Readiness to prescribe: Using educational design to untie the Gordian Knot.

INTRODUCTION: Junior residents routinely prescribe medications for hospitalised patients with only arms-length supervision, which compromises patient safety. A cardinal example is insulin prescribing, which is commonplace, routinely delegated to very junior doctors, difficult, potentially very dangerous, and getting no better. Our aim was to operationalise the concept of 'readiness to prescribe' by validating an instrument to quality-improve residents' workplace prescribing education. METHODS: Guided by theories of behaviour change, implementation, and error, and by empirical evidence, we developed and refined a mixed-methods 24-item evaluation instrument, and analysed numerical responses from Foundation Trainees (junior residents) in Northern Ireland, UK using principal axis factoring, and conducted a framework analysis of participants' free-text responses. RESULTS: 255 trainees participated, 54% women and 46% men, 80% of whom were in the second foundation year. The analysis converged on a 4-factor solution explaining 57% of the variance. Participants rated their capability to prescribe higher (79%) than their capability to learn to prescribe (69%; p<0.001) and rated the support to their prescribing education lower still (43%; p<0.001). The findings were similar in men and women, first and second year trainees, and in different hospitals. Free text responses described an unreflective type of learning from experience in which participants tended to 'get by' when faced with complex problems. DISCUSSION: Operationalising readiness to prescribe as a duality, comprising residents' capability and the fitness of their educational environments, demonstrated room for improvement in both. We offer the instrument to help clinical educators improve the two in tandem.

An exploration of the perceptions of non-medical prescribers, regarding their self-efficacy when prescribing, and their willingness to take responsibility for prescribing decisions.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, non-medical prescribers (NMPs) are a significant part of the healthcare workforce. Little is known about their self-efficacy when prescribing, and their willingness to take responsibility for prescribing decisions. OBJECTIVE: To explore the perceptions of NMPs regarding their self-efficacy in prescribing and responsibility for prescribing decisions. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of a purposive sample of NMPs on acute medical units (AMUs) across the UK. Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory informed the self-efficacy aspect of the questionnaire. Participants' views were also sought on responsibility for prescribing decisions. For quantitative data descriptive statistics were calculated. Hierarchical multiple linear regressions determined whether five independent variables improved the prediction of self-efficacy in aspects of prescribing: NMP's profession; length of time qualified as a healthcare professional and as an NMP; the number of items prescribed and hours worked per week on an AMU. Framework analysis was used to analyse the qualitative data. RESULTS: Ninety-nine valid responses were obtained. Self-efficacy overall was high. The longer the participant had been qualified as an NMP was associated with increased self-efficacy in certain aspects of prescribing. All physiotherapists, and more nurses than pharmacists were responsible for prescribing decisions. Where participants were not fully responsible, the responsibility was partial or shared. CONCLUSIONS: Self-efficacy of NMPs when prescribing is influenced by several factors. The variables within this study appear to account for only a small part of this self-efficacy. Self-efficacy in prescribing appears to contribute to NMPs' willingness to take responsibility for prescribing decisions; further influenced by their job role and the prescribing this entails. Stakeholders need to appreciate the full range of factors that influence the self-efficacy of NMPs when prescribing, and the association of this to take responsibility for prescribing decisions. This knowledge will assist in maximising the benefits of non-medical prescribing within the healthcare system.

Practice makes perfect: A systematic review of the expertise development of pharmacist and nurse independent prescribers in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing is a complex and error-prone task that demands expertise. McLellan et al.'s theory of expertise development model ("the model"), developed to assess medical literature on prescribing by medical students, proposes that in order to develop, individuals should deliberately engage their knowledge, skills and attitudes within a social context. Its applicability to independent prescribers (IP) is unknown. AIM: A systematic review was conducted to explore whether the model is applicable to non-medical independent prescribing and to assess the factors underpinning expertise development reported in the literature. METHOD: Six electronic databases (EMBASE, Medline, AMED, CINAHL, IPA and PsychInfo) were searched for articles published between 2006 and 2016, reporting empirical data on pharmacist and nurse IPs education or practice. Data were extracted using themes from the model and analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. Knowledge, pre-registration education, experience, support and confidence were some of the intrinsic and extrinsic factors influencing IPs. Difficulty in transferring theory to practice was attributed to lack of basic pharmacology and bioscience content in pre-registration nursing rather than the prescribing programme. Students saw interventions using virtual learning or learning in practice as more useful with long-term benefits e.g. students were able to use their skills in history taking following the virtual learning intervention 6-months after the programme. All studies demonstrated how engaging knowledge and skills affected individuals' attitude by, for example, increasing professional dignity. IPs were able to develop their expertise when integrating their competencies in a workplace context with support from colleagues and adherence to guidelines. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to synthesize data systematically on expertise development from studies on IPs using the model. The model showed the need for stronger foundations in scientific knowledge amongst some IPs, where continuous workplace practice can improve skills and strengthen attitudes. This could facilitate a smoother transfer of learnt theory to practice, in order for IPs to be experts within their fields and not merely adequately competent.

