Exploring the challenges faced by foundation doctors when prescribing high risk medicines safely during the on-call period: A qualitative study.

AIMS: Errors with prescribing high-risk medicines (HRMs) have a greater propensity to cause harm than with non-HRMs. Prescribing errors arise due to multiple factors and it can be particularly challenging for junior doctors to prescribe safely during the on-call period. Knowledge regarding the challenges of prescribing HRM during the on-call period would be useful to target preventative interventions. The aim of this study was to explore the challenges encountered by foundation doctors (doctors who have graduated medical school within the last 2 years) when prescribing specific HRMs (anticoagulants, insulin and opioids) safely during the on-call period. METHODS: Six focus groups exploring the challenges of prescribing HRMs safely during the on-call period were conducted, 3 with foundation year 1 and 3 with foundation year 2 doctors from across 3 different hospitals. A thematic framework analysis based on the London Protocol was conducted. RESULTS: Doctors described multiple challenges to prescribing HRMs safely during the on-call period including a lack of prescribing support, nursing pressure, complex prescribing tasks, unknown patients as well as individual factors such as lack of knowledge and tiredness. Many of these factors exist to some extent during the day, yet the nature of the on-call period as a fast-paced environment heightened the challenges that prescribers faced. CONCLUSION: There are multiple challenges experienced by foundation doctors when prescribing HRMs during the on-call period. The potentially devastating consequences of errors with HRMs means that closer attention and more concern from healthcare professionals, researchers and policymakers is required to improve safe prescribing of HRMs in hospitals.

Towards understanding and improving medication safety for patients with mental illness in primary care: A multimethod study.

INTRODUCTION: Medication safety incidents have been identified as an important target to improve patient safety in mental healthcare. Despite this, the causes of preventable medication safety incidents affecting patients with mental illness have historically been poorly understood, with research now addressing this knowledge gap through a healthcare professional lens. However, patients and carers can also provide complimentary insight into safety issues, and as key stakeholders in healthcare, it is vital to consider their needs when designing effective interventions. METHODS: A two-stage approach was adopted by (i) conducting three focus groups (FG) comprising 13 patients with mental illness and their carers to develop a holistic picture of medication safety in primary care with extraction of themes guided by the P-MEDS framework; (ii) conducting two separate nominal group consensus workshops with seven patients with mental illness/carers and seven healthcare professionals to identify priority areas for targeted interventions. RESULTS: Seven themes were identified in the FGs: communication; trust, involvement and respect; continuity and support; access; the healthcare professional; the patient and carer; and the organisation. Priority areas identified for intervention by key stakeholders included improving communication within and between clinical services, enhancing patient support with holistic continuity of care, maximising shared decision-making and empowerment, ensuring timely access to medicines and services, strengthening healthcare professional knowledge regarding mental illnesses and associated medications, and increasing patient dignity and respect. CONCLUSION: This study has developed a holistic picture of contributors to medication safety incidents affecting patients with mental illness in primary care. This theory was then used by key stakeholders to inform and generate priority recommendations for targeted interventions. These findings can be used to inform future intervention research, as they consider the needs of those who access or work within primary care services. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: An advisory group consisting of three expert patients with lived experience of mental illness was consulted on the design of both stages of this study. Patients with mental illness and/or their carers were recruited and participated in both stages of this study. Patients/carers aided with data analysis and interpretation during the patient/carer nominal group consensus workshop.

Sleep-related benefits to transitive inference are modulated by encoding strength and joint rank.

