires a valid, reliable measure of polypharmacy, relevant for all patients, that considers clinical appropriateness and generic prescribing issues applicable across all medications. Whilst there are several existing measures of potentially inappropriate prescribing, these are not specifically designed with polypharmacy in mind, can require extensive clinical input to complete, and often cover a limited number of drugs. The aim of this study was to identify what experts consider to be the key elements of a measure of prescribing appropriateness in the context of polypharmacy. METHODS: Firstly, we conducted a systematic review to identify generic (not drug specific) prescribing indicators relevant to polypharmacy appropriateness. Indicators were subject to content analysis to enable categorisation. Secondly, we convened a panel of 10 clinical experts to review the identified indicators and assess their relative clinical importance. For each indicator category, a brief evidence summary was developed, based on relevant clinical and indicator literature, clinical guidance, and opinions obtained from a separate patient discussion panel. A two-stage RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to reach consensus amongst the panel on a core set of indicators of polypharmacy appropriateness. RESULTS: We identified 20,879 papers for title/abstract screening, obtaining 273 full papers. We extracted 189 generic indicators, and presented 160 to the panel grouped into 18 classifications (e.g. adherence, dosage, clinical efficacy). After two stages, during which the panel introduced 18 additional indicators, there was consensus that 134 indicators were of clinical importance. Following the application of decision rules and further panel consultation, 12 indicators were placed into the final selection. Panel members particularly valued indicators concerned with adverse drug reactions, contraindications, drug-drug interactions, and the conduct of medication reviews. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified a set of 12 indicators of clinical importance considered relevant to polypharmacy appropriateness. Use of these indicators in clinical practice and informatics systems is dependent on their operationalisation and their utility (e.g. risk stratification, targeting and monitoring polypharmacy interventions) requires subsequent evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration number: PROSPERO ( CRD42016049176 ).

Mindful organizing in patients' contributions to primary care medication safety.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to ensure that the risks associated with medication usage in primary health care are controlled. To maintain an understanding of the risks, health-care organizations may engage in a process known as "mindful organizing." While this is typically conceived of as involving organizational members, it may in the health-care context also include patients. Our study aimed to examine ways in which patients might contribute to mindful organizing with respect to primary care medication safety. METHOD: Qualitative focus groups and interviews were carried out with 126 members of the public in North West England and the East Midlands. Participants were taking medicines for a long-term health condition, were taking several medicines, had previously encountered problems with their medication or were caring for another person in any of these categories. Participants described their experiences of dealing with medication-related concerns. The transcripts were analysed using a thematic method. RESULTS: We identified 4 themes to explain patient behaviour associated with mindful organizing: knowledge about clinical or system issues; artefacts that facilitate control of medication risks; communication with health-care professionals; and the relationship between patients and the health-care system (in particular, mutual trust). CONCLUSIONS: Mindful organizing is potentially useful for framing patient involvement in safety, although there are some conceptual and practical issues to be addressed before it can be fully exploited in this setting. We have identified factors that influence (and are strengthened by) patients' engagement in mindful organizing, and as such would be a useful focus of efforts to support patient involvement.

Patient Safety Incidents Involving Sick Children in Primary Care in England and Wales: A Mixed Methods Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The UK performs poorly relative to other economically developed countries on numerous indicators of care quality for children. The contribution of iatrogenic harm to these outcomes is unclear. As primary care is the first point of healthcare contact for most children, we sought to investigate the safety of care provided to children in this setting. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We undertook a mixed methods investigation of reports of primary care patient safety incidents involving sick children from England and Wales' National Reporting and Learning System between 1 January 2005 and 1 December 2013. Two reviewers independently selected relevant incident reports meeting prespecified criteria, and then descriptively analyzed these reports to identify the most frequent and harmful incident types. This was followed by an in-depth thematic analysis of a purposive sample of reports to understand the reasons underpinning incidents. Key candidate areas for strengthening primary care provision and reducing the risks of systems failures were then identified through multidisciplinary discussions. Of 2,191 safety incidents identified from 2,178 reports, 30% (n = 658) were harmful, including 12 deaths and 41 cases of severe harm. The children involved in these incidents had respiratory conditions (n = 387; 18%), injuries (n = 289; 13%), nonspecific signs and symptoms, e.g., fever (n = 281; 13%), and gastrointestinal or genitourinary conditions (n = 268; 12%), among others. Priority areas for improvement included safer systems for medication provision in community pharmacies; triage processes to enable effective and timely assessment, diagnosis, and referral of acutely sick children attending out-of-hours services; and enhanced communication for robust safety netting between professionals and parents. The main limitations of this study result from underreporting of safety incidents and variable data quality. Our findings therefore require further exploration in longitudinal studies utilizing case review methods. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights opportunities to reduce iatrogenic harm and avoidable child deaths. Globally, healthcare systems with primary-care-led models of delivery must now examine their existing practices to determine the prevalence and burden of these priority safety issues, and utilize improvement methods to achieve sustainable improvements in care quality.

Sources of unsafe primary care for older adults: a mixed-methods analysis of patient safety incident reports.

Background: older adults are frequent users of primary healthcare services, but are at increased risk of healthcare-related harm in this setting. Objectives: to describe the factors associated with actual or potential harm to patients aged 65 years and older, treated in primary care, to identify action to produce safer care. Design and Setting: a cross-sectional mixed-methods analysis of a national (England and Wales) database of patient safety incident reports from 2005 to 2013. Subjects: 1,591 primary care patient safety incident reports regarding patients aged 65 years and older. Methods: we developed a classification system for the analysis of patient safety incident reports to describe: the incident and preceding chain of incidents; other contributory factors; and patient harm outcome. We combined findings from exploratory descriptive and thematic analyses to identify key sources of unsafe care. Results: the main sources of unsafe care in our weighted sample were due to: medication-related incidents e.g. prescribing, dispensing and administering (n = 486, 31%; 15% serious patient harm); communication-related incidents e.g. incomplete or non-transfer of information across care boundaries (n = 390, 25%; 12% serious patient harm); and clinical decision-making incidents which led to the most serious patient harm outcomes (n = 203, 13%; 41% serious patient harm). Conclusion: priority areas for further research to determine the burden and preventability of unsafe primary care for older adults, include: the timely electronic tools for prescribing, dispensing and administering medication in the community; electronic transfer of information between healthcare settings; and, better clinical decision-making support and guidance.