Evaluating the impact of a pharmacist-led prescribing feedback intervention on prescribing errors in a hospital setting.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing errors are prevalent in hospital settings with provision of feedback recommended to support prescribing of doctors. Feedback on prescribing has been described as feasible and valued but limited by doctors, with pharmacists described as credible facilitators of prescribing feedback. Evidence supporting prescribing feedback has been limited to date. A formalised programme of pharmacist-led prescribing error feedback was designed and implemented to support prescribers. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a prescribing feedback intervention on prescribing error rates and frequency of prescribing error severity and type. METHOD: Prospective prescribing audits were undertaken across sixteen hospital wards in a UK teaching hospital over a five day period with 36 prescribers in the intervention group and 41 in the control group. The intervention group received pharmacist-led, individualised constructive feedback on their prescribing, whilst the control group continued with existing practice. Prescribing was re-audited after three months. Prescribing errors were classified by type and severity and data were analysed using relevant statistical tests. RESULTS: A total of 5191 prescribed medications were audited at baseline and 5122 post-intervention. There was a mean prescribing error rate of 25.0% (SD 16.8, 95% CI 19.3 to 30.7) at baseline and 6.7% (SD 9.0, 95% CI 3.7 to 9.8) post-intervention for the intervention group, and 19.7% (SD 14.5, 95% CI 15.2 to 24.3) at baseline and 25.1% (SD 17.0, 95% CI 19.8 to 30.6) post-intervention for the control group with a significant overall change in prescribing error rates between groups of 23.7% (SD 3.5, 95% CI, -30.6 to -16.8), t(75) = -6.9, p < 0.05. The frequency of each error type and severity rating was reduced in the intervention group, whilst the error frequency of some error types and severity increased in the control group. CONCLUSION: Pharmacist-led prescribing feedback has the potential to reduce prescribing errors and improve prescribing outcomes and patient safety.

Exploring the impact of pharmacist-led feedback on prescribing behaviour: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing errors occur frequently in hospital settings. Interventions to influence prescribing behaviour are needed with feedback one potential intervention to improve prescribing practice. Doctors have reported a lack of feedback on their prescribing previously whilst the literature exploring the impact of feedback on prescribing behaviour is limited. OBJECTIVES: To explore the impact of pharmacist-led feedback on prescribing behaviour. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with doctors who had received prescribing error feedback. A topic guide was used to explore the type of error and what impact feedback was having on prescribing behaviour. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using a framework approach. RESULTS: Twenty-three prescribers were interviewed and 65 errors discussed over 38 interviews. Key themes included; affective behaviour, learning outcome, prescribing behaviour and likelihood of error recurrence. Feedback was educational whilst a range of adaptive prescribing behaviours were also reported. Prescribers were more mindful and engaged with the prescribing process whilst feedback facilitated reflection, increased self-awareness and informed self-regulation. Greater information and feedback-seeking behaviours were reported whilst prescribers also reported greater situational awareness, and that they were making fewer prescribing errors following feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacist-led feedback was perceived to positively influence prescribing behaviour. Reported changes in prescriber behaviour resonate with the non-technical skills (NTS) of prescribing with prescribers adapting their prescribing behaviour depending on the environment and prescribing conditions. A model of prescribing is proposed with NTS activated in response to error provoking conditions. These findings have implications for prescribing education to make it a more contextualised educational process.

Exploring attitudes and opinions of pharmacists toward delivering prescribing error feedback: A qualitative case study using focus group interviews.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing error (PE) rates have been extensively reported in the literature. Various interventions at reducing PEs have been studied with some success, yet PEs continue to be a challenge for the health care system. Prescriber feedback has been proposed as one mechanism to reduce PEs in seminal studies. Pharmacists are viewed as an integral safety net in intercepting PEs and have been suggested as best placed to deliver feedback. However, there is very limited literature considering pharmacists; attitudes, views and opinions on facilitating PE feedback. OBJECTIVES: To explore the attitudes and views of hospital pharmacists in delivering feedback on PEs to prescribers. METHODS: Twenty-four pharmacists were recruited for one of four focus groups in a large district general hospital in the Northwest of England to explore the views of pharmacists to delivering feedback on PEs. Focus groups were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a thematic framework approach to identify current practices, beliefs and attitudes of pharmacists toward delivering PE feedback. Transcripts were independently analyzed by the research team. RESULTS: Pharmacists' views on providing feedback on PEs were organized into eight major themes; Delivery of feedback, impact of feedback, prescription error, work environment, feedback facilitator, working relationships, education and training, and system improvements. Pharmacists recognized that timely feedback on PEs was essential for prescribers to learn from their mistakes and to reduce PEs. However, delivery of feedback appeared to be inconsistent, influenced by time pressures, workload, rapport and PE severity and prescriber availability. Pharmacists reported that ward-based pharmacists in particular, were suitable to facilitate PE feedback, but expressed concern that the process may adversely affect prescriber-pharmacist rapport. Pharmacists reported limited training on delivery of feedback with formalized training required for improved consistency, and quality, of constructive feedback. CONCLUSIONS: PE feedback should be delivered to prescribers with ward-based pharmacists best suited to the role. Both direct and indirect benefits of PE feedback were reported, although potential barriers to delivering PE feedback were also identified. Pharmacists reported additional anxieties that feedback could create tensions and compromise working relationships with prescribers. PE feedback could be considered an extension of a pharmacist's role and pharmacists welcomed formalization of feedback, but were cognizant of the potential impact on their workload and expressed the need for training in the delivery of feedback.