Transitive inference is a measure of relational learning that has been shown to improve across sleep. Here, we examine this phenomenon further by studying the impact of encoding strength and joint rank. In experiment 1, participants learned adjacent premise pairs and were then tested on inferential problems derived from those pairs. In line with prior work, we found improved transitive inference performance after retention across a night of sleep compared with wake alone. Experiment 2 extended these findings using a within-subject design and found superior transitive inference performance on a hierarchy, consolidated across 27 h including sleep compared with just 3 h of wake. In both experiments, consolidation-related improvement was enhanced when presleep learning (i.e., encoding strength) was stronger. We also explored the interaction of these effects with the joint rank effect, in which items were scored according to their rank in the hierarchy, with more dominant item pairs having the lowest scores. Interestingly, the consolidation-related benefit was greatest for more dominant inference pairs (i.e., those with low joint rank scores). Overall, our findings provide further support for the improvement of transitive inference across a consolidation period that includes sleep. We additionally show that encoding strength and joint rank strongly modulate this effect.

Understanding the medication safety challenges for patients with mental illness in primary care: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Mental illness and medication safety are key priorities for healthcare systems around the world. Despite most patients with mental illness being treated exclusively in primary care, our understanding of medication safety challenges in this setting is fragmented. METHOD: Six electronic databases were searched between January 2000-January 2023. Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant/included studies were also screened for studies. Included studies reported data on epidemiology, aetiology, or interventions related to medication safety for patients with mental illness in primary care. Medication safety challenges were defined using the drug-related problems (DRPs) categorisation. RESULTS: Seventy-nine studies were included with 77 (97.5%) reporting on epidemiology, 25 (31.6%) on aetiology, and 18 (22.8%) evaluated an intervention. Studies most commonly (33/79, 41.8%) originated from the United States of America (USA) with the most investigated DRP being non-adherence (62/79, 78.5%). General practice was the most common study setting (31/79, 39.2%) and patients with depression were a common focus (48/79, 60.8%). Aetiological data was presented as either causal (15/25, 60.0%) or as risk factors (10/25, 40.0%). Prescriber-related risk factors/causes were reported in 8/25 (32.0%) studies and patient-related risk factors/causes in 23/25 (92.0%) studies. Interventions to improve adherence rates (11/18, 61.1%) were the most evaluated. Specialist pharmacists provided the majority of interventions (10/18, 55.6%) with eight of these studies involving a medication review/monitoring service. All 18 interventions reported positive improvements on some medication safety outcomes but 6/18 reported little difference between groups for certain medication safety measures. CONCLUSION: Patients with mental illness are at risk of a variety of DRPs in primary care. However, to date, available research exploring DRPs has focused attention on non-adherence and potential prescribing safety issues in older patients with dementia. Our findings highlight the need for further research on the causes of preventable medication incidents and targeted interventions to improve medication safety for patients with mental illness in primary care.

UK prescribing practice of anticoagulants in patients with chronic kidney disease: a nephrology and haematology-based survey.

A survey to gain insight into anticoagulant prescribing practice in the setting of chronic kidney disease (CKD) across the UK was disseminated via renal and haematology networks. Areas of anticoagulant use included patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE), requiring thromboprophylaxis for VTE, Atrial Fibrillation (AF) and nephrotic syndrome.An online-survey was disseminated via British Haematology Society, UK Kidney Association, and Renal Pharmacy Group over a five month period. All responses were voluntary and anonymous.Among 117 responses there were 49 nephrology doctors, 47 renal pharmacists and 20 haematology clinicians. A specialist multidisciplinary team to discuss the specific anticoagulant management of these patients was only available to 3% (4/117) respondents. Renal function estimate used for anticoagulant dosing was mainly Cockcroft-Gault for pharmacists and haematology but lab-based estimates were used by nephrology doctors. Therapeutic dose of Low Molecular Weight Heparin was mostly likely to be reduced by one-third when used for VTE treatment, with the majority of units undertaking anti-Xa monitoring in CKD stage 5 and dialysis. Direct-acting Oral Anticoagulants are being used in patients with nephrotic syndrome, those with CKD stage 5 and on dialysis for VTE and AF in the absence of license in these indications.This survey highlighted the significant differences between anticoagulant prescribing in CKD between two professional specialties and marked variation between centres in anticoagulant management strategies employed for these patients. With gaps still existing in the evidence base and answers to these not expected within the next few years, development of a best-practice guideline would be warranted to support clinicians in this field.

