Exploring the Role of Guidelines in Contributing to Medication Errors: A Descriptive Analysis of National Patient Safety Incident Data.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical guidelines can contribute to medication errors but there is no overall understanding of how and where these occur. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify guideline-related medication errors reported via a national incident reporting system, and describe types of error, stages of medication use, guidelines, drugs, specialties and clinical locations most commonly associated with such errors. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of reports to the National Reporting and Learning System for England and Wales. A hierarchical task analysis (HTA) was developed, describing expected practice when using guidelines. A free-text search was conducted of medication incident reports (2016-2021) using search terms related to common guidelines. All identified reports linked to moderate-severe harm or death, and a random sample of 5100 no/low-harm reports were coded to describe deviations from the HTA. A random sample of 500 cases were independently double-coded. RESULTS: In total, 28,217 reports were identified, with 608 relating to moderate-severe harm or death. Fleiss' kappa for interrater reliability was 0.46. Of the 5708 reports coded, 642 described an HTA step discrepancy (including four linked to a death), suggesting over 3200 discrepancies in the entire dataset of 28,217 reports. Discrepancies related to finding guidelines (n = 300 reports), finding information within guidelines (n = 166) and using information (n = 176). Discrepancies were most frequently identified for guidelines produced by a local organisation (n = 405), and most occurred during prescribing (n = 277) or medication administration (n = 241). CONCLUSION: Difficulties finding and using information from clinical guidelines contribute to thousands of prescribing and medication administration incidents, some of which are associated with substantial patient harm.

Retrospective descriptive assessment of clinical decision support medication-related alerts in two Saudi Arabian hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency of clinical decision support system (CDSS) medication-related alerts generated, accepted, or overridden, to assess appropriateness of alert display and overrides, and to characterise the documentation of clinician justification for these overrides in an academic medical centre in Saudi Arabia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: System-generated CDSS reports for the period June 2015 to December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed and analysed. Alerts were classified into different types, and rates of alert overrides calculated as percentages of all generated alerts. A subset of 307 overridden alerts was assessed for appropriateness of display and override by two clinical pharmacists. Physician documentation of reasons for overriding alerts were categorised. RESULTS: A total of 4,446,730 medication-related alerts were generated from both inpatient and outpatient settings, and 4,231,743 (95.2%) were overridden. The most common alert type was 'duplicate drug', accounting for 3,549,736 (79.8%) of alerts. Of 307 alerts assessed for appropriateness, 246 (80%) were judged to be appropriately displayed and 244 (79%) were overridden appropriately. New drug allergy and drug allergy alerts had the highest percentage of being judged as inappropriately overridden. For 1,594,313 alerts (37.7%), 'no overridden reason selected' was chosen from the drop-down menu. CONCLUSIONS: The alert generation and override rate were higher than reported previously in the literature. The small sample size of 307 alerts assessed for appropriateness of alert display and override is a potential limitation. Revision of the CDSS rules for alerts (focusing on specificity and relevance for the local context) is now recommended. Future research should prospectively assess providers' perspectives, and determine patient harm associated with overridden alerts.

Patient satisfaction with medication consultations and medicines information provided by nurses working autonomously in sexual health services: A questionnaire study.

AIM: To compare the satisfaction of patients managed by independent nurse prescribers with that of patients managed by nurses using PGDs with respect to experience of the consultation and information received about the medication. DESIGN: Survey. METHODS: Patients receiving medications from nurses in five urban sexual health services in the United Kingdom completed validated questionnaires immediately after the consultation, September 2015-August 2016. Scores of independent nurse prescribers and nurses using patient group directions were compared about consultation experience (5 items) Satisfaction with Information about Medicines (SIMS 16 items scale). RESULTS: Of 808 patients receiving medications, 393 (48.6%) received questionnaires and 380 were returned (independent nurse prescribers 180 of 198, 90.9%; patient group directions 173 of 195, 88.7%). Patients in both groups reported high levels of satisfaction. About the consultation experience, patients found nurses friendly/ approachable (>99%), instilling confidence and trust (>99%) and explaining reasons for medications clearly (97%). Satisfaction with medication information: Of 348 (92%) respondents completing SIMS, the overall mean score was 13.4 of maximum 16 (no difference between groups, t-test, p = .63). CONCLUSIONS: Patients were highly satisfied with nurse consultations and information around medications regardless of whether they were managed by independent nurse prescribers or nurses using patient group directions. IMPACT: Findings provide evidence in support of autonomous provision of medications by nurses in sexual health clinics.

Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of User-Testing of Health Professionals' Guidelines to Reduce the Frequency of Intravenous Medicines Administration Errors by Nurses in the United Kingdom: A Probabilistic Model Based on Voriconazole Administration.

AIM: In the UK, injectable medicines are often prepared and administered by nurses following the Injectable Medicines Guide (IMG). Our earlier study confirmed a higher frequency of correct administration with user-tested versus standard IMG guidelines. This current study aimed to model the cost-effectiveness of user-testing. METHODS: The costs and cost-effectiveness of user-testing were explored by modifying an existing probabilistic decision-analytic model. The adapted model considered administration of intravenous voriconazole to hospital inpatients by nurses. It included 11 error types, their probability of detection and level of harm. Model inputs (including costs) were derived from our previous study and other published data. Monte Carlo simulation using 20,000 samples (sufficient for convergence) was performed with a 5-year time horizon from the perspective of the 121 NHS trusts and health boards that use the IMG. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken for the risk of a medication error and other sources of uncertainty. RESULTS: The net monetary benefit at £20,000/quality-adjusted life year was £3,190,064 (95% credible interval (CrI): -346,709 to 8,480,665), favouring user-testing with a 96% chance of cost-effectiveness. Incremental cost-savings were £240,943 (95% CrI 43,527-491,576), also favouring user-tested guidelines with a 99% chance of cost-saving. The total user testing cost was £6317 (95% CrI 6012-6627). These findings were robust to assumptions about a range of input parameters, but greater uncertainty was seen with a lower medication error risk. CONCLUSIONS: User-testing of injectable medicines guidelines is a low-cost intervention that is highly likely to be cost-effective, especially for high-risk medicines.

Benefits realization management in the context of a national digital transformation initiative in English provider organizations.

BACKGROUND: The Global Digital Exemplar (GDE) Programme is a national initiative to promote digitally enabled transformation in English provider organizations. The Programme applied benefits realization management techniques to promote and demonstrate transformative outcomes. This work was part of an independent national evaluation of the GDE Programme. AIMS: We explored how benefits realization management was approached and conceptualized in the GDE Programme. METHODS: We conducted a series of 36 longitudinal case studies of provider organizations participating in the GDE Programme, 12 of which were in depth. Data collection included a combination of 628 interviews (with implementation staff in provider organizations, national programme management staff, and suppliers), 499 documents (of national and local implementation plans and lessons learned), and 190 nonparticipant observations (of national and local programme management meetings to develop insights into the broader context of benefits realization activities, tensions arising, and how these were negotiated). Data were coded drawing on a sociotechnical framework developed in related work and thematically analyzed, initially within and then across cases, with the help of NVivo 11 software. RESULTS: Most stakeholders broadly agreed with the rationale of benefits realization in the GDE Programme to show due diligence that public money was appropriately spent, and to develop an evidence base supporting the value of digitally enabled transformation. Differing national and local reporting purposes, however, created tensions. Central requirements, for progress reporting and tracking high-level benefits, had limited perceived local value and were seen to impose an unnecessary burden on provider organizations. This was accentuated by the lack of harmonization of reporting requirements to different stakeholders (which differed in content and timing). There were tensions between the desire for early evidence of outcomes and the slow processes of infrastructural change (which created problems of attribution of benefits to causes as benefits emerged gradually and over long timeframes), and also between reporting immediately visible local changes and showing how these flowed through to high level organization wide benefits (eg, in terms of health outcomes or cost savings/return on investment). The attempt to fulfill these diverging agendas and informational needs within a single reporting tool had limited success. These difficulties were mitigated by efforts to simplify reporting requirements and to support targeted collection of key national outcome measures. Although progress was hampered by an initial lack of benefits realization expertise in provider organizations, some providers subsequently retained these skills for their own change management purposes. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to recognize the limitations and cost of benefits realization management practices in the context of healthcare digitalization where benefits may materialize over long timeframes and in unanticipated ways. Although diverse stakeholder information needs may create tensions, prior agreement about rationales for collecting information and a targeted approach to tracking local and high-level benefits may enhance local relevance, reduce perceived reporting burdens, and improve acceptance/effectiveness. A single integrated reporting mechanism is unlikely to fulfill both national and local requirements.