Formalized prescribing error feedback from hospital pharmacists: doctors' attitudes and opinions.

Doctors have reported a lack of awareness of their prescribing errors with lack of feedback considered a system failure. This article summarizes the views of hospital doctors about receiving formal prescribing error feedback from ward-based pharmacists.

Comparison of repaglinide vs. gliclazide in combination with bedtime NPH insulin in patients with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral hypoglycaemic agents.

AIMS: This open-label randomized controlled clinical trial compared the effect on glycaemic control and weight gain of repaglinide vs. gliclazide combined with bedtime NPH insulin in patients with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral hypoglycaemic therapy [HbA1c>7.0% (DCCT aligned assay, normal range 4.6-6.2%)]. METHODS: Eighty subjects with Type 2 diabetes were randomized to 13 weeks' open-label treatment with repaglinide 4 mg t.i.d. or gliclazide 160 mg b.i.d. in combination with bedtime NPH insulin (initial dose 0.5 units/kg). The fasting blood glucose (FBG) target was < or =6.0 mmol/l. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar for age, sex, weight, BMI, FBG and HbA1c. Glycaemic control improved similarly in both groups-insulin/gliclazide by (mean) 1.0%, from 9.2 to 8.2% (P=0.001) and by 0.9%, from 9.4 to 8.5% in the insulin/repaglinide group (P=0.005) (P=0.83 between groups). Weight gain averaged (mean +/- sem) 4.1 +/- 0.5 and 3.4 +/- 0.4 kg in the insulin/gliclazide and insulin/repaglinide groups, respectively (P<0.0001 for both groups from baseline) (P=0.29 between groups). The mean number of hypoglycaemic episodes experienced per patient was 2.95 +/- 0.82 (insulin/gliclazide) and 2.3 +/- 0.52 (insulin/repaglinide) (P=0.81 between groups). Both treatments were associated with significant improvements in Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction [Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire-potential range 0 (min) to 36 (max)]; in the insulin/gliclazide group, by 4.9 +/- 1.1 points to 33.3 +/- 0.6 (P<0.0001) and by 3.0 +/- 0.9 points to 34.6 +/- 0.4 (P=0.0006) in the insulin/repaglinide group (P=0.29 between groups). CONCLUSIONS: Over 13 weeks, both repaglinide and gliclazide, when combined with bedtime NPH insulin produce similar significant improvements in glycaemic control (-1%) and similar weight gain.

Information given to patients before appointments and its effect on non-attendance rate.

PROBLEM: Wasted outpatient appointments as a result of clinic non-attendance, exacerbating outpatient waiting times. DESIGN: Single centre, prospective, non-randomised, controlled study. BACKGROUND AND SETTING: Diabetes clinic in a district general hospital run by a consultant, one or two diabetes nurse specialists, a dietitian, and a podiatrist. Clinic receives 10-15 new referrals a week in a health district with a population of 340 000. KEY MEASURE FOR IMPROVEMENT: Non-attendance rate in 325 new patients who attended after the intervention compared with 1336 historical controls from the same clinic in the three years before the scheme. STRATEGY FOR CHANGE: Two weeks before their outpatient appointment new patients were sent an information pack telling them when and where to come, where to park, what to bring, who they will see, and what to expect. One week before the appointment they received a supplementary phone call. EFFECTS OF CHANGE: Telling patients what to expect reduced non-attendance rate overall from 15% (201/1336) to 4.6% (15/325), P<0.0001. Non-attendance rate was 7.3% (13/178) in those sent a pack but not phoned and 1.4% (2/147) in those sent a pack and phoned, P=0.01. LESSON LEARNT: Giving new patients detailed information reduces non-attendance to almost 1%.