Non-dispensing pharmacist integrated in the primary care team: effect on the quality of physician's prescribing, a non-randomised comparative study.

Background Especially in elderly with polypharmacy, medication can do harm. Clinical pharmacists integrated in primary care teams might improve quality of pharmaceutical care. Objective To assess the effect of non-dispensing clinical pharmacists integrated in primary care teams on general practitioners' prescribing quality. Setting This study was conducted in 25 primary care practices in the Netherlands. Methods Non-randomised, controlled, multi-centre, complex intervention study with pre-post comparison. First, we identified potential prescribing quality indicators from the literature and assessed their feasibility, validity, acceptability, reliability and sensitivity to change. Also, an expert panel assessed the indicators' health impact. Next, using the final set of indicators, we measured the quality of prescribing in practices where non-dispensing pharmacists were integrated in the team (intervention group) compared to usual care (two control groups). Data were extracted anonymously from the healthcare records. Comparisons were made using mixed models correcting for potential confounders. Main outcome measure Quality of prescribing, measured with prescribing quality indicators. Results Of 388 eligible indicators reported in the literature we selected 8. In addition, two more indicators relevant for Dutch general practice were formulated by an expert panel. Scores on all 10 indicators improved in the intervention group after introduction of the non-dispensing pharmacist. However, when compared to control groups, prescribing quality improved solely on the indicator measuring monitoring of the renal function in patients using antihypertensive medication: relative risk of a monitored renal function in the intervention group compared to usual care: 1.03 (95% CI 1.01-1.05, p-value 0.010) and compared to usual care plus: 1.04 (1.01-1.06, p-value 0.004). Conclusion This study did not demonstrate a consistent effect of the introduction of non-dispensing clinical pharmacists in the primary care team on the quality of physician's prescribing.This study is part of the POINT-study, which was registered at The Netherlands National Trial Register with trial registration number NTR-4389.

Non-dispensing pharmacists' actions and solutions of drug therapy problems among elderly polypharmacy patients in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the process of clinical medication review for elderly patients with polypharmacy performed by non-dispensing pharmacists embedded in general practice. The aim was to identify the number and type of drug therapy problems and to assess how and to what extent drug therapy problems were actually solved. METHOD: An observational cross-sectional study, conducted in nine general practices in the Netherlands between June 2014 and June 2015. On three pre-set dates, the non-dispensing pharmacists completed an online data form about the last 10 patients who completed all stages of clinical medication review. Outcomes were the type and number of drug therapy problems, the extent to which recommendations were implemented and the percentage of drug therapy problems that were eventually solved. Interventions were divided as either preventive (aimed at following prophylactic guidelines) or corrective (aimed at active patient problems). RESULTS: In total, 1292 drug therapy problems were identified among 270 patients, with a median of 5 (interquartile range 3) drug therapy problems per patient, mainly related to overtreatment (24%) and undertreatment (21%). The non-dispensing pharmacists most frequently recommended to stop medication (32%). Overall, 83% of the proposed recommendations were implemented; 57% were preventive, and 35% were corrective interventions (8% could not be assessed). Almost two-third (64%) of the corrective interventions actually solved the drug therapy problem. CONCLUSION: Non-dispensing pharmacists integrated in general practice identified a large number of drug therapy problems and successfully implemented a proportionally high number of recommendations that solved the majority of drug therapy problems.

Validity and reliability of a medical record review method identifying transitional patient safety incidents in merged primary and secondary care patients' records.

OBJECTIVE: Inadequate information transfer during transitions in healthcare is a major patient safety issue. Aim of this study was to pilot a review of medical records to identify transitional safety incidents (TSIs) for use in a large intervention study and assess its reliability and validity. DESIGN: A retrospective medical record review study. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Combined primary and secondary care medical records of 301 patients who had visited their general practitioner and the University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, in 2013 were randomly selected. Six trained reviewers assessed these medical records for presence of TSIs. OUTCOMES: To assess inter-rater reliability, 10% of medical records were independently reviewed twice. To assess validity, the identified TSIs were compared with a reference standard of three objectively identifiable TSIs. RESULTS: The reviewers identified TSIs in 52 (17.3%) of all transitional medical records. Variation between reviewers was high (range: 3-28 per 50 medical records). Positive agreement for finding a TSI between reviewers was 0%, negative agreement 80% and the Cohen's kappa -0.15. The reviewers identified 43 (22%) of 194 objectively identifiable TSIs. CONCLUSION: The reliability of our measurement tool for identifying TSIs in transitional medical record performed by clinicians was low. Although the TSIs that were identified by clinicians were valid, they missed 80% of them. Restructuring the record review procedure is necessary.

