Legal Issues in Life-Limiting Illness: Can Cross-Agency, Interprofessional Education Support Integration of Care?

Legal issues are prevalent in life-limiting illness, relating to social welfare needs as well as delivery of legally compliant care. Yet the broad range of agencies delivering care is fragmented, risking unmet needs. This mixed-methods research explored the potential of cross-agency, interprofessional education to raise awareness and understanding of legal needs in this context and promote closer service integration. Four identical workshops, run in north-east England, brought together 99 participants from health, social, legal, advice, charitable, public and private sectors. Participants were overwhelmingly positive about the value of learning together with 97% wanting more sessions. Learning priorities included greater awareness of services and referral routes as well as areas of law relating to advance care planning and mental capacity. Interprofessional education, spanning the breadth of relevant agencies and supported by national strategy, was identified as a route to integrating services.

Meeting social welfare legal needs in end-of-life care: co-creation of a system-wide research partnership.

Background: Social welfare legal needs (matters of daily life, such as finances, housing and employment with legal rights, entitlements or protections) are prevalent towards end of life, creating significant difficulties for both patients and carers. Most people do not know where to go, although a range of services provide advice and support for addressing social welfare legal problems. Navigating this complex and fragmented system across health, social care and social welfare legal support is very challenging. Healthcare professionals are often the first contact for social welfare legal needs, although these are often overlooked and their impact on health and well-being unrecognised. Interprofessional learning can increase awareness of social welfare legal needs and build connections between service providers, offering a more holistic and cohesive multiagency response to the complex needs around end of life. The aim of the research was to co-create a robust foundation for cross-agency research investigating the impact of interprofessional learning on social welfare legal needs towards end of life in the North East England region. Objectives: Convene a research partnership group across academics, multiagency service providers and members of the public with lived experience. Consider and agree key issues for successful place-based multiagency research in this area. Co-create a complexity-appropriate research proposal with interprofessional learning as an intervention. Methods: A series of research activities was implemented to convene a multiagency partnership group and consider the key issues for successful place-based multiagency research. Data were collected from two online workshops, an optional reflective workbook, and a modified Delphi technique. Initial participants were selectively recruited from our established stakeholder and patient and public involvement groups. Increasing diversity of the partnership continued throughout the project, using contacts provided by group members. Representation of services supporting underserved groups was a priority. Results: All invited participants were recruited to the partnership, although contribution to research activities was variable. The partnership bridged knowledge gaps between services and united diverse perspectives, expertise and experience. A greater understanding of the barriers and opportunities for place-based multiagency working was generated, such as considering the importance of language in facilitating collaboration and responding to concerns around capacity. A non-hierarchical partnership was meaningful, with both personal and professional insights viewed as equally important. Facilitators to engagement with interprofessional learning were identified including the need for leadership endorsement. A non-traditional, mixed-method approach to interprofessional learning evaluation was favoured, with both qualitative and quantitative measures at three levels: patient and carer, professional learners and organisations. Important outcomes included raising awareness, connectedness and space to reflect. Limitations: The partnership group expanded throughout the course of the project. While this extended diversity, variable participation hindered depth of discussion, with participants engaging at different points and with different understanding levels of the project. Supplementary materials provided some mitigation. Capacity and funding constraints limited engagement for some participants. Conclusions: Convening a multiagency partnership generated insights into the benefits, barriers and facilitators to research co-design and potential measures of success of interprofessional learning. Future work: Learning from this project has informed a complexity-appropriate research proposal to evaluate the impact of interprofessional learning as an intervention across different stakeholders. Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme as award number NIHR135276.

Social welfare legal issues, such as unsuitable housing, job difficulties and money concerns, are common in the last 12 months of a person's life and they affect carers too. Getting the right help can be difficult as it is hard to know where to go. Organisations and services often work separately from each other. Healthcare professionals are often the first contact for social welfare legal needs, but they may not be able to provide the required support. Interprofessional learning brings professionals together to learn from each other and connect services better. We think this will make it easier for people to get the help they need when the same is required. We set up a group of professionals and four people with personal experience. This partnership group started with people and organisations we knew already but more joined during the project. By the end, 37 different services, representing a range of health, advice and community services, had joined the research group. All services had experience of social welfare legal issues in the last 12 months of life. The group discussed running research together and how interprofessional learning could be tested in our next research project. Research activities were: two online meetings to discuss key questions a workbook which gave time to think about the questions we were asking a survey which asked participants their views about measuring success of interprofessional learning. Group members brought a variety of experiences and opinions. Some had difficulty taking part, mainly because of time. We learnt that professional and personal experiences are as important as each other and that it is important to avoid jargon. Testing if interprofessional learning makes a difference needs to look at people using services, professionals and organisations. We have written a funding application, based on what we have learnt in this project.