The Role of Clinical Pharmacy in Preventing Prescribing Errors in the Emergency Department of a Governmental Hospital in Jordan: A Pre-Post Study.

Background: Clinical pharmacists have a vital role in intercepting prescribing errors (PEs) but their impact within a Jordanian hospital emergency department (ED) has never been studied. Objective: To evaluate the impact of clinical pharmacy services on PEs and assess predictors of physicians' acceptance of clinical pharmacists' interventions. Setting: This study was conducted in the ED of the largest governmental hospital in Jordan. Method: This was a pre-post study conducted in October and November 2019 using a disguised observational method. There were 2 phases: control phase (P0) with no clinical interventions, and active phase (P1) where clinical pharmacists prospectively intervened upon errors. The clinical significance of errors was determined by a multidisciplinary committee. The SPSS software version 24 was used for data analysis. Main Outcome Measure: PEs incidence, type, severity, and predictors for physicians' acceptance. Results: Of 18003 patients, 8732 were included in P0 and 9271 in P1. PEs incidence decreased from 24.6% to 5.4%. Contraindication, drug selection, and dosage form error types were significantly reduced from 32.6%, 9.1%, and 3.7% (P0) to 12.6%, 0.0%, and 0.0% (P1), respectively. Albeit not statistically significant, drug-drug interaction, drug frequency, and allergy error types were reduced from 4.9%, 3.1%, and 0.1% to 4.5%, 2.5%, and 0.0%, respectively. Significant and serious errors were significantly reduced from 68.7% and 3.0% (P0) to 8.9% and 1.8% (P1), respectively. During P1, most errors were minor (89.3%, 1574/1763), and lethal errors ceased. Predictors for physicians' acceptance were: significant errors (OR 3.1; 95% CI 2.6-4.3; P = 0.03) and non-busy physicians (OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.6-2.7; P = 0.04). Conclusion: Clinical pharmacists significantly reduced PEs in the ED by 76%; most of interventions were significant. Policymakers are advised to implement active clinical pharmacy in the ED.

Mindful organizing in patients' contributions to primary care medication safety.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to ensure that the risks associated with medication usage in primary health care are controlled. To maintain an understanding of the risks, health-care organizations may engage in a process known as "mindful organizing." While this is typically conceived of as involving organizational members, it may in the health-care context also include patients. Our study aimed to examine ways in which patients might contribute to mindful organizing with respect to primary care medication safety. METHOD: Qualitative focus groups and interviews were carried out with 126 members of the public in North West England and the East Midlands. Participants were taking medicines for a long-term health condition, were taking several medicines, had previously encountered problems with their medication or were caring for another person in any of these categories. Participants described their experiences of dealing with medication-related concerns. The transcripts were analysed using a thematic method. RESULTS: We identified 4 themes to explain patient behaviour associated with mindful organizing: knowledge about clinical or system issues; artefacts that facilitate control of medication risks; communication with health-care professionals; and the relationship between patients and the health-care system (in particular, mutual trust). CONCLUSIONS: Mindful organizing is potentially useful for framing patient involvement in safety, although there are some conceptual and practical issues to be addressed before it can be fully exploited in this setting. We have identified factors that influence (and are strengthened by) patients' engagement in mindful organizing, and as such would be a useful focus of efforts to support patient involvement.

Foundation year one and year two doctors' prescribing errors: a comparison of their causes.

