Exploring the challenges faced by foundation doctors when prescribing high risk medicines safely during the on-call period: A qualitative study.

AIMS: Errors with prescribing high-risk medicines (HRMs) have a greater propensity to cause harm than with non-HRMs. Prescribing errors arise due to multiple factors and it can be particularly challenging for junior doctors to prescribe safely during the on-call period. Knowledge regarding the challenges of prescribing HRM during the on-call period would be useful to target preventative interventions. The aim of this study was to explore the challenges encountered by foundation doctors (doctors who have graduated medical school within the last 2 years) when prescribing specific HRMs (anticoagulants, insulin and opioids) safely during the on-call period. METHODS: Six focus groups exploring the challenges of prescribing HRMs safely during the on-call period were conducted, 3 with foundation year 1 and 3 with foundation year 2 doctors from across 3 different hospitals. A thematic framework analysis based on the London Protocol was conducted. RESULTS: Doctors described multiple challenges to prescribing HRMs safely during the on-call period including a lack of prescribing support, nursing pressure, complex prescribing tasks, unknown patients as well as individual factors such as lack of knowledge and tiredness. Many of these factors exist to some extent during the day, yet the nature of the on-call period as a fast-paced environment heightened the challenges that prescribers faced. CONCLUSION: There are multiple challenges experienced by foundation doctors when prescribing HRMs during the on-call period. The potentially devastating consequences of errors with HRMs means that closer attention and more concern from healthcare professionals, researchers and policymakers is required to improve safe prescribing of HRMs in hospitals.

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.

The Role of Clinical Pharmacy in Preventing Prescribing Errors in the Emergency Department of a Governmental Hospital in Jordan: A Pre-Post Study.

Background: Clinical pharmacists have a vital role in intercepting prescribing errors (PEs) but their impact within a Jordanian hospital emergency department (ED) has never been studied. Objective: To evaluate the impact of clinical pharmacy services on PEs and assess predictors of physicians' acceptance of clinical pharmacists' interventions. Setting: This study was conducted in the ED of the largest governmental hospital in Jordan. Method: This was a pre-post study conducted in October and November 2019 using a disguised observational method. There were 2 phases: control phase (P0) with no clinical interventions, and active phase (P1) where clinical pharmacists prospectively intervened upon errors. The clinical significance of errors was determined by a multidisciplinary committee. The SPSS software version 24 was used for data analysis. Main Outcome Measure: PEs incidence, type, severity, and predictors for physicians' acceptance. Results: Of 18003 patients, 8732 were included in P0 and 9271 in P1. PEs incidence decreased from 24.6% to 5.4%. Contraindication, drug selection, and dosage form error types were significantly reduced from 32.6%, 9.1%, and 3.7% (P0) to 12.6%, 0.0%, and 0.0% (P1), respectively. Albeit not statistically significant, drug-drug interaction, drug frequency, and allergy error types were reduced from 4.9%, 3.1%, and 0.1% to 4.5%, 2.5%, and 0.0%, respectively. Significant and serious errors were significantly reduced from 68.7% and 3.0% (P0) to 8.9% and 1.8% (P1), respectively. During P1, most errors were minor (89.3%, 1574/1763), and lethal errors ceased. Predictors for physicians' acceptance were: significant errors (OR 3.1; 95% CI 2.6-4.3; P = 0.03) and non-busy physicians (OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.6-2.7; P = 0.04). Conclusion: Clinical pharmacists significantly reduced PEs in the ED by 76%; most of interventions were significant. Policymakers are advised to implement active clinical pharmacy in the ED.

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.

Foundation year one and year two doctors' prescribing errors: a comparison of their causes.