What can we learn from parents about enhancing participation in pharmacovigilance?

AIMS: To investigate parents' views and experiences of direct reporting of a suspected ADR in their child. METHODS: We audio-recorded semi-structured qualitative interviews with parents of children with suspected ADRs. Our sample included parents with (n = 17) and without (n = 27) previous experience of submitting a Yellow Card. RESULTS: Parents in both groups described poor awareness of the Yellow Card Scheme. Parents who had participated in the Yellow Card Scheme were generally happy to report their child's ADR via the Scheme and valued the opportunity to report concerns independently of health practitioners. They expressed motivations for reporting that have not previously been described linked to the parental role, including how registering a concern about a medicine helped to resolve uncomfortable feelings about their child's ADR. Parents who had not previously submitted a Yellow Card expressed uncertainty about the legitimacy of their involvement in reporting and doubts about the value of the information that they could provide. CONCLUSION: Promoting wider participation in pharmacovigilance schemes will depend on raising public awareness. Additionally, our findings point to the need to empower lay people to submitting reports and to reassure them about the value of their reports.

Making every contact count with seldom-heard groups? A qualitative evaluation of voluntary and community sector (VCS) implementation of a public health behaviour change programme in England.

Making Every Contact Count (MECC) is a national, long-term public health strategy in England. It supports public-facing workers to use opportunities during routine contacts to enable healthy lifestyle changes. This paper reports the findings from an external evaluation of voluntary and community sector (VCS) delivery of MECC in the North East of England, which focused on engaging under-represented client groups. The study aimed to (a) Establish if (and how) MECC had impacted the workforce, including changes to staff knowledge, confidence and behaviour; (b) Identify benefits, challenges and unintended consequences; and (c) Explore outcomes for service users. A multi-stage qualitative design focused on understanding both process and outcomes. The study utilised three data collection methods, including a journey mapping workshop (n = 20), semi-structured interviews with delivery leads, VCS workers and volunteers who had accessed MECC training (n = 11), and focus group discussions with clients (n = 22). The findings illustrated positive early outcomes, including improvements in self-reported staff knowledge and confidence as well as emerging examples of organisational culture shift and individual behaviour change. Alongside this, the data provided a rich picture of barriers and challenges which are examined at different levels-national programme, local programme, VCS sector, partner organisation, worker and client. The research highlights clear successes of the VCS delivery model. However, it is presented as a 'double-edged sword,' in light of associated challenges such as sector-level funding uncertainty and accessibility of MECC resources to diverse client groups. The discussion considers issues related to the measurement and attribution of behaviour change outcomes for brief interventions, as well as fidelity, legacy and long-term sustainability challenges. The recommendations call for system-level analysis and comparison of different MECC implementation models, to improve our understanding of challenges, opportunities and programme reach for behaviour change intervention programmes-particularly in relation to seldom-heard client groups.

Barriers and facilitators to primary care research: views of GP trainees and trainers.

BACKGROUND: Primary care plays an important role in the conception and delivery of transformational research but GP engagement is lacking, prompting calls for the promotion of academic opportunities in primary care. AIM: To identify potential barriers and facilitators among GP trainees and trainers in primary care research to inform support given by Local Clinical Research Networks (LCRNs). DESIGN & SETTING: A cross-sectional online survey was developed and distributed by the CRN to GP trainees and trainers in the North East and North West. METHOD: The survey covered areas including demographics, career intentions, current and potential engagement with research, as well as their general understanding of research in primary care, which included barriers and facilitators to primary care research. RESULTS: Trainees had low intentionality to pursue research and half of trainees did not engage with any research activity. Despite one in five trainees reporting intentions to include research in their career, only 1% would undertake a solely academic career. Medical school region was the only strongly associated factor with academic career intention. Just under 30% of trainers reported engagement in research, but far fewer (8.6%) were interested in contributing to research, and only 10% felt prepared to mentor in research. CONCLUSION: Among trainees, there is limited engagement in and intentionality to pursue research, and this was crucially reflected by responses from trainers. This study identified the need for LCRNs to assist with training in research mentoring and skills, funding opportunities, and to develop resources to promote research in primary care.

Synchronized Video-Review as a Tool to Enhance Reflection and Feedback: A Design-Based Feasibility Study.

