Developing interfaith interventions to address hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination: protocol for a focus group-based, exploratory qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated how vaccine hesitancy impacts are translated nationally and internationally. A predictor of vaccine hesitancy is religious beliefs (eg, the body being sacred and should be healed by God). Additionally, the perceived content of vaccines can conflict with religious dietary restrictions. Despite the main faith organisations in the UK endorsing COVID-19 vaccination, vaccine hesitancy remains a challenge. Most faith-based research and interventions have been investigated in individual faiths, in isolation from others. Therefore, the aim of our research is to inform the development of interfaith interventions to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, following the identification of potential facilitators and barriers and codesign of interfaith intervention(s). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will facilitate six face-to-face focus groups in London, each comprising eight participants. There will also be the option of joining an online focus group. A semistructured topic guide will include questions on experiences around interfaith, vaccine hesitancy, facilitators and barriers, and potential interfaith interventions to increase vaccine acceptance. Focus group participants will be invited to join a subsequent interfaith codesign workshop where the researchers will share the tentative findings and facilitate discussion to develop one or more interventions. Purposive sampling will be used to recruit 48 participants from different faith groups, ethnicities and backgrounds to capture diversity in the sample. Reflexive thematic analysis will guide a systematic process of constant comparison, coding data into categories and refining into overarching themes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University College London (UCL) Research Ethics Committee granted ethics approval (Project ID 4359.006) on 3 May 2022. Minor amendments to the study were approved on 15 May 2023 to accommodate participants' requests for online or face-to-face focus groups at a UCL venue. Informed consent is required from all participants. The findings will be disseminated in journals and to the public and key stakeholders.

Exploring the Role of Guidelines in Contributing to Medication Errors: A Descriptive Analysis of National Patient Safety Incident Data.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical guidelines can contribute to medication errors but there is no overall understanding of how and where these occur. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify guideline-related medication errors reported via a national incident reporting system, and describe types of error, stages of medication use, guidelines, drugs, specialties and clinical locations most commonly associated with such errors. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of reports to the National Reporting and Learning System for England and Wales. A hierarchical task analysis (HTA) was developed, describing expected practice when using guidelines. A free-text search was conducted of medication incident reports (2016-2021) using search terms related to common guidelines. All identified reports linked to moderate-severe harm or death, and a random sample of 5100 no/low-harm reports were coded to describe deviations from the HTA. A random sample of 500 cases were independently double-coded. RESULTS: In total, 28,217 reports were identified, with 608 relating to moderate-severe harm or death. Fleiss' kappa for interrater reliability was 0.46. Of the 5708 reports coded, 642 described an HTA step discrepancy (including four linked to a death), suggesting over 3200 discrepancies in the entire dataset of 28,217 reports. Discrepancies related to finding guidelines (n = 300 reports), finding information within guidelines (n = 166) and using information (n = 176). Discrepancies were most frequently identified for guidelines produced by a local organisation (n = 405), and most occurred during prescribing (n = 277) or medication administration (n = 241). CONCLUSION: Difficulties finding and using information from clinical guidelines contribute to thousands of prescribing and medication administration incidents, some of which are associated with substantial patient harm.

Causes of Vaccine Hesitancy in Adults for the Influenza and COVID-19 Vaccines: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy was labelled as one of the top ten threats to global health by the World Health Organization in 2019 and is associated with negative health outcomes. Previous reviews on cause of vaccines have not included vaccine hesitancy related to the COVID-19 vaccine. This review aimed to fill this gap by synthesising the findings of studies identifying causes of vaccine hesitancy to the COVID-19 and influenza vaccines. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted. Searches were carried out in the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. Following data extraction, a thematic analysis was conducted of the causes of vaccine hesitancy in adults for the influenza and COVID-19 vaccines. RESULTS: Fourteen papers were included. Four themes were identified as causes of vaccine hesitancy comprising: concerns over safety, lack of trust, lack of need for vaccination and cultural reasons. While concerns over safety were found in all countries, some of these were specific to particular countries and cultures. Our findings suggest that scientific knowledge of vaccines and size of clinical trials during their development reduce vaccine hesitancy. However, pharmaceutical companies were not a trusted source of information. CONCLUSION: Our findings build on those of previous research to suggest specific information that may be helpful in addressing vaccine hesitancy. Targeted approaches from trusted sources are needed to address specific safety concerns.