OBJECTIVE: Junior doctors have the highest rates of prescribing errors, yet no study has set out to understand the differences between completely novice prescribers (Foundation year one (FY1) doctors) and those who have gained some experience (Foundation year two (FY2) doctors). The objective of this study was to uncover the causes of prescribing errors made by FY2 doctors and compare them with previously collected data of the causes of errors made by FY1 doctors. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews, using the critical incident technique, conducted with 19 FY2 doctors on the causes of their prescribing errors and compared with interviews previously conducted with 30 FY1 doctors. Data were analysed using a constant comparison approach after categorisation of the data using Reason's model of accident causation and the London protocol. RESULTS: Common contributory factors in both FY1 and FY2 doctors' prescribing errors included working on call, tiredness and complex patients. Yet, important differences were revealed in terms of application of prescribing knowledge, with FY1 doctors lacking knowledge and FY2 misplacing their knowledge. Due to the rotation of foundation doctors, both groups are faced with novel prescribing contexts, yet the previous experience that FY2 doctors gained led to misplaced confidence when caution would have been expedient. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in the contributory factors of prescribing errors should be taken into account when designing interventions to improve the prescribing of foundation doctors. Furthermore, careful consideration should be taken when inferring expertise in FY2 doctors, who are likely to prescribe in contexts in which their experience is little different to an FY1 doctor.

A qualitative study exploring how pharmacist and nurse independent prescribers make clinical decisions.

AIM: The aim of this study was to explore how secondary care pharmacist and nurse independent prescribers clinically reason when making prescribing decisions. BACKGROUND: Clinical reasoning is a central component of prescribers' competence and professional autonomy when reaching a clinically appropriate decision. Like doctors, pharmacist and nurse independent prescribers in the UK have extensive prescribing rights, but little is known about their clinical reasoning. DESIGN: A qualitative approach using a think-aloud methodology and semi-structured interviews. METHODS: Eleven nurse and 10 pharmacist independent prescribers were asked to think-aloud about validated clinical vignettes prior to interview, between March - December 2015. Data were analysed using a constant-comparative approach. RESULTS: A strong link between clinical knowledge, grounded in previous experience and clinical reasoning was found. Despite prescribers approaching the clinical vignettes holistically, their focus varied according to professional background and job role. Nurses were more likely to describe interacting with patients, compared with pharmacists who were more focused on medical notes and laboratory results. Think-aloud protocol analysis revealed a distinct pattern in the process undertaken to reach a clinical decision. This is presented as a decision-making model, encompassing case familiarization, generating hypotheses, case assessment, final hypotheses and decision-making stages, which oscillated throughout the model. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to explore the clinical reasoning processes of secondary care pharmacist and nurse independent prescribers. The resultant decision-making model shows clinical reasoning as a complex and dynamic process. This model can inform the training of independent prescribers to become accurate problem solvers and continue making clinically appropriate decisions.

Factors influencing secondary care pharmacist and nurse independent prescribers' clinical reasoning: An interprofessional analysis.

In the United Kingdom, pharmacist and nurse independent prescribers are responsible for both the clinical assessment of and prescribing for patients. Prescribing is a complex skill that entails the application of knowledge, skills, and clinical reasoning to arrive at a clinically appropriate decision. Decision-making is influenced and informed by many factors. This study, the first of its kind, explores what factors influence pharmacist and nurse independent prescribers during the process of clinical reasoning. A think-aloud methodology immediately followed by a semi-structured interview was conducted with 11 active nurse and 10 pharmacist independent prescribers working in secondary care. Each participant was presented with validated clinical vignettes for the think-aloud stage. Participants chose the clinical therapeutic areas for the vignettes, based on their self-perceived competencies. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and a constant-comparative approach was used for analysis. Influences on clinical reasoning were broadly categorised into themes: social interaction, intrinsic, and contextual factors. These themes showed that intrinsic, sociocultural, and contextual aspects heavily influenced the clinical reasoning processes of prescribers. For example, prescribers were aware of treatment pathways, but chose to refer patient cases to avoid making the final prescribing decision. Exploration of this behaviour in the interviews revealed that previous experience and attitudes such as confidence and cautiousness associated with responsibility were strong influencers within the decision-making process. In addition, strengthening the professional identity of prescribers could be achieved through collaborative work with interprofessional healthcare teams to orient their professional practice from within the profession. Findings from this study can be used to inform the education, training, and practice of independent prescribers to improve healthcare services by improving their professional and interprofessional development.

