A quality improvement project to increase self-administration of medicines in an acute hospital.

QUALITY PROBLEM OR ISSUE: A patient survey found significantly fewer patients reported they had self-administered their medicines while in hospital (20% of 100 patients) than reported that they would like to (44% of 100). We aimed to make self-administration more easily available to patients who wanted it. INITIAL ASSESSMENT: We conducted a failure, modes and effects analysis, collected baseline data on four wards and carried out observations. CHOICE OF SOLUTION: Our initial assessment suggested that the main areas we should focus on were raising patient awareness of self-administration, changing the patient assessment process and creating a storage solution for medicines being self-administered. We developed new patient information leaflets and posters and a doctor's assessment form using Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles. We developed initial designs for a storage solution. IMPLEMENTATION: We piloted the new materials on three wards; the fourth withdrew due to staff shortages. EVALUATION: Following collection of baseline data, we continued to collect weekly data. We found that the proportion of patients who wished to self-administer who reported that they were able to do so, significantly increased from 41% (of 155 patients) to 66% (of 118 patients) during the study, despite a period when the hospital was over capacity. LESSONS LEARNED: Raising and maintaining healthcare professionals' awareness of self-administration can greatly increase the proportion of patients who wish to self-administer who actually do so. Healthcare professionals prefer multi-disciplinary input into the assessment process.

Nurses as a source of system-level resilience: Secondary analysis of qualitative data from a study of intravenous infusion safety in English hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Deviations from local policy and national recommended best practice are common in the administration of intravenous infusions, but not all result in negative consequences. Some are the result of nurses' clinical judgement. However, little is known about such practices and their effects on the safety of intravenous infusions. Our objective was to explore ways in which nurses contribute to system-level resilience when administering intravenous infusions. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of qualitative data from debriefs and focus groups from a mixed methods study of errors and policy deviations in intravenous infusion administration across 16 English hospitals. Analysis focused on nurses' contributions to system-level resilience, drawing on Larcos's et al. framework of types of resilience. RESULTS: Five types of system-level resilience were identified in nurses' behaviour: anticipatory resilience, responsive resilience, resilience based on past experience, workarounds and nurses performing informal 'risk assessments' in relation to how best to treat individual patients. Examples of practices contributing to infusion safety were found for each of these types of resilience. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest nurses are a key source of system-level resilience. Some behaviours that may be considered deviations from policy or best practice are the result of reasoned clinical judgement to improve infusion safety in response to the specific situation at hand. Adaptive behaviour is necessary to cope with the complexity of practice. There is a tension between standardisation and supporting flexibility in safety management.

Lay involvement in the analysis of qualitative data in health services research: a descriptive study.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: There is a consensus that patients and the public should be involved in research in a meaningful way. However, to date, lay people have been mostly involved in developing research ideas and commenting on patient information.We previously published a paper describing our experience with lay partners conducting observations in a study of how patients in hospital are involved with their medicines. In a later part of the same study, lay partners were also involved in analysing interviews that a researcher had conducted with patients, carers and healthcare professionals about patient and carer involvement with medicines in hospital. We therefore wanted to build on our previous paper and report on our experiences with lay partners helping to conduct data analysis. We therefore interviewed the lay members and researchers involved in the analysis to find out their views.Both lay members and researchers reported that lay partners added value to the study by bringing their own perspectives and identifying further areas for the researcher to look for in the interviews. In this way researchers and lay partners were able to work together to produce a richer analysis than would have been possible from either alone. ABSTRACT: Background It is recognised that involving lay people in research in a meaningful rather than tokenistic way is both important and challenging. In this paper, we contribute to this debate by describing our experiences of lay involvement in data analysis.Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with the lay partners and researchers involved in qualitative data analysis in a wider study of inpatient involvement in medication safety. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded using open thematic analysis.Results We interviewed three lay partners and the three researchers involved. These interviews demonstrated that the lay members added value to the analysis by bringing their own perspectives; these were systematically integrated into the analysis by the lead researcher to create a synergistic output. Some challenges arose, including difficulties in recruiting a diverse range of members of the public to carry out the role; however there were generally fewer challenges in data analysis than there had been with our previous experience of lay partners' involvement in data collection.Conclusions Lay members can add value to health services research by being involved in qualitative data analysis.

An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study design and interpretation. Part 1. Conceptualising and developing interventions.

This is the first of a four-part series of articles examining the epistemology of patient safety research. Parts 2 and 3 will describe different study designs and methods of measuring outcomes in the evaluation of patient safety interventions, before Part 4 suggests that "one size does not fit all". Part 1 sets the scene by defining patient safety research as a challenging form of service delivery and organisational research that has to deal (although not exclusively) with some very rare events. It then considers two inter-related ideas: a causal chain that can be used to identify where in an organisation's structure and/or processes an intervention may impact; and the need for preimplementation evaluation of proposed interventions. Finally, the paper outlines the authors' pragmatist ontological stance to patient safety research, which sets the philosophical basis for the remaining three articles.