Factors Related to Medication Administration Incidents in England and Wales Between 2007 and 2016: A Retrospective Trend Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of the study were to describe medication administration incidents reported in England and Wales between 2007 and 2016, to identify which factors (reporting year, type of incident, patients' age) are most strongly related to reported severity of medication administration incidents, and to assess the extent to which relevant information was underreported or indeterminate. METHODS: Medication administration incidents reported to the National Reporting & Learning System between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2016 were obtained. Characteristics of the data were described using frequencies, and relationships between variables were explored using cross-tabulation. RESULTS: A total of 517,384 incident reports were analyzed. Of these, 97.1% (n = 502,379) occurred in acute/general hospitals, mostly on wards (69.1%, n = 357,463), with medicine the most common specialty area (44.5%, n = 230,205). Medication errors were most commonly omitted doses (25.8%, n = 133,397). The majority did not cause patient harm (83.5%, n = 432,097). When only incidents causing severe harm or death (n = 1,116) were analyzed, the most common type of error was omitted doses (24.1%). Most incidents causing severe harm or death occurred in patients aged 56 years or older. For the 10-year period, the percentage of incidents with "no harm" increased (74.1% in 2007 to 86.3% in 2016). For some variables, data were often missing or indeterminate, which has implications for data analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Medication administration incidents that do not cause harm are increasingly reported, whereas incidents reported as severe harm and death have declined. Data quality needs to be improved. Underreporting and indeterminate data, inaccuracies in reporting, and coding jeopardize the overall usefulness of these data.

Factors contributing to reported medication administration incidents in patients' homes - A text mining analysis.

AIMS: To describe the characteristics of medication administration (MA) incidents reported to have occurred in patients' own homes (reporters' profession, incident types, contributing factors, patient consequence, and most common medications involved) and to identify the connection terms related to the most common contributing factors based on free text descriptions. DESIGN: A retrospective study using descriptive statistical analysis and text mining. METHODS: Medication administration incidents (N = 19,725) reported to have occurred in patients' homes between 2013-2018 in one district in Finland were analysed, describing the data by the reporters' occupation, incident type, contributing factors, and patient consequence. SAS® Text Miner was used to analyse free text descriptions of the MA incidents to understand contributing factors, using concept linking. RESULTS: Most MA incidents were reported by practical (lower level) nurses (77.8%, N = 15,349). The most common category of harm was 'mild harm' (40.1%, N = 7,915) and the most common error type was omissions of drug doses (47.4%, N = 9,343). The medications most commonly described were Marevan [warfarin] (N = 2,668), insulin (N = 811), Furesis [furosemide] (N = 590), antibiotic (N = 446), and Panadol [paracetamol] (N = 416). The contributing factors most commonly reported were 'communication and flow of information' (25.5%, N = 5,038), 'patient and relatives' (22.6%, N = 4,451), 'practices' (9.9%, N = 1,959), 'education and training' (4.8%, N = 949), and 'work environment and resources' (3.0%, N = 598). CONCLUSION: There is need for effective communication and clear responsibilities between home care patients and their relatives and health providers, about MA and its challenges in home environments. Knowledge and skills relating to safe MA are also essential. IMPACT: These findings about MA incidents that have occurred in patients' homes and have been reported by home care professionals demonstrate the need for medication safety improvement in home care.