Pilot study on identification of incidents in healthcare transitions and concordance between medical records and patient interview data.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether transitional incidents can be identified from the medical records of the general practitioners and the hospital and to assess the concordance of transitional incidents between medical records and patient interviews. DESIGN: A pilot study. SETTING: The study was conducted in 2 regions in the Netherlands: a rural and an urban region. PARTICIPANTS: A purposeful sample of patients who experienced a transitional incident or are at high risk of experiencing transitional incidents. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Transitional incidents were identified from both the interviews with patients and medical records and concordance was assessed. We also classified the transitional incidents according to type, severity, estimated cause and preventability. RESULTS: We identified 28 transitional incidents within 78 transitions of which 3 could not be found in the medical records and another 5 could have been missed without the patient as information source. To summarise, 8 (29%) incidents could have been missed using solely medical records, and 7 (25%) using the patients' information exclusively. Concordance in transitional incidents between patient interviews and medical records was 64% (18/28). The majority of the transitional incidents were unsafe situations; however, 43% (12/28) of the incidents reached the patient and 18% (5/28) caused temporary patient harm. Over half of the incidents were potentially preventable. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests that the majority of transitional incidents can be identified from medical records of the general practitioner and hospital. With this information, we aim to develop a measurement tool for transitional incidents in the medical record of general practitioner and hospital.

Improving patient safety culture in general practice: an interview study.

BACKGROUND: When improving patient safety a positive safety culture is key. As little is known about improving patient safety culture in primary care, this study examined whether administering a culture questionnaire with or without a complementary workshop could be used as an intervention for improving safety culture. AIM: To gain insight into how two interventions affected patient safety culture in everyday practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: After conducting a randomised control trial of two interventions, this was a qualitative study conducted in 30 general practices to aid interpretation of the previous quantitative findings. METHOD: Interviews were conducted at practice locations (n = 27) with 24 GPs and 24 practice nurses. The theory of communities of practice--in particular, its concepts of a domain, a community, and a practice--was used to interpret the findings by examining which elements were or were not present in the participating practices. RESULTS: Communal awareness of the problem was only raised after getting together and discussing patient safety. The combination of a questionnaire and workshop enhanced the interaction of team members and nourished team feelings. This shared experience also helped them to understand and develop tools and language for daily practice. CONCLUSION: In order for patient safety culture to improve, the safety culture questionnaire was more successful when accompanied by a practice workshop. Initial discussion and negotiation of shared goals during the workshop fuelled feelings of coherence and belonging to a community wishing to learn about enhancing patient safety. Team meetings and day-to-day interactions enhanced further liaison and sharing, making patient safety a common and conscious goal.

Design of the POINT study: Pharmacotherapy Optimisation through Integration of a Non-dispensing pharmacist in a primary care Team (POINT).

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, 5.6 % of acute hospital admissions are medication-related. Almost half of these admissions are potentially preventable. Reviewing medication in patients at risk in primary care might prevent these hospital admissions. At present, implementation of medication reviews in primary care is suboptimal: pharmacists lack access to patient information, pharmacists are short of clinical knowledge and skills, and working processes of pharmacists (focus on dispensing) and general practitioners (focus on clinical practice) match poorly. Integration of the pharmacist in the primary health care team might improve pharmaceutical care outcomes. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of integration of a non-dispensing pharmacist in general practice on the safety of pharmacotherapy in the Netherlands. METHODS: The POINT study is a non-randomised controlled intervention study with pre-post comparison in an integrated primary care setting. We compare three different models of pharmaceutical care provision in primary care: 1) a non-dispensing pharmacist as an integral member of a primary care team, 2) a pharmacist in a community pharmacy with a predefined training in performing medication reviews and 3) a pharmacist in a community pharmacy (care as usual). In all models, GPs remain accountable for individual medication prescription. In the first model, ten non-dispensing clinical pharmacists are posted in ten primary care practices (including 5 - 10 000 patients each) for a period of 15 months. These non-dispensing pharmacists perform patient consultations, including medication reviews, and share responsibility for the pharmaceutical care provided in the practice. The two other groups consist of ten primary care practices with collaborating pharmacists. The main outcome measurement is the number of medication-related hospital admissions during follow-up. Secondary outcome measurements are potential medication errors, drug burden index and costs. Parallel to this study, a qualitative study is conducted to evaluate the feasibility of introducing a NDP in general practice. DISCUSSION: As the POINT study is a large-scale intervention study, it should provide evidence as to whether integration of a non-dispensing clinical pharmacist in primary care will result in safer pharmacotherapy. The qualitative study also generates knowledge on the optimal implementation of this model in primary care. Results are expected in 2016. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4389 , The Netherlands National Trial Register, 07-01-2014.