Exploring the causes of junior doctors' prescribing mistakes: a qualitative study.

AIMS: Prescribing errors are common and can be detrimental to patient care and costly. Junior doctors are more likely than consultants to make a prescribing error, yet there is only limited research into the causes of errors. The aim of this study was to explore the causes of prescribing mistakes made by doctors in their first year post graduation. METHODS: As part of the EQUIP study, interviews using the critical incident technique were carried out with 30 newly qualified doctors. Participants were asked to discuss in detail any prescribing errors they had made. Participants were purposely sampled across a range of medical schools (18) and hospitals (15). A constant comparison approach was taken to analysis and Reason's model of accident causation was used to present the data. RESULTS: More than half the errors discussed were prescribing mistakes (errors due to the correct execution of an incorrect plan). Knowledge-based mistakes (KBMs) appeared to arise from poor knowledge of practical aspects of prescribing such as dosing, whereas rule-based mistakes (RBMs) resulted from inappropriate application of knowledge. Multiple error-producing and latent conditions were described by participants for RBMs and KBMs. Poor/absent senior support and a fear of appearing incompetent occurred with KBMs. Following erroneous routines or seniors' orders were major contributory factors in RBMs. CONCLUSIONS: Although individual factors such as knowledge and expertise played a role in prescribing mistakes, there were many perceived interrelated factors contributing to error. We conclude that multiple interventions are necessary to address these and further research is essential.

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.

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.

Exploring patients' pharmacy stories: an analysis of online feedback.

Background Studies have demonstrated the potential for patient feedback to inform quality care as well as a direct relationship between patient experience and clinical outcomes. Over recent years, there has been increasing use of online patient feedback platforms, however, there has been little study of the content of patient feedback relating to pharmacy and pharmacy services. Objective This study explores the content of online feedback provided by patients from across the UK in relation to their experiences of their interaction with pharmacy staff and pharmacy services. Main outcome measure Content of online patient feedback relating to pharmacy. Method Patient stories published on Care Opinion, a national online patient feedback platform, for a one-year period were searched for all content relating to patients' pharmacy experiences. A thematic and sentiment analysis was conducted on 237 patient stories. Results Patient stories related to supply, staff attitudes, services, accessibility, systems, and errors. Patient sentiment depended on pharmacy setting, but staff attitudes, services, and accessibility were generally positive across all settings. Waiting time was the most common complaint in both hospital and community pharmacies with stories relaying experiences of slow discharge, stock shortages and poor communication and collaboration between pharmacies and GP surgeries. Conclusions Online patient feedback highlighted factors important to patients when interacting with pharmacies and their staff. Medication supply was the primary topic of patient stories with waiting times and stock shortages being clear areas for improvement; however, accessibility, pharmacy services and advice were key strengths of the profession. Further research is needed to understand how online patient feedback can be used effectively to inform improvements in pharmacy services.

Incidence, nature, severity, and causes of dispensing errors in community pharmacies in Jordan.