A comparison between independent nurse prescribing and patient group directions in the safety and appropriateness of medication provision in United Kingdom sexual health services: A mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: United Kingdom legislation allows nurses to autonomously provide medications as independent nurse prescribers or using patient group directions. Evidence of medication safety and appropriateness is limited. We compared nurse prescribers and patient group direction users in terms of prevalence, types and severity of medication provision errors. METHODS: Objectives: Compare safety and appropriateness of medication provision between nurse prescribers and patient group direction users. DESIGN: MIXED METHODS: clinical notes review and nurse-patient consultation observations. SETTING: Five United Kingdom sexual health services. SELECTION CRITERIA: 'Clinical notes review' included a random selection of nurse-patient consultations July-December 2015, 743 consultations managed by nurse prescribers and 939 consultations by patient group direction users. 'Observation study' involved 15 nurse prescriber and 15 patient group direction user nurse-patient medication consultations. Patients aged under 16 or non-English speaking were excluded. MEASUREMENTS: Medication safety/appropriateness was compared between nurse prescribers and patient group direction users. Medication provision errors were categorised and assigned severity ratings. The Medication Appropriateness Index and the Prescribing Framework were used to assess medication provision. RESULTS: Of 1682 clinical notes (nurse prescribers=743, 44%; patient group directions=939, 56%), 879 involved the provision of 1357 medications (nurse prescribers=399, 54%; patient group directions=480, 51%). The overall error rate was 8.5% (1844 errors from a potential 21,738 errors), predominantly related to documentation omissions. Nurse prescribers were more likely to make an error compared to patient group directions users (error rates 9% versus 8%, respectively; p=0.001); most were 'minor' (nurse prescribers=489, 56%; patient group directions=602, 62%). Both nurse prescribers and patient group direction users made safe medication decisions (n=1640 of 1682 patient care episodes, 98%); however, patient group directions users worked outside patient group directions restrictions in 39 (8%) of consultations. In 101 consultations, medication was indicated but not documented as offered/provided. From 30 observed consultations assessed against the Prescribing Framework, nurse prescribers' and patient group directions users' clinical practice were comparable (maximum score 46: nurse prescribers=44.7; patient group direction=45.4, p=0.41). CONCLUSION: Sexual health nurse prescribers and patient group direction users provided safe and therapeutically appropriate medication. Improvements in clinical documentation are recommended. Moreover, patient group directions users should be encouraged to adhere to patient group directions' governance restrictions, such as through regular training, audits and staff updates.

Identifying risks areas related to medication administrations - text mining analysis using free-text descriptions of incident reports.

BACKGROUND: Some medications carry increased risk of patient harm when they are given in error. In incident reports, names of the medications that are involved in errors could be found written both in a specific medication field and/or within the free text description of the incident. Analysing only the names of the medications implicated in a specific unstructured medication field does not give information of the associated factors and risk areas, but when analysing unstructured free text descriptions, the information about the medication involved and associated risk factors may be buried within other non-relevant text. Thus, the aim of this study was to extract medication names most commonly used in free text descriptions of medication administration incident reports to identify terms most frequently associated with risk for each of these medications using text mining. METHOD: Free text descriptions of medication administration incidents (n = 72,390) reported in 2016 to the National Reporting and Learning System for England and Wales were analysed using SAS® Text miner. Analysis included text parsing and filtering free text to identify most commonly mentioned medications, followed by concept linking, and clustering to identify terms associated with commonly mentioned medications and the associated risk areas. RESULTS: The following risk areas related to medications were identified: 1. Allergic reactions to antibacterial drugs, 2. Intravenous administration of antibacterial drugs, 3. Fentanyl patches, 4. Checking and documenting of analgesic doses, 5. Checking doses of anticoagulants, 6. Insulin doses and blood glucose, 7. Administration of intravenous infusions. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to increase medication administration safety should focus on checking patient allergies and medication doses, especially for intravenous and transdermal medications. High-risk medications include insulin, analgesics, antibacterial drugs, anticoagulants, and potassium chloride. Text mining may be useful for analysing large free text datasets and should be developed further.