Effects of patient safety culture interventions on incident reporting in general practice: a cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: A constructive safety culture is essential for the successful implementation of patient safety improvements. AIM: To assess the effect of two patient safety culture interventions on incident reporting as a proxy of safety culture. DESIGN AND SETTING: A three-arm cluster randomised trial was conducted in a mixed method study, studying the effect of administering a patient safety culture questionnaire (intervention I), the questionnaire complemented with a practice-based workshop (intervention II) and no intervention (control) in 30 general practices in the Netherlands. METHOD: The primary outcome, the number of reported incidents, was measured with a questionnaire at baseline and a year after. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial model. Secondary outcomes were quality and safety indicators and safety culture. Mixed effects linear regression was used to analyse the culture questionnaires. RESULTS: The number of incidents increased in both intervention groups, to 82 and 224 in intervention I and II respectively. Adjusted for baseline number of incidents, practice size and accreditation status, the study showed that practices that additionally participated in the workshop reported 42 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 9.81 to 177.50) times more incidents compared to the control group. Practices that only completed the questionnaire reported 5 (95% CI = 1.17 to 25.49) times more incidents. There were no statistically significant differences in staff perception of patient safety culture at follow-up between the three study groups. CONCLUSION: Educating staff and facilitating discussion about patient safety culture in their own practice leads to increased reporting of incidents. It is beneficial to invest in a team-wise effort to improve patient safety.

Lessons learnt from incidents reported by postgraduate trainees in Dutch general practice. A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is an inherent tension between allowing trainees in general practice (GP) to feel comfortable to report and learn from errors in a blame-free environment while still assuring high-quality and safe patient care. Unfortunately, little is known about the types and potential severity of incidents that may confront GP trainees. Furthermore, incident reporting by resident trainees is hindered by their concern that such transparency might result in more negative performance evaluations. OBJECTIVE: To explore the number and nature of incidents that were reported by GP trainees and to determine whether there were differences between the reporters and non-reporters based on their performance evaluations. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: Confidential and voluntary incident reporting was implemented in GP vocational training of the University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. Seventy-nine GP trainees were asked to report incidents over 6 months. Mixed methods were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: 24 trainees reported a total of 44 incidents. 23 incidents concerned the work process and 17 concerned problems with diagnosis or therapy. Three-quarters (34/44) of incidents were determined to be not specifically related to the inexperience of the GP trainees. While actual patient harm was determined to be minimal or absent in two-thirds of incidents (29/44), the potential for moderate, major, or catastrophic harm was 89% (39/44). Trainees performing best on their performance assessment in the domain of clinical expertise reported incidents more often (43% vs 18%, p<0.03) than those who performed at a lower level. CONCLUSIONS: GP trainees rated highly by their faculty voluntarily reported incidents in the delivery of clinical care when given a safe, blame-free, and confidential reporting process. Most incidents were not found to be directly related to the inexperience of the trainee, but were caused by failing organisational processes in the healthcare delivery system. Moreover, the trainees who tended to report these incidents were those whose performance was highly evaluated in the domain of clinical expertise.

Central or local incident reporting? A comparative study in Dutch GP out-of-hours services.

BACKGROUND: Centralised incident reporting in a Dutch collaboration of nine out-of-hours services yielded very few incident reports. To improve incident reporting and the awareness of primary caregivers about patient safety issues, a local incident-reporting procedure was implemented. AIM: To compare the number and nature of incident reports collected in a local incident-reporting procedure (intervention) versus the currently used centralised incident-reporting procedure. DESIGN OF STUDY: Quasi experiment. SETTING: Three GPs' out-of-hours services (OHSs) in the centre of the Netherlands participated over 2 years before and 2 years after the intervention. METHOD: A local incident-reporting procedure was implemented in OHS1, in which participants were encouraged to report all occurring incidents. A local committee with peers analysed the reported incidents fortnightly in order to initiate improvements if necessary. In OHS2 and OHS3, the current centralised incident-reporting procedure was continued, where incidents were reported to an advisory committee of the board of directors of the OHSs collaboration and were assessed every 2 months. The main outcome measures were the number and nature of incidents reported. RESULTS: At baseline, participants reported fewer than 10 incidents per year each. In the follow-up period, the number of incidents reported in OHS1 increased 16-fold compared with the controls. The type of incidents reported did not alter. In the local incident-reporting procedure, improvements were implemented in a shorter time frame, but reports in the centralised incident-reporting procedure led to a more systematic addressing of general and recurring safety problems. CONCLUSION: It is likely that a local incident-reporting procedure increases the willingness to report and facilitates faster implementation of improvements. In contrast, the central procedure, by collating reports from many settings, seems better at addressing generic and recurring safety issues. The advantages of both approaches should be combined.