Stakeholders' views on the use of psychotropic medication in older people: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: psychotropic medication use has been shown to increase with age and has been associated with increased risk of falls, strokes and mortality. Various guidelines, regulations and tools have been developed to reduce inappropriate prescribing, but this remains high. In order to understand the reasons for this, we aimed to systematically review healthcare professionals', patients' and family caregivers' attitudes towards the use of psychotropic medication in older people. METHODS: a systematic literature search was carried out from inception to September 2020 using PUBMED, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL and hand-searching of reference lists. Included studies investigated stakeholder views on psychotropic in adults over the age of 65. Findings were thematically synthesised. RESULTS: overall, there was an acceptance of long-term psychotropic medication for older people both living in the community and in residential care. While healthcare professionals were aware of guidelines for the use of benzodiazepines and psychotropic medicines, they identified barriers to following them on individual, team and organisational levels. Alternative non-pharmacological approaches were not always available or accepted by patients. CONCLUSION: psychotropic medicine use in older adults remains a complex issue, which needs to be addressed on a broad level. Attitudes of older people and healthcare professionals encourage long-term use. Meanwhile, various internal and external factors act as barriers to the use of non-drug alternatives in this population. In order to reduce overprescribing of psychotropics, there is a need to increase the acceptability and accessibility of alternative interventions in both care homes and the community.

Which domains of the theoretical domains framework should be targeted in interventions to increase adherence to antihypertensives? A systematic review.

Nonadherence to antihypertensives is prevalent and is associated with poorer health outcomes. This study aimed to identify psychological factors associated with adherence in patients taking antihypertensives as these are potentially modifiable, and can, therefore, inform the development of effective interventions to increase adherence. PubMed, EMBASE and PsychINFO were searched to identify studies that tested for significant associations between psychological domains and adherence to antihypertensives. The domains reported were categorized according to the Theoretical Domains Framework. The quality of included studies was evaluated using the National Institute for Clinical Excellence critical appraisal of questionnaire checklist. Thirty-one studies were included. Concerns about medicines (a subdomain of 'beliefs about consequences') and 'beliefs about capabilities' consistently showed association with adherence in over five studies. Healthcare professionals should actively ask patients if they have any concerns about their antihypertensives and their belief in their ability to control their blood pressure through taking antihypertensives.

To What Extent Is the World Health Organization's Medication Safety Challenge Being Addressed in English Hospital Organizations? A Descriptive Study.

OBJECTIVES: Our study aimed to explore to what extent the priority areas and domains of the World Health Organization (WHO)'s third Global Patient Safety Challenge were being addressed in a sample of hospital organizations. METHODS: A qualitative approach was taken using a combination of focus groups, semistructured interviews, and documentary analysis in 4 UK teaching hospital organizations. A purposive sampling strategy was adopted with the aim of recruiting health care professionals who would be likely to have knowledge of medication safety interventions that were being carried out at the hospital organizations. Medication safety group meeting notes from 2017 to 2019 were reviewed at the hospital organizations to identify interventions recently implemented, those currently being implemented, and plans for the future. A content analysis was undertaken using the WHO's third Global Patient Safety Challenge priority areas and domains as deductive themes. RESULTS: All the domains and priority areas of the WHO Medication Safety Challenge were being addressed at all 4 sites. However, a greater number of interventions focused on "health care professionals" and "systems and practices of medication management" than on "patients and the public." In terms of the priority areas, the main focus was on "high-risk situations," particularly high-risk medicines, with fewer interventions in the areas of "transitions of care" and "polypharmacy." CONCLUSIONS: More work may be needed to address patient and public involvement in medication safety and the priority areas of transitions of care and polypharmacy. Comparative global studies would help build an international picture and allow shared learning.

Do patients and family carers have different concerns about the use of medicines compared with healthcare professionals? A quantitative secondary analysis of healthcare concerns relating to adults with complex needs.

