Patient Satisfaction with Private Community Pharmacies versus Pharmacies in Primary Health Care Centers in Saudi Arabia.

Introduction: Saudi Arabia has begun reforming its government-run health care system to increase efficiency and reduce costs. One effort is the adoption of an electronic prescribing system (Wasfaty) and outsourcing pharmaceutical services from government-run clinics to community pharmacies (CP). This study aims to compare satisfaction with pharmaceutical services offered in the two systems. Materials and methods: This cross-sectional observational study used existing survey data collected from patients (≥15 years of age) visiting government primary health care centers from January 2022 to June 2022. Satisfaction with three pharmaceutical services (availability of medications, pharmacist's explanation of the prescription, and waiting time to get medications) were the main outcomes. Results: The study comprised 91,317 participants, 74.06 % of them were CP/Wasfaty users. CP/Wasfaty patients had lower odds of satisfaction with the three pharmaceutical services: availability of medications (OR = 0.49, 95 % CI = 0.47-0.51), pharmacists' explanation of prescription (OR = 0.55, 95 % CI = 0.53-0.58), and waiting time to get medications (OR = 0.81, 95 % CI = 0.75-0.88). Additional findings showed variations in satisfaction levels based on demographic factors and clinic types. Conclusions: The significant differences observed in satisfaction levels based on demographic characteristics and type of clinics visited emphasize the importance of tailoring pharmaceutical services to meet the specific needs and expectations of different patient populations.

Improving junior doctor medicine prescribing and patient safety: An intervention using personalised, structured, video-enhanced feedback and deliberate practice.

AIMS: This research investigated the effectiveness of an intervention for improving the prescribing and patient safety behaviour among Foundation Year doctors. The intervention consisted of simulated clinical encounters with subsequent personalised, structured, video-enhanced feedback and deliberate practice, undertaken at the start of four-month sub-specialty rotations. METHODS: Three prospective, non-randomised control intervention studies were conducted, within two secondary care NHS Trusts in England. The primary outcome measure, error rate per prescriber, was calculated using daily prescribing data. Prescribers were grouped to enable a comparison between experimental and control conditions using regression analysis. A break-even analysis evaluated cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in error rates of novice prescribers who received the intervention when compared with those of experienced prescribers. Novice prescribers not participating in the intervention had significantly higher error rates (P = .026, 95% confidence interval [CI] Wald 0.093 to 1.436; P = .026, 95% CI 0.031 to 0.397) and patients seen by them experienced significantly higher prescribing error rates (P = .007, 95% CI 0.025 to 0.157). Conversely, patients seen by the novice prescribers who received the intervention experienced a significantly lower rate of significant errors compared to patients seen by the experienced prescribers (P = .04, 95% CI -0.068 to -0.001). The break-even analysis demonstrates cost-effectiveness for the intervention. CONCLUSION: Simulated clinical encounters using personalised, structured, video-enhanced feedback and deliberate practice improves the prescribing and patient safety behaviour of Foundation Year doctors. The intervention is cost-effective with potential to reduce avoidable harm.

Using a self-regulated learning-enhanced video feedback educational intervention to improve junior doctor prescribing.

Introduction: Medical school graduates in the UK consistently report feeling underprepared for the task of prescribing when embarking on practice. The effective application of self-regulated learning (SRL) approaches and feedback on complex tasks are associated with improved outcomes in practice-based clinical skills.Aims: This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of an educational intervention using SRL-enhanced video feedback for improving the prescribing competency of junior doctors.Methods: A prospective cohort study was designed to compare intervention and control cohorts of junior doctors undertaking simulated clinical encounters at the beginning and end of their 4-month rotation through renal medicine.Results: The improvement in prescribing competency for the intervention cohort was significant (p < 0.001) with large effect size (d = 1.42). Self-efficacy improved in both cohorts with large (control cohort p = 0.026, r= 0.64) and medium (intervention cohort p = 0.083, d = 0.55) effect sizes. Goal setting and self-monitoring skills improved in the intervention cohort only with medium effect size (p = 0.096, d = 0.53).Conclusions: SRL-enhanced video feedback is effective for improving prescribing competency and developing SRL processes such as goal setting and self-monitoring skills in simulated clinical encounters. Further research is required to evaluate transferability to other clinical sub-speciality contexts and investigate the effectiveness of the intervention for improving prescribing in non-simulated settings.

A systematic review of approaches for calculating the cost of medication errors.

INTRODUCTION: Although medication errors may cause significant morbidity and mortality, the true cost of avoidable harm from such errors is unclear. While studies describe different methods for calculating a financial cost from an error, there remains variability in the way calculations are conducted depending on the clinical context. This review aimed to investigate the range of approaches for calculating medication error costs across healthcare settings. METHODS: A systematic review was carried out with a duplicate data extraction approach and mixed methods data synthesis. Medline, Embase and Web of Science were searched for studies published between 1993 and 2015. Studies that explicitly described a method for calculating medication error cost were included. The variables used for the calculations and a description of the approach for calculating errors were reported. RESULTS: 21 studies were included in the final review. There was wide variation in the way calculations were undertaken, with some calculations using a single variable only and others using several variables in a multistep approach. Few calculations included indirect costs, such as loss of earnings for the patient, and only one calculation considered opportunity cost. The majority of studies presented direct medication error costs whereas others approximated error costs from the savings made following an intervention. CONCLUSIONS: There are a wide range of methods used for calculating the cost of medication errors. The diversity arises from the number of variables used in calculations, the perspective from which the calculation is conducted from, and the degree of economic rigour applied by researchers.

Use of Mobile Clinical Decision Support Software by Junior Doctors at a UK Teaching Hospital: Identification and Evaluation of Barriers to Engagement.

BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support (CDS) tools improve clinical diagnostic decision making and patient safety. The availability of CDS to health care professionals has grown in line with the increased prevalence of apps and smart mobile devices. Despite these benefits, patients may have safety concerns about the use of mobile devices around medical equipment. OBJECTIVE: This research explored the engagement of junior doctors (JDs) with CDS and the perceptions of patients about their use. There were three objectives for this research: (1) to measure the actual usage of CDS tools on mobile devices (mCDS) by JDs, (2) to explore the perceptions of JDs about the drivers and barriers to using mCDS, and (3) to explore the perceptions of patients about the use of mCDS. METHODS: This study used a mixed-methods approach to study the engagement of JDs with CDS accessed through mobile devices. Usage data were collected on the number of interactions by JDs with mCDS. The perceived drivers and barriers for JDs to using CDS were then explored by interviews. Finally, these findings were contrasted with the perception of patients about the use of mCDS by JDs. RESULTS: Nine of the 16 JDs made a total of 142 recorded interactions with the mCDS over a 4-month period. Only 27 of the 114 interactions (24%) that could be categorized as on-shift or off-shift occurred on-shift. Eight individual, institutional, and cultural barriers to engagement emerged from interviews with the user group. In contrast to reported cautions and concerns about the impact of clinicians' use of mobile phone on patient health and safety, patients had positive perceptions about the use of mCDS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients reported positive perceptions toward mCDS. The usage of mCDS to support clinical decision making was considered to be positive as part of everyday clinical practice. The degree of engagement was found to be limited due to a number of individual, institutional, and cultural barriers. The majority of mCDS engagement occurred outside of the workplace. Further research is required to verify these findings and assess their implications for future policy and practice.