Background Medication dispensing is a core function of community pharmacies, and errors that occur during the dispensing process are a major concern for pharmacy profession. However, to date there has been no national study of medication dispensing errors in Jordan. Objective The study aimed to investigate the incidence, nature, severity, causes and predictors of medication dispensing errors. Setting The study was conducted in randomly selected community pharmacies across Jordan. Method A mixed method approach was taken, incorporating prospective disguised observation of dispensing errors and interviews with pharmacists regarding the causes of errors. A multidisciplinary committee evaluated the severity of errors. Proportionate random sampling was used to include 350 pharmacies from across all regions of Jordan. SPSS (Version 24) was used for data analysis. Main outcome measure Incidence, nature, severity, causes and predictors of medication dispensing errors. Results The overall rate of medication dispensing errors was 24.6% (n = 37,009/150,442), of which 11.5% (n = 17,352/150,442) were prescription related errors and 13.1% (n = 19,657/150,442) pharmacist counselling errors. The most common type of prescription-related errors were wrong quantity (37.9%, n = 6584/17,352), whereas the most common pharmacist counselling error was wrong drug (41.9%, n = 8241/19,657). The majority of errors were caused by poor handwriting (30.7%, n = 75,651/37,009), followed by high workload (17.3%, n = 22,964/37,009). More than half of errors (52.6%) were moderate in severity, followed by minor errors (38.8%), and 8.6% of errors were rated as serious. Predictors of medication dispensing errors were: Sundays (OR 2.7; 95% CI 2.15-3.94; p = 0.02), grade A pharmacies (dispensing ≥ 60 prescriptions a day (OR 3.6; 95% CI 2.89-4.78; p = 0.04)), and prescriptions containing ≥ 4 medication orders (OR 4.1; 95% CI 2.9-6.4; p = 0.001). Conclusion Medication dispensing errors are common in Jordan and our findings can be generalised and considered as a reference to launch training programmes on safe medication dispensing and independent prescribing for pharmacists.

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

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

Patient prioritisation for hospital pharmacy services: current approaches in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: To survey and explore current approaches to deployment of pharmaceutical care prioritisation tools in acute hospitals in the UK. METHODS: A national online survey was circulated electronically to chief pharmacists of hospitals to determine if they use a prioritisation tool or process. Where such mechanisms exist, respondents were invited to participate in a semistructured telephone interview to explore the development, evaluation and application of their tool and share relevant documentation. Interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Seventy hospitals (70/130) used a tool or process to prioritise clinical pharmacy services. Thirty-six interviews were conducted, and two were excluded. The majority of tools had been developed in-house. Few hospitals had undertaken formal evaluations of their prioritisation tool. Pharmacy prioritisation tools ranged in complexity and often included a combination of pharmacy service prioritisation, such as medicines reconciliation, and a section to assign an individual patient prioritisation level. Determining the priority of a patient based on the identification of set indicators instilled confidence in pharmacists by ensuring they were not missing high-risk patients. Electronic prioritisation tools were especially useful at retrieving real-time data to prioritise workload, improving workflow and ensuring continuity in patient care. Drawbacks of using prioritisation tools included lack of tool sensitivity across certain specialties and time spent using the tool if not all information was accessible. CONCLUSIONS: Prioritisation tools were seen to be useful for prioritising workload and ensuring the right patients are seen at the right time. As few hospitals had formally evaluated their tools, it is important to rigorously and systematically develop an evidence-based prioritisation tool that is both useable and acceptable. Further research to evaluate such tools would be needed to ensure it improves patient health outcomes and efficiency in pharmacy services.

Capturing Patients' Perspectives on Medication Safety: The Development of a Patient-Centered Medication Safety Framework.

OBJECTIVES: Medication safety incidents are common in primary care and contributory factors frameworks can assist in our understanding of their causes. A framework that is positioned from the perspective of patients would be advantageous in practice when seeking patient insights into medication safety. The aim of this study was to develop a patient-centered contributory factors framework for examining medication safety incidents. METHODS: A purposive sample of 106 members of the public, patients, and carers were recruited to take part in focus groups (n = 18). Focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a thematic framework. A patient and public involvement group was set up to undertake multiple roles in the research process, including the development of the focus group schedule, analysis of the data, and the construction of a patient-centered framework of contributory factors (patient-centered medication safety) and implementation checklist. RESULTS: The findings highlighted the importance of communication, supplies of medication and appliances, patient- and carer-related factors, healthcare professional factors, and computer systems and programs in the safe use of medicines. Some contributory factors were unique to primary care patients such as access to services and continuity of care. In conjunction with a patient and public involvement group, a framework of factors that patients believe contribute to medication safety incidents in primary care was developed that could be used by patients and healthcare professionals. CONCLUSIONS: The patient-centered medication safety framework and implementation checklist provides a novel tool to examine contributory factors that can lead to medication safety incidents from patients' perspective.