Rasch analysis of the Antimicrobial Self-Assessment Toolkit for National Health Service (NHS) Trusts (ASAT v17).

OBJECTIVES: The Antimicrobial Self-Assessment Toolkit for National Health Service (NHS) Trusts (ASAT) was developed to evaluate hospital-based antimicrobial stewardship programmes. Iterative validity investigations of the ASAT were used to produce a 91-item ASAT v17 utilizing qualitative methodology. Rasch analysis was used to generate question (item) behaviour estimates and to investigate the validity of ASAT v17. METHODS: In 2012, the partial credit model (PCM) was used to analyse ASAT responses from 33 NHS Trusts within England. WINSTEPS® outputs such as fit statistics and respondent/item maps were examined to determine unidimensionality, item discrimination and item hierarchy. Ordinary least squares regression modelling was used to determine the predictive validity using NHS Trust ability estimates generated from the PCM and corresponding Clostridium difficile rates. RESULTS: Each domain contained items that were misfitting the PCM (with INFIT MNSQ <0.7 or >1.3), except Domain 3. Subsequent iterative item removal had a negligible effect on the fit indices within most ASAT domains. Scale analysis demonstrated that most items were productive for measurement (n = 81). Respondent/item maps showed ceiling effects (n = 3) and floor effects (n = 1) within ASAT domains. Ordinary least squares regression modelling identified that there was limited predictive validity due to the small positive correlation between the predictor and outcome variables for participating hospitals (ρ = 0.146; P = 0.418). CONCLUSIONS: Rasch analysis was an effective measurement technique for evaluating the validity of ASAT v17 by providing evidence that each sub-scale and the overall scale demonstrated unidimensionality (construct validity). Improved item targeting may be required to improve item discrimination within the toolkit.

Prevalence and appropriateness of psychotropic medication prescribing in a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of male and female prisoners in England.

BACKGROUND: Mental illness is highly prevalent among prisoners. Although psychotropic medicines can ameliorate symptoms of mental illness, prescribers in prisons must balance clinical needs against risks to safety and security. Concerns have been raised at the large number of prisoners reportedly receiving psychotropic medicines in England. Nonetheless, unlike for the wider community, robust prescribing data are not routinely available for prisons. We investigated gender-specific patterns in the prevalence and appropriateness of psychotropic prescribing in English prisons. METHODS: We studied 6052 men and 785 women in 11 prisons throughout England. This represented 7.9 % of male and 20.5 % of female prisoners nationally. Using a cross-sectional design, demographic and prescription data were collected from clinical records of all prisoners prescribed psychotropic medicines, including hypnotic, anxiolytic, antipsychotic, anti-manic, antidepressant and Central Nervous System stimulant medications. Percentages and 95 % CIs were used to estimate the prevalence of prescribing. The Prescribing Appropriate Indicators tool was used to determine appropriateness. Prevalence Ratios (PR) were generated to make age-adjusted comparisons between prisoners and the general population using a dataset supplied by the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. RESULTS: Overall, 47.9 % (CI 44.4-51.4) of women and 16.9 % (CI 16.0-17.9) of men in prison were prescribed one or more psychotropic medicines. Compared with the general population, age-adjusted prescribing prevalence was six times higher among women (PR 5.95 CI 5.36-6.61) and four times higher among men (PR 4.02 CI 3.75-4.30). Undocumented or unapproved indications for prescriptions, not listed in the British National Formulary, were recorded in a third (34.7 %, CI 32.5-37.0) of cases, most commonly low mood and personality disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Psychotropic medicines were prescribed frequently in prisons, especially among women, and for a wider range of indications than are currently recommended. These findings raise questions about whether the prescribing of psychotropic medicines in prisons is wholly appropriate and proportionate to the level of clinical need. Prisons need to develop a wider array of treatment responses, other than medicines, to effectively tackle mental illness, challenging behaviours and distress.