OBJECTIVE: Junior doctors have the highest rates of prescribing errors, yet no study has set out to understand the differences between completely novice prescribers (Foundation year one (FY1) doctors) and those who have gained some experience (Foundation year two (FY2) doctors). The objective of this study was to uncover the causes of prescribing errors made by FY2 doctors and compare them with previously collected data of the causes of errors made by FY1 doctors. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews, using the critical incident technique, conducted with 19 FY2 doctors on the causes of their prescribing errors and compared with interviews previously conducted with 30 FY1 doctors. Data were analysed using a constant comparison approach after categorisation of the data using Reason's model of accident causation and the London protocol. RESULTS: Common contributory factors in both FY1 and FY2 doctors' prescribing errors included working on call, tiredness and complex patients. Yet, important differences were revealed in terms of application of prescribing knowledge, with FY1 doctors lacking knowledge and FY2 misplacing their knowledge. Due to the rotation of foundation doctors, both groups are faced with novel prescribing contexts, yet the previous experience that FY2 doctors gained led to misplaced confidence when caution would have been expedient. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in the contributory factors of prescribing errors should be taken into account when designing interventions to improve the prescribing of foundation doctors. Furthermore, careful consideration should be taken when inferring expertise in FY2 doctors, who are likely to prescribe in contexts in which their experience is little different to an FY1 doctor.

A qualitative study exploring how pharmacist and nurse independent prescribers make clinical decisions.

AIM: The aim of this study was to explore how secondary care pharmacist and nurse independent prescribers clinically reason when making prescribing decisions. BACKGROUND: Clinical reasoning is a central component of prescribers' competence and professional autonomy when reaching a clinically appropriate decision. Like doctors, pharmacist and nurse independent prescribers in the UK have extensive prescribing rights, but little is known about their clinical reasoning. DESIGN: A qualitative approach using a think-aloud methodology and semi-structured interviews. METHODS: Eleven nurse and 10 pharmacist independent prescribers were asked to think-aloud about validated clinical vignettes prior to interview, between March - December 2015. Data were analysed using a constant-comparative approach. RESULTS: A strong link between clinical knowledge, grounded in previous experience and clinical reasoning was found. Despite prescribers approaching the clinical vignettes holistically, their focus varied according to professional background and job role. Nurses were more likely to describe interacting with patients, compared with pharmacists who were more focused on medical notes and laboratory results. Think-aloud protocol analysis revealed a distinct pattern in the process undertaken to reach a clinical decision. This is presented as a decision-making model, encompassing case familiarization, generating hypotheses, case assessment, final hypotheses and decision-making stages, which oscillated throughout the model. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to explore the clinical reasoning processes of secondary care pharmacist and nurse independent prescribers. The resultant decision-making model shows clinical reasoning as a complex and dynamic process. This model can inform the training of independent prescribers to become accurate problem solvers and continue making clinically appropriate decisions.

Factors influencing secondary care pharmacist and nurse independent prescribers' clinical reasoning: An interprofessional analysis.

In the United Kingdom, pharmacist and nurse independent prescribers are responsible for both the clinical assessment of and prescribing for patients. Prescribing is a complex skill that entails the application of knowledge, skills, and clinical reasoning to arrive at a clinically appropriate decision. Decision-making is influenced and informed by many factors. This study, the first of its kind, explores what factors influence pharmacist and nurse independent prescribers during the process of clinical reasoning. A think-aloud methodology immediately followed by a semi-structured interview was conducted with 11 active nurse and 10 pharmacist independent prescribers working in secondary care. Each participant was presented with validated clinical vignettes for the think-aloud stage. Participants chose the clinical therapeutic areas for the vignettes, based on their self-perceived competencies. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and a constant-comparative approach was used for analysis. Influences on clinical reasoning were broadly categorised into themes: social interaction, intrinsic, and contextual factors. These themes showed that intrinsic, sociocultural, and contextual aspects heavily influenced the clinical reasoning processes of prescribers. For example, prescribers were aware of treatment pathways, but chose to refer patient cases to avoid making the final prescribing decision. Exploration of this behaviour in the interviews revealed that previous experience and attitudes such as confidence and cautiousness associated with responsibility were strong influencers within the decision-making process. In addition, strengthening the professional identity of prescribers could be achieved through collaborative work with interprofessional healthcare teams to orient their professional practice from within the profession. Findings from this study can be used to inform the education, training, and practice of independent prescribers to improve healthcare services by improving their professional and interprofessional development.