OBJECTIVE: To identify concerns related to the use of medicines for adults with complex needs and explore whether these differed between healthcare professionals and patients/carers, in order to inform development of interventions to increase medication adherence. METHODS: A quantitative secondary analysis of a database of healthcare professionals' and patients'/carers' healthcare concerns, related to adults with complex needs. Categories of concerns related to medicines use were identified and concerns related to medication use coded against these. Data were analysed descriptively, and a Chi-square test conducted to test for differences in responses from healthcare professionals versus patients/carers. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in the types of medication concern raised by healthcare professionals versus those raised by patients/carers. Patients/carers expressed more concerns about side effects and interactions; healthcare professionals identified more concerns related to patient support and carers' knowledge/training. CONCLUSION: Healthcare professionals had significantly different concerns about medicines to patients; this may be a potential barrier to medication adherence. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Healthcare professionals may need to adopt an approach to non-adherence that goes beyond education and counselling and adopts a wider patient perspective. Findings suggest that a greater focus on addressing side effects and interactions may be beneficial in increasing medication adherence.

Medicines management at home during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study exploring the UK patient/carer perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To explore home medicine practices and safety for people shielding and/or over the age of 70 during the COVID-19 pandemic and to create guidance, from the patient/carer perspective, for enabling safe medicine practices for this population. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 50 UK participants who were shielding and/or over the age of 70 and who used medicines for a long-term condition, using telephone or video conferencing. Participants were recruited through personal/professional networks and through patient/carer organisations. Participants were asked about their experiences of managing medicines during the pandemic and how this differed from previous practices. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. KEY FINDINGS: Patients' and their families' experiences of managing medicines safely during the pandemic varied greatly. Analysis suggests that this was based on the patient's own agency, the functioning of their medicines system pre-pandemic and their relationships with family, friends, community networks and pharmacy staff. Medicine safety issues reported included omitted doses and less-effective formulations being used. Participants also described experiencing high levels of anxiety related to obtaining medicines, monitoring medicines and feeling at risk of contracting COVID-19 while accessing healthcare services for medicine-related issues. Effects of the pandemic on medicines adherence were reported to be positive by some and negative by others. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacy staff have a key role to play by establishing good relationships with patients and their families, working with prescribers to ensure medicines systems are as joined up as possible, and signposting to community networks that can help with medicines collection.

Resilience of Medication Adherence Practices in Response to Life Changes: Learning from Qualitative Data Obtained during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Nonadherence to medicines is widespread and can adversely affect health outcomes. Previous research has identified that patients develop their own strategies to assist with adherence. However, such research has not focused on how the helpfulness of these strategies may change in response to changes in patients' circumstances. This study aimed to explore resilience of medication adherence to life changes. It involved secondary thematic analysis of the verbatim transcripts of 50 semi-structured interviews that were conducted with adults who were advised to shield or were over the age of 70 during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Interview data suggested that resilience of medication adherence varied between participants. Participants either reported that they had not used any specific strategies to remind them to take their medicines prior to the pandemic, that the strategies that they had employed prior to the pandemic remained effective during the pandemic, that they had needed to make some adjustments to the strategies used, or that the strategies they had used were no longer effective. In addition, beliefs about medicines and motivation to take them were altered for some participants. These findings suggest that challenges associated with medication adherence do not always remain stable over time and that healthcare professionals need to continue to monitor and support medication adherence long-term.