Supporting patients with long-term conditions in the community: Evaluation of the Greater Manchester Community Pharmacy Care Plan Service.

The Greater Manchester Community Pharmacy Care Plan (GMCPCP) service provided tailored care plans to help adults with one or more qualifying long-term condition (hypertension, asthma, diabetes and COPD) to achieve health goals and better self-management of their long-term conditions. The service ran between February and December 2017. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of the service on patient activation, as measured by the PAM measure (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes included quality of life (EQ-5D-5L, EQ-VAS), medication adherence (MARS-5), NHS resource use and costs, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, HDL cholesterol ratio levels and body mass index (BMI). A before and after design was used, with follow-up at 6-months. A questionnaire was distributed at follow-up and telephone interviews with willing participants were used to investigate patient satisfaction with the service. The study was approved by the University of Manchester Research Ethics Committee. Quantitative data were analysed in SPSS v22 (IBM). A total of 382 patients were recruited to the service; 280 (73%) remained at follow-up. Ten patients were interviewed and 43 completed the questionnaire. A total of 613 goals were set; mean of 1.7 goals per patient. Fifty percent of goals were met at follow-up. There were significant improvements in PAM, EQ-5D-5L and EQ-VAS scores and significant reductions in systolic blood pressure, BMI and HDL cholesterol ratio at follow-up. Mean NHS service use costs were significantly lower at follow-up; with a mean decrease per patient of £236.43 (±SD £968.47). The mean cost per patient for providing the service was £203.10, resulting in potential cost-savings of £33.33 per patient (SD ± 874.65). Questionnaire respondents reported high levels of satisfaction with the service. This study suggests that the service is acceptable to patients and may lead to improvements in health outcomes and allows for modest cost savings. Limitations of the study included the low response rate to the patient questionnaire.

Prevalence, incidence and nature of prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: a systematic review.

Prescribing errors affect patient safety throughout hospital practice. Previous reviews of studies have often targeted specific populations or settings, or did not adopt a systematic approach to reviewing the literature. Therefore, we set out to systematically review the prevalence, incidence and nature of prescribing errors in hospital inpatients. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (all from 1985 to October 2007) were searched for studies of prescriptions for adult or child hospital inpatients giving enough data to calculate an error rate. Electronic prescriptions and errors for single diseases, routes of administration or types of prescribing error were excluded, as were non-English language publications. Median error rate (interquartile range [IQR]) was 7% (2-14%) of medication orders, 52 (8-227) errors per 100 admissions and 24 (6-212) errors per 1000 patient days. Most studies (84%) were conducted in single hospitals and originated from the US or UK (72%). Most errors were intercepted and reported before they caused harm, although two studies reported adverse drug events. Errors were most common with antimicrobials and more common in adults (median 18% of orders [ten studies, IQR 7-25%]) than children (median 4% [six studies, IQR 2-17%]). Incorrect dosage was the most common error. Overall, it is clear that prescribing errors are a common occurrence, affecting 7% of medication orders, 2% of patient days and 50% of hospital admissions. However, the reported rates of prescribing errors varied greatly and this could be partly explained by variations in the definition of a prescribing error, the methods used to collect error data and the setting of the study. Furthermore, a lack of standardization between severity scales prevented any comparison of error severity across studies. Future research should address the wide disparity of data-collection methods and definitions that bedevils comparison of error rates or meta-analysis of different studies.

Prescribing errors by junior doctors- A comparison of errors with high risk medicines and non-high risk medicines.