Prevalence, Nature, Severity and Risk Factors for Prescribing Errors in Hospital Inpatients: Prospective Study in 20 UK Hospitals.

INTRODUCTION: It has been suggested that doctors in their first year of post-graduate training make a disproportionate number of prescribing errors. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the prevalence of prescribing errors made by first-year post-graduate doctors with that of errors by senior doctors and non-medical prescribers and to investigate the predictors of potentially serious prescribing errors. METHODS: Pharmacists in 20 hospitals over 7 prospectively selected days collected data on the number of medication orders checked, the grade of prescriber and details of any prescribing errors. Logistic regression models (adjusted for clustering by hospital) identified factors predicting the likelihood of prescribing erroneously and the severity of prescribing errors. RESULTS: Pharmacists reviewed 26,019 patients and 124,260 medication orders; 11,235 prescribing errors were detected in 10,986 orders. The mean error rate was 8.8 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 8.6-9.1) errors per 100 medication orders. Rates of errors for all doctors in training were significantly higher than rates for medical consultants. Doctors who were 1 year (odds ratio [OR] 2.13; 95 % CI 1.80-2.52) or 2 years in training (OR 2.23; 95 % CI 1.89-2.65) were more than twice as likely to prescribe erroneously. Prescribing errors were 70 % (OR 1.70; 95 % CI 1.61-1.80) more likely to occur at the time of hospital admission than when medication orders were issued during the hospital stay. No significant differences in severity of error were observed between grades of prescriber. Potentially serious errors were more likely to be associated with prescriptions for parenteral administration, especially for cardiovascular or endocrine disorders. CONCLUSION: The problem of prescribing errors in hospitals is substantial and not solely a problem of the most junior medical prescribers, particularly for those errors most likely to cause significant patient harm. Interventions are needed to target these high-risk errors by all grades of staff and hence improve patient safety.

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.

Prescribing errors during hospital inpatient care: factors influencing identification by pharmacists.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the prevalence of prescribing errors identified by pharmacists in hospital inpatients and the factors influencing error identification rates by pharmacists throughout hospital admission. SETTING: 880-bed university teaching hospital in North-west England. METHODS: Data about prescribing errors identified by pharmacists (median: 9 (range 4-17) collecting data per day) when conducting routine work were prospectively recorded on 38 randomly selected days over 18 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of new medication orders in which an error was identified; predictors of error identification rate, adjusted for workload and seniority of pharmacist, day of week, type of ward or stage of patient admission. RESULTS: 33,012 new medication orders were reviewed for 5,199 patients; 3,455 errors (in 10.5% of orders) were identified for 2,040 patients (39.2%; median 1, range 1-12). Most were problem orders (1,456, 42.1%) or potentially significant errors (1,748, 50.6%); 197 (5.7%) were potentially serious; 1.6% (n = 54) were potentially severe or fatal. Errors were 41% (CI: 28-56%) more likely to be identified at patient's admission than at other times, independent of confounders. Workload was the strongest predictor of error identification rates, with 40% (33-46%) less errors identified on the busiest days than at other times. Errors identified fell by 1.9% (1.5-2.3%) for every additional chart checked, independent of confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists routinely identify errors but increasing workload may reduce identification rates. Where resources are limited, they may be better spent on identifying and addressing errors immediately after admission to hospital.

The prescribing of specialist medicines: what factors influence GPs' decision making?

BACKGROUND: As Governments worldwide strive to integrate efficient health care delivery across the primary-secondary care divide, particular significance has been placed on the need to understand GPs' prescribing of specialist drugs. OBJECTIVE: To explore the factors which influence GPs' decision-making process when requested to prescribe specialist drugs. METHODS: A qualitative approach was used to explore the perspectives of a wide range of practice-, primary care trust-, strategic health authority-level staff and other relevant stakeholders in the North-West of England. All semi-structured interviews (n = 47) were analysed comprehensively using the five-stage 'framework' approach. RESULTS: Six diverse factors were identified as having a crucial bearing on how GPs evaluate initial requests and subsequently decide whether or not to prescribe. These include GPs' lack of knowledge and expertise in using specialist drugs, the shared care arrangement, the influence of a locally agreed advisory list, financial and resource considerations, patient convenience and understanding and GPs' specific areas of interest. CONCLUSION: This exploration of GPs' decision-making process is needed to support future integrated health care delivery.