Pharmacist-led feedback workshops increase appropriate prescribing of antimicrobials.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether and how structured feedback sessions can increase rates of appropriate antimicrobial prescribing by junior doctors. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods study, with a conceptual orientation towards complexity and systems thinking. Fourteen junior doctors, in their first year of training, were randomized to intervention (feedback) and 21 to control (routine practice) groups in a single UK teaching hospital. Feedback on their antimicrobial prescribing was given, in writing and via group sessions. Pharmacists assessed the appropriateness of all new antimicrobial prescriptions 2 days per week for 6 months (46 days). The mean normalized prescribing rates of suboptimal to all prescribing were compared between groups using the t-test. Thematic analysis of qualitative interviews with 10 participants investigated whether and how the intervention had impact. RESULTS: Data were collected on 204 prescriptions for 166 patients. For the intervention group, the mean normalized rate of suboptimal to all prescribing was 0.32 ±â€Š0.36; for the control group, it was 0.68 ±â€Š0.36. The normalized rates of suboptimal prescribing were significantly different between the groups (P = 0.0005). The qualitative data showed that individuals' prescribing behaviour was influenced by a complex series of dynamic interactions between individual and social variables, such as interplay between personal knowledge and the expectations of others. CONCLUSIONS: The feedback intervention increased appropriate prescribing by acting as a positive stimulus within a complex network of behavioural influences. Prescribing behaviour is adaptive and can be positively influenced by structured feedback. Changing doctors' perceptions of acceptable, typical and best practice could reduce suboptimal antimicrobial prescribing.

Patient-centred professionalism in pharmacy: values and behaviours.

PURPOSE: Research on patient-centred professionalism in pharmacy is scarce compared with other health professions and in particular with pharmacists early in their careers. The purpose of this paper is to explore patient-centred professionalism in early career pharmacists and to describe reported behaviours. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH - This study explored patient-centred professional values and reported behaviours, taking a qualitative approach. In all, 53 early-career pharmacists, pharmacy tutors and pharmacy support staff, practising in community and hospital pharmacy in England took part; the concept of patient-centred professionalism was explored through focus group interviews and the critical incident technique was used to elicit real-life examples of professionalism in practice. FINDINGS: Triangulation of the data revealed three constructs of pharmacy patient-centred professionalism: being professionally competent, having ethical values and being a good communicator. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: It is not known whether our participants' perspectives reflect those of all pharmacists in the early stages of their careers. The data provide meaning for the concept of patient-centred professionalism. The work could be extended by developing a framework for wider application. Patient-centred professionalism in pharmacy needs further investigation from the patient perspective. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The findings have implications for pharmacy practice and education, particularly around increased interaction with patients. SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The data contribute to a topic of importance to patients and in relation to UK health policy, which allocates more directly clinical roles to pharmacists, which go beyond the dispensing and supply of medicines. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The methods included a novel application of the critical incident technique, which generated empirical evidence on a previously under-researched topic.

Exploring the causes of junior doctors' prescribing mistakes: a qualitative study.

AIMS: Prescribing errors are common and can be detrimental to patient care and costly. Junior doctors are more likely than consultants to make a prescribing error, yet there is only limited research into the causes of errors. The aim of this study was to explore the causes of prescribing mistakes made by doctors in their first year post graduation. METHODS: As part of the EQUIP study, interviews using the critical incident technique were carried out with 30 newly qualified doctors. Participants were asked to discuss in detail any prescribing errors they had made. Participants were purposely sampled across a range of medical schools (18) and hospitals (15). A constant comparison approach was taken to analysis and Reason's model of accident causation was used to present the data. RESULTS: More than half the errors discussed were prescribing mistakes (errors due to the correct execution of an incorrect plan). Knowledge-based mistakes (KBMs) appeared to arise from poor knowledge of practical aspects of prescribing such as dosing, whereas rule-based mistakes (RBMs) resulted from inappropriate application of knowledge. Multiple error-producing and latent conditions were described by participants for RBMs and KBMs. Poor/absent senior support and a fear of appearing incompetent occurred with KBMs. Following erroneous routines or seniors' orders were major contributory factors in RBMs. CONCLUSIONS: Although individual factors such as knowledge and expertise played a role in prescribing mistakes, there were many perceived interrelated factors contributing to error. We conclude that multiple interventions are necessary to address these and further research is essential.