An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study design and interpretation. Part 3. End points and measurement.

This article builds on the previous two articles in this series, which focused on an evaluation framework and study designs for patient safety research. The current article focuses on what to measure as evidence of safety and how these measurements can be undertaken. It considers four different end points, highlighting their methodological advantages and disadvantages: patient outcomes, fidelity, intervening variables and clinical error. The choice of end point depends on the nature of the intervention being evaluated and the patient safety problem it has been designed to address. This paper also discusses the different methods of measuring error, reviewing best practice and paying particular attention to case note review. Two key issues with any method of data collection are ensuring construct validity and reliability. Since no end point or method of data collection is infallible, the present authors advocate the use of multiple end points and methods where feasible.

An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study design and interpretation. Part 2. Study design.

This is the second in a four-part series of articles detailing the epistemology of patient safety research. This article concentrates on issues of study design. It first considers the range of designs that may be used in the evaluation of patient safety interventions, highlighting the circumstances in which each is appropriate. The paper then provides details about an innovative study design, the stepped wedge, which may be particularly appropriate in the context of patient safety interventions, since these are expected to do more good than harm. The unit of allocation in patient safety research is also considered, since many interventions need to be delivered at cluster or service level. The paper also discusses the need to ensure the masking of patients, caregivers, observers and analysts wherever possible to minimise information biases and the Hawthorne effect. The difficulties associated with masking in patient safety research are described and suggestions given on how these can be ameliorated. The paper finally considers the role of study design in increasing confidence in the generalisability of study results over time and place. The extent to which findings can be generalised over time and place should be considered as part of an evaluation, for example by undertaking qualitative or quantitative measures of fidelity, attitudes or subgroup effects.

An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study design and interpretation. Part 4. One size does not fit all.

This is the final article in the series on the epistemology of patient safety research, and considers the selection of study design and end points during the planning of an evaluation. The key message of this series is that "one size does not fit all": the nature of the evaluation will depend on logistical and pragmatic constraints, a priori assessment of the probability of benefits and harms, the plausible scale of these effects and the target audience for the results. This paper also discusses the advantages of mixed method designs. The strength of any conclusions can be increased if different end points concur and the authors therefore advocate assessment of the effect of the intervention on different end points across the generic causal chain linking structure, process and outcome. The use of both qualitative and quantitative methods is also advocated to help explain findings, generate theory and help contextualise results. We show how a bayesian framework can be used to synthesise evidence from a number of different sources and why this approach may be particularly appropriate for the evaluation of patient safety interventions.

The attitudes and beliefs of healthcare professionals on the causes and reporting of medication errors in a UK Intensive care unit.

Our aim was to explore the attitudes and beliefs of healthcare professionals relating to the causes and reporting of medication errors in a UK intensive care unit. Medication errors were identified by the unit pharmacist and semi-structured qualitative interviews conducted with 13 members of staff involved with 12 errors. Interviews were analysed using a model of human error theory. Staff identified many contributing factors, including poor communication and frequent interruptions. Organisational factors included lack of clarity on the responsibility of the second nurse's check for medication administration, lack of feedback on medication errors, and a common and accepted practice of administering medication without a complete medication order. Barriers to reporting included administrative paperwork and lack of encouragement by management. Greater feedback on medication errors seems essential to improve current practice and increase reporting.

Using the internet to deliver education on drug safety.

BACKGROUND: Medication administration errors (MAEs) occur in 3-8% of all non-intravenous drug doses given in UK hospitals; higher rates have been reported for intravenous drugs. Educational interventions are often advocated as one way of reducing these rates. However, group education sessions are often not practical. We developed internet-based educational modules on drug safety, and evaluated their effect on MAEs. METHODS: 11 modules were developed on different aspects of drug safety and delivered via commercially available software. All nursing staff on one ward were encouraged to participate. MAEs were identified using observation; the denominator used to calculate MAE rates was the number of opportunities for error. We aimed to observe 56 drug rounds before and after asking staff to complete the package. RESULTS: The 19 nurses who administered drugs on the study ward all agreed to participate. Of these, 12 (63%) nurses completed all 11 modules. Pre-education, 82 (6.9%) errors were identified in 1188 opportunities for error. Afterwards, 66 (5.0%) errors were identified in 1397 opportunities for error (95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference -3.8% to 0%). The MAE rate for non-intravenous drugs was 6.1% pre-education and 4.1% afterwards (95% CI for the difference -3.8% to -0.2%). Most errors with regard to intravenous doses were due to fast administration of bolus injections. CONCLUSIONS: An interactive educational package focusing on patient safety was developed, with a high rate of uptake among nursing staff on the study ward. A reduction in non-intravenous MAEs was observed after the use of the package, but no significant change was seen in the overall error rate.