Exploring the theory, barriers and enablers for patient and public involvement across health, social care and patient safety: a systematic review of reviews.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of patient and public involvement (PPI) in healthcare in the UK can be traced as far back as the 1970s. More recently, campaigns by harmed patients have led to a renewed focus on strengthening PPI. There is a growing awareness of the benefits of PPI in research as well as a need to address power inequities and a lack of diversity and inclusion. This review was undertaken to look at evidence for theories, barriers and enablers in PPI across health, social care and patient safety that could be used to strengthen PPI and address a perceived knowledge and theory gap with PPI in patient safety. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from inception to August 2018, using both MeSH and free-text terms to identify published empirical literature. Protocols in PROSPERO were also searched to identify any systematic reviews in progress. The extracted information was analysed using a narrative approach, which synthesises data using a descriptive method. RESULTS: Forty-two reviews were identified and grouped by key outcomes. Twenty-two papers mentioned theory in some form, 31 mentioned equality and diversity (although with no theory mentioned in this area), and only 19 cited equality and diversity as a barrier or enabler. Thirty-four reviews identified barriers and enablers at different organisational levels: personal/individual; attitudes; health professional; roles and expectations; knowledge, information and communication; financing and resourcing; training; general support; recruitment and representation, PPI methods and working with communities and addressing power dynamics. CONCLUSIONS: The review findings suggest that a commitment to PPI and partnership working is dependent on taking a whole system approach. This needs to consider the complex individual and organisational enablers and constraints to this process and address imbalances of power experienced by different groups. Addressing equality and diversity and use of a theory-driven approach to guide PPI are neglected areas. The long tradition of involvement across health and social care can provide considerable expertise in thinking about ways to strengthen approaches to PPI. This is especially important in patient safety, with a much newer tradition of developing PPI than other areas of healthcare.

Analysis of the third WHO Global Safety Challenge 'Medication Without Harm' patient-facing materials: exploratory descriptive study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate patients' views on the content and use of the 'Five Moments for Medication Safety' materials developed as part of the WHO's 'Medication Without Harm' Global Patient Safety Challenge. These comprise a booklet, flyer, infographic poster, pamphlet and mobile application. They include recommended questions for patients to ask healthcare professionals to gain a better understanding of their medication. METHODS: Structured interviews were conducted with members of the public who entered an outpatient pharmacy in a London teaching hospital, using a combination of open and closed questions. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. χ2, Fisher's exact, Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to test for associations between responses and variables such as age. RESULTS: We approached 147 people; 100 (68%) agreed to take part. Of these, 83% thought that the materials would be 'quite' or 'very' useful. Potential barriers to their use were patients being of the view that they already ask healthcare professionals about their medicines or that there would be limited time available to answer their questions during consultations. Fifty-nine per cent of participants stated that they would prefer to be given the materials in waiting areas before seeing a healthcare professional; 61% thought they should be displayed on television screens in general practice surgeries. Age was significantly associated with preference for the mobile application (χ2 test, p<0.01), with younger people preferring this format. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' views of the Five Moments for Medication Safety materials were generally positive. Our findings suggest that they should be displayed on television screens in waiting areas and given to patients prior to appointments. More advice is needed for patients on how to incorporate the questions suggested in the resources into a brief healthcare consultation.

Household medication safety practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: a descriptive qualitative study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Those who are staying at home and reducing contact with other people during the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to be at greater risk of medication-related problems than the general population. This study aims to explore household medication practices by and for this population, identify practices that benefit or jeopardise medication safety and develop best practice guidance about household medication safety practices during a pandemic, grounded in individual experiences. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a descriptive qualitative study using semistructured interviews, by telephone or video call. People who have been advised to 'cocoon'/'shield' and/or are aged 70 years or over and using at least one long-term medication, or their caregivers, will be eligible for inclusion. We will recruit 100 patient/carer participants: 50 from the UK and 50 from Ireland. Recruitment will be supported by our patient and public involvement (PPI) partners, personal networks and social media. Individual participant consent will be sought, and interviews audio/video recorded and/or detailed notes made. A constructivist interpretivist approach to data analysis will involve use of the constant comparative method to organise the data, along with inductive analysis. From this, we will iteratively develop best practice guidance about household medication safety practices during a pandemic from the patient's/carer's perspective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has Trinity College Dublin, University of Limerick and University College London ethics approvals. We plan to disseminate our findings via presentations at relevant patient/public, professional, academic and scientific meetings, and for publication in peer-reviewed journals. We will create a list of helpful strategies that participants have reported and share this with participants, PPI partners and on social media.

How can patient-held lists of medication enhance patient safety? A mixed-methods study with a focus on user experience.