Potential Risk Factors of Drug-Related Problems in Hospital-Based Mental Health Units: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Reducing the occurrence of drug-related problems is a global health concern. In mental health hospitals, drug-related problems are common, leading to patient harm, and therefore understanding their potential risk factors is key for guiding future interventions designed to minimise their frequency. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to explore the potential risk factors of drug-related problems in mental health inpatient units. METHODS: Six databases were searched between 2000 and 2021 to identify studies that investigated the potential risk factors of drug-related problems in adults hospitalised in mental health inpatient units. Data extraction was performed by two authors independently and Allan and Barker's criteria were used for study quality assessment. Studies were categorised based on drug-related problem types and potential risk factors were stratified as patient, medication, and hospital related. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies were included. Studies mostly originated in Europe (n = 19/22, 86.4%), and used a multivariable logistic regression to identify potential risk factors (n = 13, 59%). Frequently investigated factors were patient age (n = 14/22), sex (n = 14/22) and the number of prescribed medications (n = 14/22). Of these, increasing the number of prescribed medications was the only factor consistently reported to be significantly associated with the occurrence of most types of drug-related problems (n = 11/14). CONCLUSIONS: A variety of patient, medication and hospital-related potential risk factors of drug-related problems in mental health inpatient units were identified. These factors could guide the development of interventions to reduce drug-related problems such as pharmaceutical screening tools to identify high-risk patients for timely interventions. Future studies could test a wider range of possible factors associated with drug-related problems using standardised approaches. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42021279946.

unDerstandIng the cauSes of mediCation errOrs and adVerse drug evEnts for patients with mental illness in community caRe (DISCOVER): a qualitative study.

Background: It is estimated that 237 million medication errors occur in England each year with a significant number occurring in the community. Our understanding of the causes of preventable medication errors and adverse drug events (ADE) affecting patients with mental illness is limited in this setting. Better understanding of the factors that contribute to errors can support the development of theory-driven improvement interventions. Methods: Remote qualitative semi-structured interviews with 26 community-based healthcare professionals in England and Wales were undertaken between June-November 2022. Recruitment was undertaken using purposive sampling via professional networks. Interviews were guided by the critical incident technique and analysed using the framework method. Any data that involved speculation was not included in the analysis. Independent analysis was carried out by the research team to extract themes guided by the London Protocol. Results: A total of 43 medication errors and 12 preventable ADEs were discussed, with two ADEs having an unknown error origin. Prescribing errors were discussed most commonly (n = 24), followed by monitoring errors (n = 8). Six contributory factor themes were identified: the individual (staff); the work environment; the teams/interfaces; the organisation and management; the patient; and the task and technology. The individual (staff) factors were involved in just over 80% of all errors discussed. Participants reported a lack of knowledge regarding psychotropic medication and mental illnesses which accompanied diffusion of responsibility. There were difficulties with team communication, particularly across care interfaces, such as ambiguity/brevity of information being communicated and uncertainty concerning roles which created confusion amongst staff. Unique patient social/behavioural contributory factors were identified such as presenting with challenging behaviour and complex lifestyles, which caused difficulties attending appointments as well as affecting overall clinical management. Conclusion: These findings highlight that the causes of errors are multifactorial with some unique to this patient group. Key areas to target for improvement include the education/training of healthcare professionals regarding neuropharmacology/mental illnesses and enhancing communication across care interfaces. Future research should explore patient perspectives regarding this topic to help develop a holistic picture. These findings can be used to guide future intervention research to ameliorate medication safety challenges for this patient group.

MorpheusNet: Resource efficient sleep stage classifier for embedded on-line systems.

