Estimating the impact on patient safety of enabling the digital transfer of patients' prescription information in the English NHS.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the number and burden of medication errors associated with prescription information transfer within the National Health Service (NHS) in England and the impact of implementing an interoperable prescription information system (a single digital prescribing record shared across NHS settings) in reducing these errors. METHODS: We constructed a probabilistic mathematical model. We estimated the number of transition medication errors that would be undetected by standard medicines reconciliation, based on published literature, and scaled this up based on the annual number of hospital admissions. We used published literature to estimate the proportion of errors that lead to harm and applied this to the number of errors to estimate the associated burden (healthcare resource use and deaths). Finally, we used reported effect sizes for electronic prescription information sharing interventions to estimate the impact of implementing an interoperable prescription information system on number of errors and resulting harm. RESULTS: Annually, around 1.8 million (95% credibility interval (CrI) 1.3 to 2.6 million) medication errors were estimated to occur at hospital transitions in England, affecting approximately 380 000 (95% CrI 260 397 to 539 876) patient episodes. Harm from these errors affects around 31 500 (95% CrI 22 407 to 42 906) patients, with 36 500 (95% CrI 25 093 to 52 019) additional bed days of inpatient care (costing around £17.8 million (95% CrI £12.4 to £24.9 million)) and >40 (95% CrI 9 to 146) deaths. Assuming the implementation of an interoperable prescription information system could reduce errors by 10% and 50%, there could be 180 000-913 000 fewer errors, 3000-15 800 fewer people who experience harm and 4-22 lives saved annually. CONCLUSIONS: An interoperable prescription information system could provide major benefits for patient safety. Likely additional benefits include healthcare professional time saved, improved patient experience and care quality, quicker discharge and enhanced cross-organisational medicines optimisation. Our findings provide vital safety and economic evidence for the case to adopt interoperable prescription information systems.

Knowledge support for optimising antibiotic prescribing for common infections in general practices: evaluation of the effectiveness of periodic feedback, decision support during consultations and peer comparisons in a cluster randomised trial (BRIT2) - study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: This project applies a Learning Healthcare System (LHS) approach to antibiotic prescribing for common infections in primary care. The approach involves iterations of data analysis, feedback to clinicians and implementation of quality improvement activities by the clinicians. The main research question is, can a knowledge support system (KSS) intervention within an LHS implementation improve antibiotic prescribing without increasing the risk of complications? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted, with randomisation of at least 112 general practices in North-West England. General practices participating in the trial will be randomised to the following interventions: periodic practice-level and individual prescriber feedback using dashboards; or the same dashboards plus a KSS. Data from large databases of healthcare records are used to characterise heterogeneity in antibiotic uses, and to calculate risk scores for clinical outcomes and for the effectiveness of different treatment strategies. The results provide the baseline content for the dashboards and KSS. The KSS comprises a display within the electronic health record used during the consultation; the prescriber (general practitioner or allied health professional) will answer standard questions about the patient's presentation and will then be presented with information (eg, patient's risk of complications from the infection) to guide decision making. The KSS can generate information sheets for patients, conveyed by the clinicians during consultations. The primary outcome is the practice-level rate of antibiotic prescribing (per 1000 patients) with secondary safety outcomes. The data from practices participating in the trial and the dashboard infrastructure will be held within regional shared care record systems of the National Health Service in the UK. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by National Health Service Ethics Committee IRAS 290050. The research results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and also disseminated to participating clinical staff and policy and guideline developers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16230629.

Economic analysis of the prevalence and clinical and economic burden of medication error in England.

OBJECTIVES: To provide national estimates of the number and clinical and economic burden of medication errors in the National Health Service (NHS) in England. METHODS: We used UK-based prevalence of medication errors (in prescribing, dispensing, administration and monitoring) in primary care, secondary care and care home settings, and associated healthcare resource use, to estimate annual number and burden of errors to the NHS. Burden (healthcare resource use and deaths) was estimated from harm associated with avoidable adverse drug events (ADEs). RESULTS: We estimated that 237 million medication errors occur at some point in the medication process in England annually, 38.4% occurring in primary care; 72% have little/no potential for harm and 66 million are potentially clinically significant. Prescribing in primary care accounts for 34% of all potentially clinically significant errors. Definitely avoidable ADEs are estimated to cost the NHS £98 462 582 per year, consuming 181 626 bed-days, and causing/contributing to 1708 deaths. This comprises primary care ADEs leading to hospital admission (£83.7 million; causing 627 deaths), and secondary care ADEs leading to longer hospital stay (£14.8 million; causing or contributing to 1081 deaths). CONCLUSIONS: Ubiquitous medicines use in health care leads unsurprisingly to high numbers of medication errors, although most are not clinically important. There is significant uncertainty around estimates due to the assumption that avoidable ADEs correspond to medication errors, data quality, and lack of data around longer-term impacts of errors. Data linkage between errors and patient outcomes is essential to progress understanding in this area.