The discomfort of an evidence-based prescribing decision.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Prescribing decisions are not always based on published clinical research; social and environmental influences can sometimes drive such decisions. However, little is known about this topic in prescribing in secondary care. The aim of this study was to explore such influences by asking doctors to discuss their uncomfortable prescribing decisions in secondary care. METHODS: Forty-eight doctors, of varying grades from four hospitals, were selected for in-depth qualitative interviews, which included the critical incident technique. Doctors were asked to remember any uncomfortable prescribing decisions and these 'incidents' were discussed, enabling the researcher to unpack the more subconscious influences on the decision to prescribe. Interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A grounded theory approach to data analysis was taken. RESULTS: All doctors had previously been uncomfortable when attempting to practise in accordance with evidence-based medicine. Locating, critically appraising and applying the evidence to individual patients were frequent causes of discomfort. Many doctors struggled with uncomfortable decisions that were influenced by non-research evidence, such as prior experience or expert opinion. This appeared, in part, because of these doctors' skewed notions that EBM condemns clinical experience as illegitimate evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating the research evidence into prescribing decisions was associated with much discomfort by secondary care doctors. Greater efforts should also be placed towards developing the model of EBM, so that it fits more explicitly with how medicine is currently practised. Perhaps more importantly, educators need to reinforce what EBM is and what it is not to all concerned in the delivery of health care.

Pharmacists' changing views of their supplementary prescribing authority.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the views and experiences of pharmacists in England before and after they registered as supplementary prescribers. METHOD: Eight pharmacists were recruited from training courses; seven from secondary care and one from primary care and interviewed during training and again after registration. In the first interviews, topics included previous experience, views on current roles, responsibilities and accountability for prescribing and how these might change. In the second interviews, the pharmacists discussed how these had actually changed after gaining supplementary prescribing authority, how their role worked in practice and how they saw it developing in the future. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Descriptions of anticipated and actual changes in their roles, responsibilities and accountability before and after registration as supplementary prescribers RESULTS: The pharmacists anticipated that training would legitimise their current 'informal' prescribing practices, with increased legal responsibility and accountability, but experienced many procedural delays in implementing their new role. Pharmacists who were already heavily involved with prescribing were more likely to work as prescribers, but not necessarily within the clinical management plan framework. The desire to maintain the efficiency of their existing clinical services impacted negatively on the pharmacists' ability or willingness to prescribe in this legally approved manner. CONCLUSION: Clear and realistic expectations need to be set by the pharmacists as to what is achievable and greater attention needs to be paid to minimising delays between the end of training and the beginning of practice, to minimise reduction in motivation and redeployment of staff.

Development and face validity of explicit indicators of appropriateness of long term prescribing.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a set of explicit and operationalisable indicators of appropriate prescribing and assess their face validity using clinical pharmacists practising in secondary and primary care. METHOD: Appropriateness indicators were derived from the literature, applied to data in the hospital clinical records of all newly prescribed long-term drugs for 50 randomly selected patients, further refined and then applied to another 25 randomly selected patients. A pre-piloted postal questionnaire was sent to 200 hospitals and primary care pharmacists, asking them to assess the indicators as to their importance for the assessment of appropriateness of long-term prescribing initiated in hospitals. RESULTS: Fourteen indicators were developed and piloted. Of the 16 original indicators, 5 were discarded, as they were unable to be operationalised, and 2 were subdivided to reflect the routinely available data. Eighty-six pharmacists with individual patient-focussed clinical duties took part in the assessment of the face validity (response rate 43%). Eleven indicators achieved a median importance rating of 1 (very important), and three indicators a median importance rating of 2 on a 5-point scale. The three most important indicators overall were "indication included in discharge summary", "questionable high-risk therapeutic combination" and "hazardous drug-drug combination". CONCLUSION: It was possible to develop and operationalise 14 indicators of the appropriateness of long-term prescribing commenced in hospital practice, all of which were considered to have face validity by an expert panel of clinical pharmacists. The development of these explicit indicators highlighted the incompleteness of the patient's record. Further work is needed to assess their validity and reliability, before their use in research or audit can be recommended.