Sleep Stage Classification (SSC) is a labor-intensive task, requiring experts to examine hours of electrophysiological recordings for manual classification. This is a limiting factor when it comes to leveraging sleep stages for therapeutic purposes. With increasing affordability and expansion of wearable devices, automating SSC may enable deployment of sleep-based therapies at scale. Deep Learning has gained increasing attention as a potential method to automate this process. Previous research has shown accuracy comparable to manual expert scores. However, previous approaches require sizable amount of memory and computational resources. This constrains the ability to classify in real time and deploy models on the edge. To address this gap, we aim to provide a model capable of predicting sleep stages in real-time, without requiring access to external computational sources (e.g., mobile phone, cloud). The algorithm is power efficient to enable use on embedded battery powered systems. Our compact sleep stage classifier can be deployed on most off-the-shelf microcontrollers (MCU) with constrained hardware settings. This is due to the memory footprint of our approach requiring significantly fewer operations. The model was tested on three publicly available data bases and achieved performance comparable to the state of the art, whilst reducing model complexity by orders of magnitude (up to 280 times smaller compared to state of the art). We further optimized the model with quantization of parameters to 8 bits with only an average drop of 0.95% in accuracy. When implemented in firmware, the quantized model achieves a latency of 1.6 seconds on an Arm Cortex-M4 processor, allowing its use for on-line SSC-based therapies.

A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of anticoagulants in advanced chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and atrial fibrillation (AF). Anticoagulants have not been studied in randomised controlled trials with CrCl < 30 ml/min. The objective of this review was to identify the impact of different anticoagulant strategies in patients with advanced CKD including dialysis. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies, searching electronic databases from 1946 to 2022. Studies that evaluated both thrombotic and bleeding outcomes with anticoagulant use in CrCl < 50 ml/min were included. RESULTS: Our initial search yielded 14,503 papers with 53 suitable for inclusion. RCTs comparing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus warfarin for patients with VTE and CrCl 30-50 ml/min found no difference in recurrent VTE events (RR 0.68(95% CI 0.42-1.11)) with reduced bleeding (RR 0.65 (95% CI 0.45-0.94)). Observational data in haemodialysis suggest lower risk of recurrent VTE and major bleeding with apixaban versus warfarin. Very few studies examining outcomes were available for therapeutic and prophylactic dose low molecular weight heparin for CrCl < 30 ml/min. Findings for patients with AF on dialysis were that warfarin or DOACs had a similar or higher risk of stroke compared to no anticoagulation. For patients with AF and CrCl < 30 ml/min not on dialysis, anticoagulation should be considered on an individual basis, with limited studies suggesting DOACs may have a preferable safety profile. CONCLUSION: Further studies are still required, some ongoing, in patients with advanced CKD (CrCl < 30 ml/min) to identify the safest and most effective treatment options for VTE and AF.

Exploring patients' pharmacy stories: an analysis of online feedback.

Background Studies have demonstrated the potential for patient feedback to inform quality care as well as a direct relationship between patient experience and clinical outcomes. Over recent years, there has been increasing use of online patient feedback platforms, however, there has been little study of the content of patient feedback relating to pharmacy and pharmacy services. Objective This study explores the content of online feedback provided by patients from across the UK in relation to their experiences of their interaction with pharmacy staff and pharmacy services. Main outcome measure Content of online patient feedback relating to pharmacy. Method Patient stories published on Care Opinion, a national online patient feedback platform, for a one-year period were searched for all content relating to patients' pharmacy experiences. A thematic and sentiment analysis was conducted on 237 patient stories. Results Patient stories related to supply, staff attitudes, services, accessibility, systems, and errors. Patient sentiment depended on pharmacy setting, but staff attitudes, services, and accessibility were generally positive across all settings. Waiting time was the most common complaint in both hospital and community pharmacies with stories relaying experiences of slow discharge, stock shortages and poor communication and collaboration between pharmacies and GP surgeries. Conclusions Online patient feedback highlighted factors important to patients when interacting with pharmacies and their staff. Medication supply was the primary topic of patient stories with waiting times and stock shortages being clear areas for improvement; however, accessibility, pharmacy services and advice were key strengths of the profession. Further research is needed to understand how online patient feedback can be used effectively to inform improvements in pharmacy services.