Development and performance evaluation of the Medicines Optimisation Assessment Tool (MOAT): a prognostic model to target hospital pharmacists' input to prevent medication-related problems.

BACKGROUND: Medicines optimisation is a key role for hospital pharmacists, but with ever-increasing demands on services, there is a need to increase efficiency while maintaining patient safety. OBJECTIVE: To develop a prediction tool, the Medicines Optimisation Assessment Tool (MOAT), to target patients most in need of pharmacists' input in hospital. METHODS: Patients from adult medical wards at two UK hospitals were prospectively included into this cohort study. Data on medication-related problems (MRPs) were collected by pharmacists at the study sites as part of their routine daily clinical assessments. Data on potential risk factors, such as number of comorbidities and use of 'high-risk' medicines, were collected retrospectively. Multivariable logistic regression modelling was used to determine the relationship between risk factors and the study outcome: preventable MRPs that were at least moderate in severity. The model was internally validated and a simplified electronic scoring system developed. RESULTS: Among 1503 eligible admissions, 610 (40.6%) experienced the study outcome. Eighteen risk factors were preselected for MOAT development, with 11 variables retained in the final model. The MOAT demonstrated fair predictive performance (concordance index 0.66) and good calibration. Two clinically relevant decision thresholds (ie, the minimum predicted risk probabilities to justify pharmacists' input) were selected, with sensitivities of 90% and 66% (specificity 30% and 61%); these equate to positive predictive values of 47% and 54%, respectively. Decision curve analysis suggests that the MOAT has potential value in clinical practice in guiding decision-making. CONCLUSION: The MOAT has potential to predict those patients most at risk of moderate or severe preventable MRPs, experienced by 41% of admissions. External validation is now required to establish predictive accuracy in a new group of patients.

A prospective risk assessment of informal carers' medication administration errors within the domiciliary setting.

Increasingly, medication is being administered at home by family and friends of the care-recipient. This study aims to identify and analyse risks associated with potential drug administration errors made by informal carers at home. We mapped medication administration at home with a multidisciplinary team that included carers, health care professionals and patients. Evidence-based risk-analysis methodologies were applied: Healthcare Failure Modes and Effect Analysis (HFMEA), Systematic Human Error Reduction and Prediction Analysis (SHERPA) and Systems-Theoretic Accident Model and Processes (STAMP). The process of administration comprises seven sub-processes. Thirty-four possible failure modes were identified and six of these were rated as high risk. These highlighted that medications may be given with a wrong dose, stored incorrectly, not discontinued as instructed, not recorded, or not ordered on time, and often caused by communication and support problems. Combined risk analyses contributed unique information helpful to better understand the medication administration risks and causes within homecare. Practitioner Summary: Increasingly, medication is being administered at home by family and friends of the care-recipient. This study identifies risks associated with potential drug administration errors made by informal carers at home through consensus-based quantitative techniques. The different analyses contribute unique information helpful to better understand the administration risks and causes.

Medicines Optimisation Assessment Tool (MOAT): a prognostic model to target hospital pharmacists' input to improve patient outcomes. Protocol for an observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Medicines optimisation is a key role for hospital pharmacists, but with ever-increasing demands on services there is a need to increase efficiency while maintaining patient safety. The aim of this study is to develop a prognostic model, the Medicines Optimisation Assessment Tool (MOAT), which can be used to target patients most in need of pharmacists' input while in hospital. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The MOAT will be developed following recommendations of the Prognosis Research Strategy partnership. Using a cohort study we will prospectively include 1500 adult patients from the medical wards of two UK hospitals. Data on medication-related problems (MRPs) experienced by study patients will be collected by pharmacists at the study sites as part of their routine daily clinical assessment of patients. Data on potential risk factors such as polypharmacy, renal impairment and the use of 'high risk' medicines will be collected retrospectively from the information departments at the study sites, laboratory reporting systems and patient medical records. Multivariable logistic regression models will then be used to determine the relationship between potential risk factors and the study outcome of preventable MRPs that are at least moderate in severity. Bootstrapping will be used to adjust the MOAT for optimism, and predictive performance will be assessed using calibration and discrimination. A simplified scoring system will also be developed, which will be assessed for sensitivity and specificity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Proportionate Review Service Sub-Committee of the National Health Service Research Ethics Committee Wales REC 7 (16/WA/0016) and the Health Research Authority (project ID 197298). We plan to disseminate the results via presentations at relevant patient/public, professional, academic and scientific meetings and conferences, and will submit findings for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02582463.

