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.

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.

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.

English community pharmacists' experiences of using electronic transmission of prescriptions: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The Electronic Prescription Service Release 2 (EPS2) in England has been designed to provide electronic transmission of digitally-signed prescriptions between primary care providers, with the intent on removing the large amounts of paper currently exchanged. As part of a wider evaluation of the EPS service, we wished to explore pharmacists' experience with the new system and their perceptions of its benefits and any associated problems. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with community pharmacists using EPS2. We used a purposive sampling technique to obtain views from pharmacists working in pharmacies with a range of sizes and locations and to include both independent pharmacies and multiples. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded using grounded theory to identify the main factors that have influenced deployment and implementation in the eyes of respondents. QSR Nvivo was used as to aid in this process. RESULTS: It became apparent from the analysis that respondents perceived a wide range of advantages of EPS including improved safety, stock control, time management and improved relationships between pharmacy and General Practice staff. Respondents did not perceive a large difference in terms of work processes or development of their professional role. A large number of problems had been experienced in relation to both the technology itself and the way it was used by General Practices. It became apparent that work-around procedures had been developed for dealing with these issues but that not all these problems were perceived as having been addressed sufficiently at source. This sometimes had implications for the extent of EPS2 use and also limited some of the potential advantages of the EPS2 system, such as reduced effort in the management of prescription reimbursement. Respondents made suggestions for future improvements to EPS2. While interview data demonstrated that there were some feedback procedures in place, these were not regarded as being sufficient by the majority of respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst pharmacists perceived a wide range of benefits of EPS, a large number of problems had been experienced. Despite these difficulties, no pharmacists expressed an overall negative view.

Developing the Diagnostic Adherence to Medication Scale (the DAMS) for use in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for an adherence measure, to monitor adherence services in clinical practice, which can distinguish between different types of non-adherence and measure changes over time. In order to be inclusive of all patients it needs to be able to be administered to both patients and carers and to be suitable for patients taking multiple medications for a range of clinical conditions. A systematic review found that no adherence measure met all these criteria. We therefore wished to develop a theory based adherence scale (the DAMS) and establish its content, face and preliminary construct validity in a primary care population. METHODS: The DAMS (consisting of 6 questions) was developed from theory by a multidisciplinary team and the questions were initially tested in small patient populations. Further to this, patients were recruited when attending a General Practice and interviewed using the DAMS and two other validated self-reported adherence measures, the Morisky-8 and Lu questionnaires. A semi-structured interview was used to explore acceptability and reasons for differences in responses between the DAMS and the other measures. Descriptive data were generated and Spearman rank correlation tests were used to identify associations between the DAMS and the other adherence measures. RESULTS: One hundred patients completed the DAMS in an average of 1 minute 28 seconds and reported finding it straightforward to complete. An adherence score could not be calculated for the 4(4%) patients only taking 'when required' medication. Thirty six(37.5%) of the remaining patients reported some non-adherence. Adherence ratings of the DAMS were significantly associated with levels of self reported adherence on all other measures Spearman Rho 0.348-0.719, (p < 0.01). Differences in trends could generally be explained by qualitative data. CONCLUSION: The DAMS has been developed for routine monitoring of adherence in clinical practice. It was acceptable to patients taking single or multiple medication and valid when tested against other adherence measures. However, 'when required' medication needs to be excluded. Further tests of the DAMS against objective measures such as MEMS are in progress and reliability needs to be established. Further investigation of the carers' version of the DAMS is required.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Suitability of measures of self-reported medication adherence for routine clinical use: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is a recognised need to build primary care medication adherence services which are tailored to patients' needs. Continuous quality improvement of such services requires a regular working method of measuring adherence in order to monitor effectiveness. Self report has been considered the method of choice for clinical use; it is cheap, relatively unobtrusive and able to distinguish between intentional and unintentional non-adherence, which have different underlying causes and therefore require different interventions. A self report adherence measure used in routine clinical practice would ideally be brief, acceptable to patients, valid, reliable, have the ability to distinguish between different types of non-adherence and be able to be completed by or in conjunction with carers where necessary. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the literature in order to identify self report adherence measures currently available which are suitable for primary care and evaluate the extent to which they met the criteria described above. We searched the databases Medline, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Pharmline, CINAHL, PsycINFO and HaPI to identify studies reporting the development, validation or reliability of generic adherence measures. One reviewer screened all abstracts and assessed all relevant full text articles obtained and a second reviewer screened/assessed 10% to check reliability. RESULTS: Fifty eight measures were identified. While validation data were presented in support of the vast majority of self reported measures (54/58), data for a relatively small number of measures was presented for reliability (16/58) and time to complete (3/58). Few were designed to have the ability to be completed by or in conjunction with carers and few were able to distinguish between different types of non-adherence, which limited their ability be used effectively in the continuous improvement of targeted adherence enhancing interventions. The data available suggested that patients find it easier to estimate general adherence than to report a specific number of doses missed. Visual analogue scales can be easier for patients than other types of scale but are not suitable for telephone administration. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for a measure which can be used in the routine continual quality monitoring of adherence services.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quality of medication use in primary care--mapping the problem, working to a solution: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: The UK, USA and the World Health Organization have identified improved patient safety in healthcare as a priority. Medication error has been identified as one of the most frequent forms of medical error and is associated with significant medical harm. Errors are the result of the systems that produce them. In industrial settings, a range of systematic techniques have been designed to reduce error and waste. The first stage of these processes is to map out the whole system and its reliability at each stage. However, to date, studies of medication error and solutions have concentrated on individual parts of the whole system. In this paper we wished to conduct a systematic review of the literature, in order to map out the medication system with its associated errors and failures in quality, to assess the strength of the evidence and to use approaches from quality management to identify ways in which the system could be made safer. METHODS: We mapped out the medicines management system in primary care in the UK. We conducted a systematic literature review in order to refine our map of the system and to establish the quality of the research and reliability of the system. RESULTS: The map demonstrated that the proportion of errors in the management system for medicines in primary care is very high. Several stages of the process had error rates of 50% or more: repeat prescribing reviews, interface prescribing and communication and patient adherence. When including the efficacy of the medicine in the system, the available evidence suggested that only between 4% and 21% of patients achieved the optimum benefit from their medication. Whilst there were some limitations in the evidence base, including the error rate measurement and the sampling strategies employed, there was sufficient information to indicate the ways in which the system could be improved, using management approaches. The first step to improving the overall quality would be routine monitoring of adherence, clinical effectiveness and hospital admissions. CONCLUSION: By adopting the whole system approach from a management perspective we have found where failures in quality occur in medication use in primary care in the UK, and where weaknesses occur in the associated evidence base. Quality management approaches have allowed us to develop a coherent change and research agenda in order to tackle these, so far, fairly intractable problems.

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.