BACKGROUND: Patients often carry medication lists to mitigate information loss across healthcare settings. We aimed to identify mechanisms by which these lists could be used to support safety, key supporting features, and barriers and facilitators to their use. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods design comprising two focus groups with patients and carers, 16 semistructured interviews with healthcare professionals, 60 semistructured interviews with people carrying medication lists, a quantitative features analysis of tools available for patients to record their medicines and usability testing of four tools. Findings were triangulated using thematic analysis. Distributed cognition for teamwork models were used as sensitising concepts. RESULTS: We identified a wide range of mechanisms through which carrying medication lists can improve medication safety. These included improving the accuracy of medicines reconciliation, allowing identification of potential drug interactions, facilitating communication about medicines, acting as an aide-mémoire to patients during appointments, allowing patients to check their medicines for errors and reminding patients to take and reorder their medicines. Different tools for recording medicines met different needs. Of 103 tools examined, none met the core needs of all users. A key barrier to use was lack of awareness by patients and carers that healthcare information systems can be fragmented, a key facilitator was encouragement from healthcare professionals. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that patients and healthcare professionals perceive patient-held medication lists to have a wide variety of benefits. Interventions are needed to raise awareness of the potential role of these lists in enhancing patient safety. Such interventions should empower patients and carers to identify a method that suits them best from a range of options and avoid a 'one size fits all' approach.

Mixed methods study of medication-related decision support alerts experienced during electronic prescribing for inpatients at an English hospital.

OBJECTIVES: Electronic prescribing and medication administration systems are being introduced in many hospitals worldwide, with varying degrees of clinical decision support including pop-up alerts. Previous research suggests that prescribers override a high proportion of alerts, but little research has been carried out in the UK. Our objective was to explore rates of alert overriding in different prescribing situations and prescribers' perceptions around the use of decision support alerts in a UK hospital. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study on three cardiology wards, directly observing medical and non-medical prescribers' alert override rates during both ward round and non-ward round prescribing; observations were followed by semi-structured interviews with prescribers, which were then transcribed and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Overall, 69% of 199 observed alerts were overridden. Alerts experienced during ward rounds were significantly more likely to be overridden than those outside of ward rounds (80% of 56 vs 51% of 63; p=0.001, Χ2 test). While respondents acknowledged that alerts could be useful, several also described negative unintended consequences. Many were of the view that usefulness of alerts was limited if the alert was reminding them to do something they would do anyway, or suggesting something they did not feel was relevant. Findings suggest that targeting, timing and additional features of alerts are critical factors in determining whether they are acted on or overridden. CONCLUSION: The majority of alerts were overridden. Alerts may be less likely to be overridden if they are built into the prescribing workflow.

Distributed Cognition: Understanding Complex Sociotechnical Informatics.

Distributed cognition theory posits that our cognitive tasks are so tightly coupled to the environment that cognition extends into the environment, beyond the skin and the skull. It uses cognitive concepts to describe information processing across external representations, social networks and across different periods of time. Distributed cognition lends itself to exploring how people interact with technology in the workplace, issues to do with communication and coordination, how people's thinking extends into the environment and sociotechnical system architecture and performance more broadly. We provide an overview of early work that established distributed cognition theory, describe more recent work that facilitates its application, and outline how this theory has been used in health informatics. We present two use cases to show how distributed cognition can be used at the formative and summative stages of a project life cycle. In both cases, key determinants that influence performance of the sociotechnical system and/or the technology are identified. We argue that distributed cognition theory can have descriptive, rhetorical, inferential and application power. For evidence-based health informatics it can lead to design changes and hypotheses that can be tested.

Use of patient-held information about medication (PHIMed) to support medicines optimisation: protocol for a mixed-methods descriptive study.