INTRODUCTION: UK surgical training currently faces the challenge of expanding surgical skills in a context of reduced training opportunities. Video-review in theatre offers the potential to gain more from each learning opportunity and to enhance feedback. AIM: This was a designed-based study to test the feasibility of using synchronized video-review as a reflective tool to enhance surgical training and to gain a deeper understanding of intraoperative feedback. METHOD: Ten supervised laparoscopic cholecystectomy operations were video-recorded using a synchronized split screen, to show trainees' actions, instrument manipulation, and interactions with other theatre staff. This was followed up by joint review of the operation-recording by both the trainee and supervisor. Video-review sessions were audio-recorded along with the consultant and Specialist Registrar interviews after the review session. Audio recordings were thematically analyzed. Supervisors completed the Procedure-Based Assessment forms, twice: post operation and post video-review to check potential trainers' enhanced insight. Forms were analyzed to note any changes and to triangulate the findings. RESULTS: Overall trainee and supervisor feedback was positive. Trainees and supervisors reported the video-review added value in terms of reflection-on-action. It removed the stress of conducting/supervising the operation in real time and focused the attention on feedback. Satisfaction was reported across trainee levels with both scrubbed and unscrubbed supervisors. Audio-visual review allowed trainees to understand the feedback better and to identify new targets beyond those gained from the verbal feedback during the procedure. It also facilitated appraisal of the trainer's teaching. DISCUSSION: This study established the feasibility of using synchronized video-review as a reflection-on-action tool to potentially enhance surgical training by improving feedback. It identified trainees' difficulty in processing intraoperative feedback due to mental overload from the operation. It showed the limitations of current verbal feedback practice, using Procedure-Based Assessment forms, with regard to enhancing technical and nontechnical skills due to denial and memory fading.

The Development of an Online Standalone Cognitive Hazard Training for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Feasibility Study.

INTRODUCTION: In the UK, surgical training is under pressure due to reductions in training time and training opportunities, which pose patient safety risks. Cognitive, nontechnical, training has been suggested as a possible solution inspired by the identified benefits in aviation industry. A recent review article highlighted the need for such training despite its high cost and the need for expert trainers. AIM: This study aimed to design and test the feasibility of an online standalone module to address the current gap in cognitive surgical training. METHOD: An online standalone, Cognitive Hazard Training module for laparoscopic cholecystectomy was created. It combined multiple choice questions, extended matching items, and single-line free text questions. It contained relevant sketch images and real life hazards video clips, highlighting potential mistakes to enhance: Safety knowledge, reduce bias, and improve self-limitation awareness. Two experts were invited to validate the prototype before testing its feasibility in one English Deanery training environment. RESULTS: In total 93 candidates signed up to review the training. However only 47 (50%) later participated and 33 completed the Module. Those included 3 juniors, 20 higher trainees, and 10 consultants. Candidates' answers were quantitatively analysed. Qualitative feedback was also collected from 27 candidates, via semi-structured interviews. The overall feedback from the feasibility study was positive. Results supported this online resource value in enhancing knowledge and awareness. Interview data also suggested the module's potential to change trainees' practice by being more cautious and adhering to the safety steps of dissection. DISCUSSION: This new training module overcomes some of the previously reported problems in surgical cognitive training. It is a stand-alone online resource with low running cost and does not require expert trainers. The feasibility study supported the aim to enhance hazard awareness and create an attitude shift towards adherence to safety steps during the procedure.

Safer pharmacy practice: a preliminary study of significant event analysis and peer feedback.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to investigate the effectiveness of significant event analyses (SEAs) undertaken by pharmacists as judged by a new system of independent peer feedback. METHOD: The setting was a convenience sample of 37 pharmacists working in community pharmacy, secondary care and academic settings in NHS Scotland. Preliminary study involved the content analysis of pharmacists' SEAs and written feedback reports, which were generated by pharmacists trained in using a validated instrument to facilitate peer feedback. The content of reports and feedback letters were systematically coded and categorised by identifying and quantifying key words and phrases. Data collected included the range and severity of significant events identified; the reported reasons for the events occurring; types of learning needs identified; action(s) taken; and learning issues raised by peer feedback. KEY FINDINGS: A total of 37 pharmacists submitted 43 SEA reports during the study period. All events submitted were classified as having a negative impact on the quality and safety of patient care. Most events related to prescribing, dispensing, administration, communication and patient-/relative-centred issues. Patients reportedly came to harm in 13% of cases. Sixty-three per cent of reported learning needs related to personal awareness/responsibilities when undertaking work tasks, and 58% of implemented change involved amending existing protocols or introducing new procedures. Seventy per cent of SEAs were judged to be 'satisfactory' by the peer reviewers. The effectiveness of change implementation and providing a clear description of an event were highlighted as key issues which required improvement in those event analyses judged to be 'unsatisfactory'. CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrate that most pharmacists in this study were able to apply SEA in a satisfactory manner by demonstrating reflective learning, undertaking insightful analyses and implementing necessary change. SEA and peer feedback may have a potential role to play in enhancing the quality and safety of pharmacy practices.