INTRODUCTION: Prescribing errors in hospital are common. However, errors with high-risk-medicines (HRMs) have a greater propensity to cause harm compared to non-HRMs. We do not know if there are differences between the causes of errors with HRMs and non-HRMs but such knowledge might be useful in developing interventions to reduce errors and avoidable harm. Therefore, this study aims to compare and contrast junior doctors' prescribing errors with HRMs to non-HRMs to establish any differences. METHODS: A secondary analysis of fifty-nine interviews with foundation year doctors, obtained from three studies, was conducted. Using a Framework Analysis approach, through NVivo software, a detailed comparison was conducted between the unsafe acts, error-causing-conditions (ECCs), latent conditions, and types of errors related to prescribing errors with HRMs and non-HRMs. RESULTS: In relation to unsafe acts, violations were described in the data with non-HRMs only. Differences in ECCs of HRMs and non-HRMs were identified and related to the complexity of prescribing HRMs, especially dosage calculations. There were also differences in the circumstances of communication failures: with HRMs ineffective communication arose with exchanges with individuals outside the immediate medical team while with non-HRMs these failures occurred with exchanges within that team. Differences were identified with the latent conditions: with non-HRMs there was a reluctance to seek seniors help and with HRMs latent conditions related to the organisational system such as the inclusion of trade names in hospital formularies. Moreover, prescribing during the on-call period was particularly challenging especially with HRMs. CONCLUSION: From this secondary analysis, differences in the nature and type of prescribing errors with HRMs and non-HRMs were identified, although further research is needed to investigate their prevalence. As errors with HRMs have the potential to cause great harm it may be appropriate to target limited resources towards interventions that tackle the underlying causes of such errors. Equally concerning, however, was the sense that doctors regard the prescribing of non-HRMs as 'safe'.

Patient prioritization for pharmaceutical care in hospital: A systematic review of assessment tools.

BACKGROUND: Clinical pharmacy services improve patient safety, outcomes, and care quality; however, UK clinical pharmacy services face limited resources, insufficient capacity, and patients who present with increasingly complex medication regimes and morbidities. These indicate a need for the prioritization of pharmacy services. Several prioritization tools have been developed; however, there has been no comprehensive review of such tools to date. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review was conducted to provide a structured overview and description of existing assessment tools with a focus on study quality, themes, tool validity, risk factors, and high-risk drug classes. METHODS: Systematic searches for English-language publications (from 1990 to September 2017) were conducted in Embase, Medline, Scopus, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Web of Science. Papers in the inpatient setting and in which the tool users were pharmacists or pharmacy technicians were included. Data on each study (e.g. aim and design) and the structure of tools (e.g. risk factors) from each included study were extracted by 2 independent reviewers. A descriptive analysis was conducted to summarize these tools along with a thematic analysis of study findings. The quality of each paper was assessed using the Hawker method. RESULTS: Nineteen studies involving 17 risk assessment tools were included. Most tools were developed in Europe (76.5%) and published in the last 5 years (82%). Most tools (88%) were designed to identify patients at greatest risk of adverse drug reactions, adverse drug events, or medication errors and to guide appropriate pharmaceutical care. Ten out of 17 tools (59%) were validated. None showed a measurable impact on prescription errors or adverse drug events. Keys themes identified from the studies were the positive impact of risk assessment tools on both patient care and provision of pharmacy services as well as the limitations of risk assessment tools. CONCLUSIONS: Current assessment tools are heterogeneous in their content, targeting diverse patient groups and clinical settings making generalization difficult. However, an underlying theme of all studies was that tools appear to achieve their aim in directing pharmaceutical care to where it is needed most which might provide reassurance and incentive for greater adoption and development of tools across clinical pharmacy services. However, further research is required to measure objectively the impact of tools on patient outcomes and on workforce efficiency so that comparisons can be made between tools.