INTRODUCTION: Risks of poor information transfer across health settings are well documented, particularly for medication. There is also increasing awareness of the importance of greater patient activation. Patients may use various types of patient-held information about medication (PHIMed) to facilitate medication transfer, which may be paper or electronic. However, it is not known how PHIMed should best be used, whether it improves patient outcomes, nor is its key 'active ingredients' known. Discussion with patients and carers has highlighted this as a priority for research. We aim to identify how PHIMed is used in practice, barriers and facilitators to its use and key features of PHIMed that support medicines optimisation in practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will take place in Greater London, England. We will include patients with long-term conditions, carers and healthcare professionals. The study has four work packages (WPs). WP1 involves qualitative interviews with healthcare professionals (n=16) and focus groups with patients and carers (n=20), including users and non-users of PHIMed, to study perceptions around its role, key features, barriers and facilitators, and any unintended consequences. WP2 will involve documentary analysis of how PHIMed is used, what is documented and read, and by whom, in a stratified sample of 60 PHIMed users. In WP3, we will carry out a descriptive analysis of PHIMed tools used/available, both electronic and paper, and categorise their design and key features based on those identified in WP1/2. Finally, in WP4, findings from WPs 1-3 will be integrated and analysed using distributed cognition as a theoretical framework to explore how information is recorded, transformed and propagated among different people and artefacts. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has National Health Service ethics approval. It will provide initial recommendations around the present use of PHIMed to optimise patient care for patients, carers and healthcare professionals.

Carers' Medication Administration Errors in the Domiciliary Setting: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: Medications are mostly taken in patients' own homes, increasingly administered by carers, yet studies of medication safety have been largely conducted in the hospital setting. We aimed to review studies of how carers cause and/or prevent medication administration errors (MAEs) within the patient's home; to identify types, prevalence and causes of these MAEs and any interventions to prevent them. METHODS: A narrative systematic review of literature published between 1 Jan 1946 and 23 Sep 2013 was carried out across the databases EMBASE, MEDLINE, PSYCHINFO, COCHRANE and CINAHL. Empirical studies were included where carers were responsible for preventing/causing MAEs in the home and standardised tools used for data extraction and quality assessment. RESULTS: Thirty-six papers met the criteria for narrative review, 33 of which included parents caring for children, two predominantly comprised adult children and spouses caring for older parents/partners, and one focused on paid carers mostly looking after older adults. The carer administration error rate ranged from 1.9 to 33% of medications administered and from 12 to 92.7% of carers administering medication. These included dosage errors, omitted administration, wrong medication and wrong time or route of administration. Contributory factors included individual carer factors (e.g. carer age), environmental factors (e.g. storage), medication factors (e.g. number of medicines), prescription communication factors (e.g. comprehensibility of instructions), psychosocial factors (e.g. carer-to-carer communication), and care-recipient factors (e.g. recipient age). The few interventions effective in preventing MAEs involved carer training and tailored equipment. CONCLUSION: This review shows that home medication administration errors made by carers are a potentially serious patient safety issue. Carers made similar errors to those made by professionals in other contexts and a wide variety of contributory factors were identified. The home care setting should be a priority for the development of patient safety interventions.

The Role of Hospital Inpatients in Supporting Medication Safety: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient medication errors are a significant concern. An approach not yet widely studied is to facilitate greater involvement of inpatients with their medication. At the same time, electronic prescribing is becoming increasingly prevalent in the hospital setting. In this study we aimed to explore hospital inpatients' involvement with medication safety-related behaviours, facilitators and barriers to this involvement, and the impact of electronic prescribing. METHODS: We conducted ethnographic observations and interviews in two UK hospital organisations, one with established electronic prescribing and one that changed from paper to electronic prescribing during our study. Researchers and lay volunteers observed nurses' medication administration rounds, pharmacists' ward rounds, doctor-led ward rounds and drug history taking. We also conducted interviews with healthcare professionals, patients and carers. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Observation notes and transcripts were coded thematically. RESULTS: Paper or electronic medication records were shown to patients in only 4 (2%) of 247 cases. However, where they were available during patient-healthcare professional interactions, healthcare professionals often viewed them in order to inform patients about their medicines and answer any questions. Interprofessional discussions about medicines seemed more likely to happen in front of the patient where paper or electronic drug charts were available near the bedside. Patients and carers had more access to paper-based drug charts than electronic equivalents. However, interviews and observations suggest there are potentially more significant factors that affect patient involvement with their inpatient medication. These include patient and healthcare professional beliefs concerning patient involvement, the way in which healthcare professionals operate as a team, and the underlying culture. CONCLUSION: Patients appear to have more access to paper-based records than electronic equivalents. However, to develop interventions to increase patient involvement with medication safety behaviours, a wider range of factors needs to be considered.