Flash glucose monitoring with the FreeStyle Libre 2 compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose in suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes: the FLASH-UK randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Optimising glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes (T1D) remains challenging. Flash glucose monitoring with FreeStyle Libre 2 (FSL2) is a novel alternative to the current standard of care self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). No randomised controlled trials to date have explored the potential benefits of FSL2 in T1D. We aim to assess the impact of FSL2 in people with suboptimal glycaemic control T1D in comparison with SMBG. METHODS: This open-label, multicentre, randomised (via stochastic minimisation), parallel design study conducted at eight UK secondary and primary care centres will aim to recruit 180 people age ≥16 years with T1D for >1 year and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.5%-11%. Eligible participants will be randomised to 24 weeks of FSL2 (intervention) or SMBG (control) periods, after 2-week of blinded sensor wear. Participants will be assessed virtually or in-person owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. HbA1c will be measured at baseline, 12 and 24 weeks (primary outcome). Participants will be contacted at 4 and 12 weeks for glucose optimisation. Control participants will wear a blinded sensor during the last 2 weeks. Psychosocial outcomes will be measured at baseline and 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes include sensor-based metrics, insulin doses, adverse events and self-report psychosocial measures. Utility, acceptability, expectations and experience of using FSL2 will be explored. Data on health service resource utilisation will be collected. ANALYSIS: Efficacy analyses will follow intention-to-treat principle. Outcomes will be analysed using analysis of covariance, adjusted for the baseline value of the corresponding outcome, minimisation factors and other known prognostic factors. Both within-trial and life-time economic evaluations, informed by modelling from the perspective of the National Health Service setting, will be performed. ETHICS: The study was approved by Greater Manchester West Research Ethics Committee (reference 19/NW/0081). Informed consent will be sought from all participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03815006. PROTOCOL VERSION: 4.0 dated 29 June 2020.

Lessons from the failure of implementing the 'Better Care Better Value' prescribing indicator for renin-angiotensin system drugs in England: a qualitative study of general practitioners' perceptions using behavioural change framework.

OBJECTIVES: To explore reasons for the lack of uptake of 'Better Care Better Value (BCBV)' prescribing indicators for renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors and identify learning lessons to inform the implementation of future prescribing policies. DESIGN: In-depth, semistructured interviews to explore: general practitioners' (GPs) experiences in prescribing RAAS, perceptions of the BCBV policy and potential barriers to policy implementation and suggestions for improving future policy implementation. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically, then mapped onto behavioural change frameworks (the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour) model and Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW)). SETTING: Primary care setting in England PARTICIPANTS: Interviews were conducted with 16 GPs recruited from a purposive sample of 91 GP practices in three English counties. RESULTS: Four factors/barriers, related mainly to GPs' psychological capability and reflective motivation, emerged as the possible barriers for the BCBV's lack of uptake, including: lack of the policy awareness, negative attitude to the policy, lack of incentives and GPs' reluctance to switch patients from angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) to ACE inhibitors (ACEIs). The participating GPs proposed interventions to improve future BCBV implementation and they were related to six intervention/policy functions of the BCW, addressing the four identified barriers: education/communication (increase GPs' awareness) and environmental restructuring/regulations (provide GPs with reminding alerts); incentivisation/fiscal (provide GPs with financial incentives); enablement/guidelines-regulations (provide GPs with benchmarking against peers) and enablement/regulations and education/guidelines (facilitate switching from ARBs to ACEIs). CONCLUSIONS: The main reason underpinning the low uptake of the BCBV indicator appears to be lack of a proactive implementation strategy. This case study demonstrated that passively disseminating policy without an effective implementation strategy results in low uptake. Furthermore, multifaceted implementation strategies are necessary to influence complex clinical decision making in a time-limited environment, such as prescribing behaviours. These findings suggest that effective policy implementation requires the application of a systematic comprehensive behaviours change framework.