Incidence, nature, severity, and causes of dispensing errors in community pharmacies in Jordan.

Background Medication dispensing is a core function of community pharmacies, and errors that occur during the dispensing process are a major concern for pharmacy profession. However, to date there has been no national study of medication dispensing errors in Jordan. Objective The study aimed to investigate the incidence, nature, severity, causes and predictors of medication dispensing errors. Setting The study was conducted in randomly selected community pharmacies across Jordan. Method A mixed method approach was taken, incorporating prospective disguised observation of dispensing errors and interviews with pharmacists regarding the causes of errors. A multidisciplinary committee evaluated the severity of errors. Proportionate random sampling was used to include 350 pharmacies from across all regions of Jordan. SPSS (Version 24) was used for data analysis. Main outcome measure Incidence, nature, severity, causes and predictors of medication dispensing errors. Results The overall rate of medication dispensing errors was 24.6% (n = 37,009/150,442), of which 11.5% (n = 17,352/150,442) were prescription related errors and 13.1% (n = 19,657/150,442) pharmacist counselling errors. The most common type of prescription-related errors were wrong quantity (37.9%, n = 6584/17,352), whereas the most common pharmacist counselling error was wrong drug (41.9%, n = 8241/19,657). The majority of errors were caused by poor handwriting (30.7%, n = 75,651/37,009), followed by high workload (17.3%, n = 22,964/37,009). More than half of errors (52.6%) were moderate in severity, followed by minor errors (38.8%), and 8.6% of errors were rated as serious. Predictors of medication dispensing errors were: Sundays (OR 2.7; 95% CI 2.15-3.94; p = 0.02), grade A pharmacies (dispensing ≥ 60 prescriptions a day (OR 3.6; 95% CI 2.89-4.78; p = 0.04)), and prescriptions containing ≥ 4 medication orders (OR 4.1; 95% CI 2.9-6.4; p = 0.001). Conclusion Medication dispensing errors are common in Jordan and our findings can be generalised and considered as a reference to launch training programmes on safe medication dispensing and independent prescribing for pharmacists.

Nature and type of patient-reported safety incidents in primary care: cross-sectional survey of patients from Australia and England.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement in safety has shown positive effects in preventing or reducing adverse events and potential safety risks. Capturing and utilising patient-reported safety incident data can be used for service learning and improvement. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to characterise the nature of patient-reported safety incidents in primary care. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of two cross sectional studies. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients from Australian and English primary care settings. MEASURES: Patients' self-reported experiences of safety incidents were captured using the validated Primary Care Patient Measure of Safety questionnaire. Qualitative responses to survey items were analysed and categorised using the Primary Care Patient Safety Classification System. The frequency and type of safety incidents, contributory factors, and patient and system level outcomes are presented. RESULTS: A total of 1329 patients (n=490, England; n=839, Australia) completed the questionnaire. Overall, 5.3% (n=69) of patients reported a safety incident over the preceding 12 months. The most common incident types were administration incidents (n=27, 31%) (mainly delays in accessing a physician) and incidents involving diagnosis and assessment (n=16, 18.4%). Organisation of care accounted for 27.6% (n=29) of the contributory factors identified in the safety incidents. Staff factors (n=13, 12.4%) was the second most commonly reported contributory factor. Where an outcome could be determined, patient inconvenience (n=24, 28.6%) and clinical harm (n=21, 25%) (psychological distress and unpleasant experience) were the most frequent. CONCLUSIONS: The nature and outcomes of patient-reported incidents differ markedly from those identified in studies of staff-reported incidents. The findings from this study emphasise the importance of capturing patient-reported safety incidents in the primary care setting. The patient perspective can complement existing sources of safety intelligence with the potential for service improvement.