eHealth in the future of medications management: personalisation, monitoring and adherence.

BACKGROUND: Globally, healthcare systems face major challenges with medicines management and medication adherence. Medication adherence determines medication effectiveness and can be the single most effective intervention for improving health outcomes. In anticipation of growth in eHealth interventions worldwide, we explore the role of eHealth in the patients' medicines management journey in primary care, focusing on personalisation and intelligent monitoring for greater adherence. DISCUSSION: eHealth offers opportunities to transform every step of the patient's medicines management journey. From booking appointments, consultation with a healthcare professional, decision-making, medication dispensing, carer support, information acquisition and monitoring, to learning about medicines and their management in daily life. It has the potential to support personalisation and monitoring and thus lead to better adherence. For some of these dimensions, such as supporting decision-making and providing reminders and prompts, evidence is stronger, but for many others more rigorous research is urgently needed. CONCLUSIONS: Given the potential benefits and barriers to eHealth in medicines management, a fine balance needs to be established between evidence-based integration of technologies and constructive experimentation that could lead to a game-changing breakthrough. A concerted, transdisciplinary approach adapted to different contexts, including low- and middle-income contries is required to realise the benefits of eHealth at scale.

Improving feedback on junior doctors' prescribing errors: mixed-methods evaluation of a quality improvement project.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing errors occur in up to 15% of UK inpatient medication orders. However, junior doctors report insufficient feedback on errors. A barrier preventing feedback is that individual prescribers often cannot be clearly identified on prescribing documentation. AIM: To reduce prescribing errors in a UK hospital by improving feedback on prescribing errors. INTERVENTIONS: We developed three linked interventions using plan-do-study-act cycles: (1) name stamps for junior doctors who were encouraged to stamp or write their name clearly when prescribing; (2) principles of effective feedback to support pharmacists to provide feedback to doctors on individual prescribing errors and (3) fortnightly prescribing advice emails that addressed a common and/or serious error. IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION: Interventions were introduced at one hospital site in August 2013 with a second acting as control. Process measures included the percentage of inpatient medication orders for which junior doctors stated their name. Outcome measures were junior doctors' and pharmacists' perceptions of current feedback provision (evaluated using quantitative pre-questionnaires and post-questionnaires and qualitative focus groups) and the prevalence of erroneous medication orders written by junior doctors between August and December 2013. RESULTS: The percentage of medication orders for which junior doctors stated their name increased from about 10% to 50%. Questionnaire responses revealed a significant improvement in pharmacists' perceptions but no significant change for doctors. Focus group findings suggested increased doctor engagement with safe prescribing. Interrupted time series analysis showed no difference in weekly prescribing error rates between baseline and intervention periods, compared with the control site. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest improved experiences around feedback. However, attempts to produce a measurable reduction in prescribing errors are likely to need a multifaceted approach of which feedback should form part.

Identification of priorities for improvement of medication safety in primary care: a PRIORITIZE study.