'New Medicine Service': supporting adherence in people starting a new medication for a long-term condition: 26-week follow-up of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the community pharmacy New Medicine Service (NMS) at 26 weeks. METHODS: Pragmatic patient-level parallel randomised controlled trial in 46 English community pharmacies. 504 participants aged ≥14, identified in the pharmacy when presenting a prescription for a new medicine for predefined long-term conditions, randomised to receive NMS (n=251) or normal practice (n=253) (NMS intervention: 2 consultations 1 and 2 weeks after prescription presentation). Adherence assessed through patient self-report at 26-week follow-up. Intention-to-treat analysis employed. National Health Service (NHS) costs calculated. Disease-specific Markov models estimating impact of non-adherence combined with clinical trial data to calculate costs per extra quality-adjusted life-year (QALY; NHS England perspective). RESULTS: Unadjusted analysis: of 327 patients still taking the initial medicine, 97/170 (57.1%) and 103/157 (65.6%) (p=0.113) patients were adherent in normal practice and NMS arms, respectively. Adjusted intention-to-treat analysis: adherence OR 1.50 (95% CI 0.93 to 2.44, p=0.095), in favour of NMS. There was a non-significant reduction in 26-week NHS costs for NMS: -£104 (95% CI -£37 to £257, p=0.168) per patient. NMS generated a mean of 0.04 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.13) more QALYs per patient, with mean reduction in lifetime cost of -£113.9 (-1159.4, 683.7). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was -£2758/QALY (2.5% and 97.5%: -38 739.5, 34 024.2. NMS has an 89% probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness to pay of £20 000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: At 26-week follow-up, NMS was unable to demonstrate a statistically significant increase in adherence or reduction in NHS costs, which may be attributable to patient attrition from the study. Long-term economic evaluation suggested NMS may deliver better patient outcomes and reduced overall healthcare costs than normal practice, but uncertainty around this finding is high. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01635361, ISRCTN23560818, ISRCTN23560818, UKCRN12494.

Supporting adherence for people starting a new medication for a long-term condition through community pharmacies: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial of the New Medicine Service.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of the New Medicine Service (NMS), a national community pharmacy service to support medicines-taking in people starting a new medicine for a long-term condition, compared with normal practice. METHODS: Pragmatic patient-level parallel randomised controlled trial, in 46 community pharmacies in England. Patients 1:1 block randomisation stratified by drug/disease group within each pharmacy. 504 participants (NMS: 251) aged 14 years and over, identified in the pharmacy on presentation of a prescription for asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes or an anticoagulant/antiplatelet agent. NMS intervention: One consultation 7-14 days after presentation of prescription followed by another 14-21 days thereafter to identify problems with treatment and provide support if needed. Controls received normal practice. Adherence, defined as missing no doses without the advice of a medical professional in the previous 7 days, was assessed through patient self-report at 10 weeks. Intention-to-treat analysis was employed, with outcome adjusted for recruiting pharmacy, NMS disease category, age, sex and medication count. Cost to the National Health Service (NHS) was collected. RESULTS: At 10 weeks, 53 patients had withdrawn and 443 (85%) patients were contacted successfully by telephone. In the unadjusted analysis of 378 patients still taking the initial medicine, 61% (95% CI 54% to 67%) and 71% (95% CI 64% to 77%) patients were adherent in the normal practice and NMS arms, respectively (p=0.04 for difference). In the adjusted intention-to-treat analysis, the OR for increased adherence was 1.67 (95% CI 1.06 to 2.62; p=0.027) in favour of the NMS arm. There was a general trend to reduced NHS costs, albeit, statistically non-significant, for the NMS intervention: saving £21 (95% CI -£59 to £100, p=0.128) per patient. CONCLUSIONS: The NMS significantly increased the proportion of patients adhering to their new medicine by about 10%, compared with normal practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ClinicalTrials.gov trial reference number NCT01635361 (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01635361). Current Controlled trials: trial reference number ISRCTN 23560818 (http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN23560818/; DOI 10.1186/ISRCTN23560818). UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN) study 12494 (http://public.ukcrn.org.uk/Search/StudyDetail.aspx?StudyID=12494).