Patient acceptability of three different central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Three types of central venous access devices (CVADs) are routinely used in the delivery of intravenous systemic anticancer therapy (SACT): peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), subcutaneously tunnelled central catheters (Hickman-type devices) and totally implantable chest wall ports (Ports). This qualitative study, nested within a multicentre, randomised controlled trial, sought to explore patient acceptability and experiences of the three devices. DESIGN: Eight focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. SETTING: Six outpatient cancer treatment centres in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-two patients (20 female, mean age 61.7 years) who had taken part or were taking part in the broader trial. INTERVENTION: As part of the larger, randomised controlled trial, participants had been randomly assigned one of three CVADs for the administration of SACT. RESULTS: Attitudes towards all three devices were positive, with patients viewing their CVAD as part of their treatment and recovery. Participants with PICCs and Hickmans tended to compare their device favourably with peripheral cannulation. By comparison, participants with Ports consistently compared their device with PICCs and Hickmans, emphasising the perceived superiority of Ports. Ports were perceived to offer unique psychological benefits, including a greater sense of freedom and less intrusion in the context of personal relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Patient experiences and preferences have not been systematically used to inform policy and practice regarding CVAD availability and selection. Our research identified patterns of patient device preferences that favoured Ports, although this was not universal. Results of this study could improve support for patients and offer greater scope for incorporating patient perspectives into decision-making processes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN44504648.

Protocol for a systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient experiences of central venous access devices in anti-cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: Three types of central venous access devices (CVADs)-peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), skin-tunnelled central catheters (Hickman-type devices), and implantable chest wall Ports (Ports)-are routinely used in the intravenous administration of anti-cancer treatment. These devices avoid the need for peripheral cannulation and allow for home delivery of treatment. Assessments of these devices have tended to focus on medical and economic factors, but there is increased interest in the importance of patient experiences and perspectives in this area. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesise existing research regarding patient experiences of these CVADs to help clinicians guide, prepare, and support patients receiving CVADs for the administration of anti-cancer treatment. METHOD: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL research databases will be carried out along with a supplementary reference list search. This review will include quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies published in peer-review journals, reporting some aspect(s) of patient experiences or perspectives regarding the use of PICC, Hickman, or Port CVADs for the administration of anti-cancer drugs. The methodological quality and risk of bias of included papers will be assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Relevant outcome data will be extracted from included studies and analysed using a thematic synthesis approach. DISCUSSION: The results section of the review will comprise thematic synthesis of quantitative studies, thematic synthesis of qualitative studies, and the aggregation of the two. Results will aim to offer an account of current understandings of patient experiences and perspective regarding PICC, Hickman-type, and Port devices in the context of anti-cancer treatment. Confidence in cumulative evidence will be assessed using the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual) approach. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This systematic review protocol is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Registration number: CRD42017065851 . This protocol was prepared using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols checklist (PRISMA-P) (Shamseer et al., BMJ 349: 2015).

The clinical effectiveness of individual behaviour change interventions to reduce risky sexual behaviour after a negative human immunodeficiency virus test in men who have sex with men: systematic and realist reviews and intervention development.