BACKGROUND: Medication error is a frequent, harmful and costly patient safety incident. Research to date has mostly focused on medication errors in hospitals. In this study, we aimed to identify the main causes of, and solutions to, medication error in primary care. METHODS: We used a novel priority-setting method for identifying and ranking patient safety problems and solutions called PRIORITIZE. We invited 500 North West London primary care clinicians to complete an open-ended questionnaire to identify three main problems and solutions relating to medication error in primary care. 113 clinicians submitted responses, which we thematically synthesized into a composite list of 48 distinct problems and 45 solutions. A group of 57 clinicians randomly selected from the initial cohort scored these and an overall ranking was derived. The agreement between the clinicians' scores was presented using the average expert agreement (AEA). The study was conducted between September 2013 and November 2014. RESULTS: The top three problems were incomplete reconciliation of medication during patient 'hand-overs', inadequate patient education about their medication use and poor discharge summaries. The highest ranked solutions included development of a standardized discharge summary template, reduction of unnecessary prescribing, and minimisation of polypharmacy. Overall, better communication between the healthcare provider and patient, quality assurance approaches during medication prescribing and monitoring, and patient education on how to use their medication were considered the top priorities. The highest ranked suggestions received the strongest agreement among the clinicians, i.e. the highest AEA score. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians identified a range of suggestions for better medication management, quality assurance procedures and patient education. According to clinicians, medication errors can be largely prevented with feasible and affordable interventions. PRIORITIZE is a new, convenient, systematic, and replicable method, and merits further exploration with a view to becoming a part of a routine preventative patient safety monitoring mechanism.

Economic impact of electronic prescribing in the hospital setting: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To examine evidence on the economic impact of electronic prescribing (EP) systems in the hospital setting. METHOD: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, the European Network of Health Economic Evaluation Database and Web of Science from inception to October 2013. Full and partial economic evaluations of EP or computerized provider order entry were included. We excluded studies assessing prescribing packages for specific drugs, and monetary outcomes that were not related to medicines. A checklist was used to evaluate risk of bias and evidence quality. RESULTS: The search yielded 1160 articles of which three met the inclusion criteria. Two were full economic evaluations and one a partial economic evaluation. A meta-analysis was not appropriate as studies were heterogeneous in design, economic evaluation method, interventions and outcome measures. Two studies investigated the financial impact of reducing preventable adverse drug events. The third measured savings related to various aspects of the system including those related to medication. Two studies reported positive financial effects. However the overall quality of the economic evidence was low and key details often not reported. DISCUSSION: There seems to be some evidence of financial benefits of EP in the hospital setting. However, it is not clear if evidence is transferable to other settings. Research is scarce and limited in quality, and reported methods are not always transparent. Further robust, high quality research is required to establish if hospital EP is cost effective and thus inform policy makers' decisions.

The effect of the electronic transmission of prescriptions on dispensing errors and prescription enhancements made in English community pharmacies: a naturalistic stepped wedge study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare prevalence and types of dispensing errors and pharmacists' labelling enhancements, for prescriptions transmitted electronically versus paper prescriptions. DESIGN: Naturalistic stepped wedge study. SETTING: 15 English community pharmacies. INTERVENTION: Electronic transmission of prescriptions between prescriber and pharmacy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of labelling errors, content errors and labelling enhancements (beneficial additions to the instructions), as identified by researchers visiting each pharmacy. RESULTS: Overall, we identified labelling errors in 5.4% of 16,357 dispensed items, and content errors in 1.4%; enhancements were made for 13.6%. Pharmacists also edited the label for a further 21.9% of electronically transmitted items. Electronically transmitted prescriptions had a higher prevalence of labelling errors (7.4% of 3733 items) than other prescriptions (4.8% of 12,624); OR 1.46 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.76). There was no difference for content errors or enhancements. The increase in labelling errors was mainly accounted for by errors (mainly at one pharmacy) involving omission of the indication, where specified by the prescriber, from the label. A sensitivity analysis in which these cases (n=158) were not considered errors revealed no remaining difference between prescription types. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a higher prevalence of labelling errors for items transmitted electronically, but this was predominantly accounted for by local practice in a single pharmacy, independent of prescription type. Community pharmacists made labelling enhancements to about one in seven dispensed items, whether electronically transmitted or not. Community pharmacists, prescribers, professional bodies and software providers should work together to agree how items should be dispensed and labelled to best reap the benefits of electronically transmitted prescriptions. Community pharmacists need to ensure their computer systems are promptly updated to help reduce errors.