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.

Using sociotechnical theory to understand medication safety work in primary care and prescribers' use of clinical decision support: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: The concept of safety work draws attention to the intentional work of ensuring safety within care systems. Clinical decision support (CDS) has been designed to enhance medication safety in primary care by providing decision-making support to prescribers. Sociotechnical theory understands that healthcare settings are complex and dynamically connected systems of fluid networks, human agents, changing relationships and social processes. This study aimed to understand the relationship between safety work and the use of CDS. DESIGN AND SETTING: This qualitative study took place across nine different general practices in England. Stakeholders included general practitioners (GPs) and general practice-based pharmacists and nurse prescribers. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to illicit how the system was used by the participants in the context of medication safety work. Data analysis conducted alongside data collection was thematic and drew on socio-technical theory. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-three interviews were conducted with 14 GPs, three nurse prescribers and three practice pharmacists between February 2018 and June 2020. RESULTS: Safety work was contextually situated in a complex network of relationships. Three interconnected themes were interpreted from the data: (1) the use of CDS within organisational and social practices and workflows; (2) safety work and the use of CDS within the interplay between prescribers, patients and populations; and (3) the affordances embedded in CDS systems. CONCLUSION: The use of sociotechnical theory here extends current thinking in patient safety particularly in the ways that safety work was co-constituted with the use of CDS alerts. This has implications for implementation and use to ensure that the contexts into which such CDS systems are implemented are taken into account. Understanding how alerts can adapt safety culture will help improve the efficacy of CDS systems, enhance prescribing safety and help to further understand how safety work is achieved in primary care.

Evaluating a co-designed care bundle to improve patient safety at discharge from adult and adolescent mental health services (SAFER-MH and SAFER-YMH): protocol for a non-randomised feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients being discharged from inpatient mental wards often describe safety risks in terms of inadequate information sharing and involvement in discharge decisions. Through stakeholder engagement, we co-designed, developed and adapted two versions of a care bundle intervention, the SAFER Mental Health care bundle for adult and youth inpatient mental health settings (SAFER-MH and SAFER-YMH, respectively), that look to address these concerns through the introduction of new or improved processes of care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two uncontrolled before-and-after feasibility studies, where all participants will receive the intervention. We will examine the feasibility and acceptability of the SAFER-MH in inpatient mental health settings in patients aged 18 years or older who are being discharged and the feasibility and acceptability of the SAFER-YMH intervention in inpatient mental health settings in patients aged between 14 and 18 years who are being discharged. The baseline period and intervention periods are both 6 weeks. SAFER-MH will be implemented in three wards and SAFER-YMH in one or two wards, ideally across different trusts within England. We will use quantitative (eg, questionnaires, completion forms) and qualitative (eg, interviews, process evaluation) methods to assess the acceptability and feasibility of the two versions of the intervention. The findings will inform whether a main effectiveness trial is feasible and, if so, how it should be designed, and how many patients/wards should be included. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the National Health Service Cornwall and Plymouth Research Ethics Committee and Surrey Research Ethics Committee (reference: 22/SW/0096 and 22/LO/0404). Research findings will be disseminated with participating sites and shared in various ways to engage different audiences. We will present findings at international and national conferences, and publish in open-access, peer-reviewed journals.

Evaluating the safety of mental health-related prescribing in UK primary care: a cross-sectional study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD).

BACKGROUND: Most patients with mental illness are managed in primary care, yet there is a lack of data exploring potential prescribing safety issues in this setting for this population. OBJECTIVES: Examine the prevalence of, between-practice variation in, and patient and practice-level risk factors for, 18 mental health-related potentially hazardous prescribing indicators and four inadequate medication monitoring indicators in UK primary care. METHOD: Cross-sectional analyses of routinely collected electronic health records from 361 practices contributing to Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database. The proportion of patients 'at risk' (based on an existing diagnosis, medication, age and/or sex) triggering each indicator and composite indicator was calculated. To examine between-practice variation, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and median OR (MOR) were estimated using two-level logistic regression models. The relationship between patient and practice characteristics and risk of triggering composites including 16 of the 18 prescribing indicators and four monitoring indicators were assessed using multilevel logistic regression. RESULTS: 9.4% of patients 'at risk' (151 469 of 1 611 129) triggered at least one potentially hazardous prescribing indicator; between practices this ranged from 3.2% to 24.1% (ICC 0.03, MOR 1.22). For inadequate monitoring, 90.2% of patients 'at risk' (38 671 of 42 879) triggered at least one indicator; between practices this ranged from 33.3% to 100% (ICC 0.26, MOR 2.86). Patients aged 35-44, females and those receiving more than 10 repeat prescriptions were at greatest risk of triggering a prescribing indicator. Patients aged less than 25, females and those with one or no repeat prescription were at greatest risk of triggering a monitoring indicator. CONCLUSION: Potentially hazardous prescribing and inadequate medication monitoring commonly affect patients with mental illness in primary care, with marked between-practice variation for some indicators. These findings support health providers to identify improvement targets and inform development of improvement efforts to reduce medication-related harm.

Stakeholders views of medicines administration by pharmacy technicians on mental health inpatient wards.

Background The involvement of pharmacy technicians in medicines administration has been highlighted as an opportunity to enhance medicines management support for nurses and service users. Currently, there is no published evidence around this development within psychiatry. Objective To explore the perceptions of key stakeholders toward the feasibility and acceptability of pharmacy technician-led medicines administration within a mental health inpatient setting. Setting Ten acute adult and older-adult wards across five inpatient units within one UK mental health provider. Method Stratified purposeful sampling was used to recruit participants from primary (pharmacy technician, nurse and service user) and secondary (pharmacist, doctor and senior manager) stakeholder groups. One-to-one, semi-structured interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically using Framework analysis. Main Outcome Measure Themes arising from perspectives of stakeholders concerning the feasibility and acceptability of pharmacy technician-led medicines administration. Results Twenty participants were recruited, including twelve primary stakeholders. Attitudes towards implementation were favourable overall. Anticipated risks included de-skilling of nurses around medicines and a potentially detrimental impact on the nurse-patient therapeutic relationship; these were contrasted by potential benefits including the release of nurse time and medicines education opportunities with staff and service users. Conclusion Technician-led medicines administration was perceived as a feasible service, potentially bringing opportunities for medicines optimisation and released nursing time to care. These findings may be a source of guidance for policymakers and researchers who wish to explore the development of such services. Further exploration of safety and effectiveness is required, particularly within mental health settings.