BACKGROUND: Men who have sex with men (MSM) experience significant inequalities in health and well-being. They are the group in the UK at the highest risk of acquiring a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Guidance relating to both HIV infection prevention, in general, and individual-level behaviour change interventions, in particular, is very limited. OBJECTIVES: To conduct an evidence synthesis of the clinical effectiveness of behaviour change interventions to reduce risky sexual behaviour among MSM after a negative HIV infection test. To identify effective components within interventions in reducing HIV risk-related behaviours and develop a candidate intervention. To host expert events addressing the implementation and optimisation of a candidate intervention. DATA SOURCES: All major electronic databases (British Education Index, BioMed Central, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, Educational Resource Index and Abstracts, Health and Medical Complete, MEDLINE, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, PubMed and Social Science Citation Index) were searched between January 2000 and December 2014. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of individual behaviour change interventions was conducted. Interventions were examined using the behaviour change technique (BCT) taxonomy, theory coding assessment, mode of delivery and proximity to HIV infection testing. Data were summarised in narrative review and, when appropriate, meta-analysis was carried out. Supplemental analyses for the development of the candidate intervention focused on post hoc realist review method, the assessment of the sequential delivery and content of intervention components, and the social and historical context of primary studies. Expert panels reviewed the candidate intervention for issues of implementation and optimisation. RESULTS: Overall, trials included in this review (n = 10) demonstrated that individual-level behaviour change interventions are effective in reducing key HIV infection risk-related behaviours. However, there was considerable clinical and methodological heterogeneity among the trials. Exploratory meta-analysis showed a statistically significant reduction in behaviours associated with high risk of HIV transmission (risk ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 0.91). Additional stratified analyses suggested that effectiveness may be enhanced through face-to-face contact immediately after testing, and that theory-based content and BCTs drawn from 'goals and planning' and 'identity' groups are important. All evidence collated in the review was synthesised to develop a candidate intervention. Experts highlighted overall acceptability of the intervention and outlined key ways that the candidate intervention could be optimised to enhance UK implementation. LIMITATIONS: There was a limited number of primary studies. All were from outside the UK and were subject to considerable clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity. The findings of the meta-analysis must therefore be treated with caution. The lack of detailed intervention manuals limited the assessment of intervention content, delivery and fidelity. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence regarding the effectiveness of behaviour change interventions suggests that they are effective in changing behaviour associated with HIV transmission. Exploratory stratified meta-analyses suggested that interventions should be delivered face to face and immediately after testing. There are uncertainties around the generalisability of these findings to the UK setting. However, UK experts found the intervention acceptable and provided ways of optimising the candidate intervention. FUTURE WORK: There is a need for well-designed, UK-based trials of individual behaviour change interventions that clearly articulate intervention content and demonstrate intervention fidelity. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014009500. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Medication safety: using incident data analysis and clinical focus groups to inform educational needs.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Medication-related safety incidents are a source of concern to patients, policy makers and clinicians. The role of education in improving safety-critical practices in health care is poorly appreciated. This pilot study aimed to initiate collective discussion among professional groups of clinical staff about a range of medicine-related patient safety issues which were identified from a local incident reporting system. In engaging staff to collectively reflect on reported medication incidents we attempted to uncover a deeper understanding of local contextual issues and potential educational needs. METHODS: A mixed method study was conducted involving categorical analysis of 1058 medication incident reports (Phase 1) and the use of three mixed focus groups of clinical staff (Phase 2) in three acute hospitals in one locality in NHS Scotland. RESULTS: Focus group transcript analysis produced four main themes (e.g. the medical role) and 12 related sub-themes (e.g. pharmacological education and skill mix for administration of medicines) concerning medication-related practices and possible educational interventions. CONCLUSIONS: While it is necessary to review reported incident data and disseminate the educational messages for the improvement of quality, this traditional risk management process is inadequate on its own. Reporting systems can be enhanced by collective examination of reported information about medicines by local clinical teams. We identified a strong message from the focus groups for learning about each other and from each other, and that the method piloted may be an important inter-professional mechanism for improvement.

Attitudes towards health inequalities amongst GP trainers in Glasgow, and their ideas for changes in training.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN IN THIS AREA: Recent government policy has emphasised the important role that GPs have to play in addressing health inequalities. The RCGP curriculum asserts the importance of gaining a better understanding of health inequalities during GP training. GP training in Scotland continues to take place in disproportionately affluent areas. WHAT THIS WORK ADDS: This is the first study to look at attitudes of GP trainers towards health inequalities and to explore their ideas for changes in training that may address health inequalities. There were noticeable differences in the views of GP trainers--both in terms of the causes of health inequalities and the role of primary care in tackling inequalities--depending on whether they were based in more affluent or more deprived practices. Practice rotations were suggested by all groups as a means to give GP trainees exposure to the particular challenges of both affluent and deprived practice populations. SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH: Pilot studies of practice rotations between deprived and affluent areas would be of value. Evaluation of nMRCGP assessments (particularly the Clinical Skills Assessment, CSA) with regard to representativeness of general practice in deprived areas should be considered. Further qualitative research into the attitudes of GP trainees towards health inequalities, and GP trainers from different--less deprived--practice areas, would also be of interest. [corrected].