Comparing costs of home- versus hospital-based treatment of infections in adults in a specialist cystic fibrosis center.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to produce valid patient-based UK National Health Service (NHS) costs for adults with cystic fibrosis to identify differences between hospital- and home-based treatments for infections. METHODS: A costing study was carried out in adults with cystic fibrosis (CF) in the United Kingdom, who required intravenous antibiotic treatments for respiratory infections, administered either at home or in the hospital. The perspective was that of the NHS hospital trust. Data were collected retrospectively for each patient for 1 year using clinical records. Data were collected for 116 adults with CF between 2000 and 2001, when 42,382 treatment days (454 courses) of intravenous antibiotics were administered; 213 courses with intention-to-treat at home and 241 courses with intention-to-treat in the hospital. The mean length of a course was 15.3 days. RESULTS: Patients who had >60 percent of courses at home over 1 year had a mean cost of 13,528 UK pounds, compared with 22,609 pounds for patients who had > 60 percent of courses in the hospital, and a mean cost of 19,927 UK pounds for patients who had an equal mix of home and hospital care (p = .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The key cost-generating events in CF respiratory infections are hospital admissions. Future studies assessing costs should concentrate on factors affecting admissions, length of stay, staff input, and alternative methods of home-care provision, rather than marginal effects, such as using different antibiotics.

Hospital doctors and their schemas about appropriate prescribing.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate cognitive schemas and schema systems used by hospital doctors to influence prescribing, particularly in terms of making appropriate prescribing decisions, and to compare the numbers and content of schemas between doctors with different levels of experience. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews with a purposively selected sample. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Seven pre-registration (PRHOs) and 5 senior house officers (SHOs) and 5 consultants from a range of medical specialties in a teaching hospital. RESULTS: The qualitative analysis of the themes and patterns explored during the interviews indicated that all doctors articulated schemas that influenced their behaviour. The junior doctors seemed to have simplistic schemas, with interdoctor agreement; the consultants appeared to have more sophisticated schemas, with greater individual variation. Those schemas adopted by the PRHOs (prescribing "novices") could be subsumed by, rather than contradicted by, those of the consultants (prescribing "experts"), with a transitional stage demonstrated by the SHOs. The most noticeable distinction was the greater emphasis by consultants on holistic patient care and what might be seen as their separate schemas for appropriate prescribing stemmed from that premise. In contrast, junior doctors appeared to have had a single schema that encompassed both prescribing generally and appropriate prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: Although the design of this study was cross-sectional rather than longitudinal, the findings suggest that the acquisition and adjustment of schemas and schema systems are significant factors in the professional development of the hospital doctor from novice through to expert. It could be hypothesised that house officers possess simpler schemas as a way of coping with their job demands, which evolve in complexity as they gain experience. However, the transitional stage found with the SHOs is critical during cognitive development, with implications for the training and support available to doctors throughout their professional careers.

Exploring the domains of appropriateness of drug therapy, using the Nominal Group Technique.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the domains encompassed within the assessment of the appropriateness of prescribing for an individual patient. METHOD: The Nominal Group Technique was used to address the question "How can we assess inappropriate drug therapy of individual patients that is responsive to pharmaceutical care?" The group participants were a self-selected group of nine pharmacists and one pharmacologist attending an international working conference on the Outcomes of Pharmaceutical Care. Item generation was followed by discussion for clarification and operationalization. Voting achieved a consensus, defined as > or = 70%, agreement on the importance of items for inclusion in an instrument to assess appropriateness. RESULTS: Sixty-seven items were initially generated. During discussion, similar items were combined and items were grouped into domains. Items that considered the patient's perspective were commonly suggested, but many were discarded after discussing their operationalization. Consensus was obtained that eighteen items, in seven domains, should be included in the instrument. The domains were indication and drug choice (5 items), effectiveness (2), risks and safety (2), dosage (3), interactions (1), practical use (4), and monitoring (1). CONCLUSION: It is hoped that, with adequate testing, these indicators of appropriateness of prescribing can be used by pharmacists to begin to routinely assess the impact of pharmaceutical care on the quality of prescribing for patients under their care.