Practice-based small group learning in GP specialty training.

INTRODUCTION: Practice-based small group learning (PBSGL) is an approach to continuing professional development (CPD) for general practitioners (GPs) that originated in Canada. It involves small groups of GPs who work through clinical modules. PBSGL is now an established method of learning in Scotland, found to be effective in GP, practice nurse and multi-professional cohorts. However, the effectiveness of PBSGL has not been examined in GP specialty training, where it is becoming widely employed. This research aimed to explore GP Specialty Trainees' (GPSTs') perspectives of the impact of PBSGL on curriculum needs, preparation for independent practice, and facilitator learning. METHODS: To avoid the risk of extrapolating assumptions from others who have used PBSGL as a learning strategy, this study adopted a qualitative approach, and conducted one-to-one interviews with 16 GPSTs from a range of Scottish deaneries and stages in training. Data took the form of verbatim transcripts, and the constant comparative technique from grounded theory was used to analyse the data, through the establishment of codes and categories. RESULTS: Findings were arranged in four main areas: • learning as a group was appreciated at this career stage, and group membership should consist of trainees at a similar career stage, as this supports psychological safety • PBSGL helped in locating a 'one best way' for future care planning, but was also used to find alternatives to trainees' current approaches • discussion during PBSGL helped GPSTs devise plans for how they would handle patients in the future • some facilitators moderated their involvement for the perceived benefit of the group. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Learning is experienced in a very unique way for GPSTs, and the views of the cohort are formed on the basis of the delicate stage in their career. Aiding the transition from structured education into independent practice is a more immediate need for GPSTs than curriculum needs.

Enhancing communication about paediatric medicines: lessons from a qualitative study of parents' experiences of their child's suspected adverse drug reaction.

BACKGROUND: There is little research on parents' experiences of suspected adverse drug reactions in their children and hence little evidence to guide clinicians when communicating with families about problems associated with medicines. OBJECTIVE: To identify any unmet information and communication needs described by parents whose child had a suspected adverse drug reaction. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews with parents of 44 children who had a suspected adverse drug reaction identified on hospital admission, during in-patient treatment or reported by parents using the Yellow Card Scheme (the UK system for collecting spontaneous reports of adverse drug reactions). Interviews were conducted face-to-face or by telephone; most interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed. Analysis was informed by the principles of the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Many parents described being dissatisfied with how clinicians communicated about adverse drug reactions and unclear about the implications for their child's future use of medicines. A few parents felt that clinicians had abandoned their child and reported refusing the use of further medicines because they feared a repeated adverse drug reaction. The accounts of parents of children with cancer were different. They emphasised their confidence in clinicians' management of adverse drug reactions and described how clinicians prospectively explained the risks associated with medicines. Parents linked symptoms to medicines in ways that resembled the established reasoning that clinicians use to evaluate the possibility that a medicine has caused an adverse drug reaction. CONCLUSION: Clinicians' communication about adverse drug reactions was poor from the perspective of parents, indicating that improvements are needed. The accounts of parents of children with cancer indicate that prospective explanation about adverse drug reactions at the time of prescription can be effective. Convergence between parents and clinicians in their reasoning for linking children's symptoms to medicines could be a starting point for improved communication.

The perceptions of reception staff in general practice about the factors influencing specific medication errors.

The pilot study presented here is part of a larger project identifying and investigating the factors influencing errors in prescribing and dispensing drugs known to be of high risk: prednisolone, warfarin, lisinopril, morphine, carbamazepine, digoxin and methotrexate. This work has highlighted the central role that general practice (GP) receptionists have in the prescribing process and the importance of their perspectives in understanding how medication errors occur in general practice. Receptionists within Greater Glasgow were purposively sampled from a survey of personal experience of errors involving the drugs of interest. Five one-to-one in-depth interviews and one group interview with receptionists were conducted, exploring the perceptions of receptionists about the factors that influence errors. Four themes emerged from the interviews, related to receptionists' perceptions of factors influencing errors: trust in the GP to check prescriptions; the receptionists' role of communicating with patients; workload; and the hospital-surgery link. This research illustrates the important contribution that receptionists can make to understanding how errors occur in general practice. Receptionists have responsibilities for the continuation of care by communicating with patients, doctors and external care providers and they perceive that problems in communication with these parties can develop into medicine-related errors. These findings may inform educational outcomes for receptionists including involvement in the practice's protected learning time and interpersonal skills development, as well as improved communication skills in other health professionals.