Search

Background: Junior doctors in the UK must complete various educational components during their two year Foundation training programme. It is important that mandatory learning is informative and engaging. The aim of this study was to evaluate trainee doctors' perceptions of a Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) programme developed to improve prescribing competency., Method: Focus groups and interviews were conducted at three hospital sites in the West Midlands. Codes, sub-themes and themes were determined using deductive and inductive thematic analysis., Results: Data were collected from 38 Foundation trainee doctors. Results revealed major themes relating to prescribing education, the user experience and user engagement. Key findings included the positive impact of preparedness following undergraduate education on the user experience of the TEL programme at the postgraduate level; the impact of content, structure, and individual learning needs and styles on the user experience; and the impact of motivation and time on engagement. Most trainees engaged with the programme owing to its mandatory nature; however, some trainees also used the programme voluntarily, for example, to acquire knowledge prior to starting a new placement., Conclusions: It is important to ensure that learners are willing to engage with mandatory TEL, and that they have the time and motivation to do so. It is also important to ensure that learners have a positive user experience and that in designing TEL individual differences in learning styles and needs are taken into account. These findings have implications for educators and system developers in the construction and design of mandatory eLearning programmes., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Objectives: We aimed to assess whether routine data produced by an electronic prescribing system might be useful in identifying doctors at higher risk of making a serious prescribing error., Design: Retrospective analysis of prescribing by junior doctors over 12 months using an electronic prescribing information and communication system. The system issues a graded series of prescribing alerts (low-level, intermediate, and high-level), and warnings and prompts to respond to abnormal test results. These may be overridden or heeded, except for high-level prescribing alerts, which are indicative of a potentially serious error and impose a 'hard stop'., Setting: A large teaching hospital., Participants: All junior doctors in the study setting., Main Outcome Measures: Rates of prescribing alerts and laboratory warnings and doctors' responses., Results: Altogether 848,678 completed prescriptions issued by 381 doctors (median 1538 prescriptions per doctor, interquartile range [IQR] 328-3275) were analysed. We identified 895,029 low-level alerts (median 1033 per 1000 prescriptions per doctor, IQR 903-1205) with a median of 34% (IQR 31-39%) heeded; 172,434 intermediate alerts (median 196 per 1000 prescriptions per doctor, IQR 159-266), with a median of 23% (IQR 16-30%) heeded; and 11,940 high-level 'hard stop' alerts. Doctors vary greatly in the extent to which they trigger and respond to alerts of different types. The rate of high-level alerts showed weak correlation with the rate of intermediate prescribing alerts (correlation coefficient, r = 0.40, P = <0.001); very weak correlation with low-level alerts (r = 0.12, P = 0.019); and showed weak (and sometimes negative) correlation with propensity to heed test-related warnings or alarms. The degree of correlation between generation of intermediate and high-level alerts is insufficient to identify doctors at high risk of making serious errors., Conclusions: Routine data from an electronic prescribing system should not be used to identify doctors who are at risk of making serious errors. Careful evaluation of the kinds of quality assurance questions for which routine data are suitable will be increasingly valuable.

Here we discuss 15 recommendations for reducing the risks of medication errors: 1. Provision of sufficient undergraduate learning opportunities to make medical students safe prescribers. 2. Provision of opportunities for students to practise skills that help to reduce errors. 3. Education of students about common types of medication errors and how to avoid them. 4. Education of prescribers in taking accurate drug histories. 5. Assessment in medical schools of prescribing knowledge and skills and demonstration that newly qualified doctors are safe prescribers. 6. European harmonization of prescribing and safety recommendations and regulatory measures, with regular feedback about rational drug use. 7. Comprehensive assessment of elderly patients for declining function. 8. Exploration of low-dose regimens for elderly patients and preparation of special formulations as required. 9. Training for all health-care professionals in drug use, adverse effects, and medication errors in elderly people. 10. More involvement of pharmacists in clinical practice. 11. Introduction of integrated prescription forms and national implementation in individual countries. 12. Development of better monitoring systems for detecting medication errors, based on classification and analysis of spontaneous reports of previous reactions, and for investigating the possible role of medication errors when patients die. 13. Use of IT systems, when available, to provide methods of avoiding medication errors; standardization, proper evaluation, and certification of clinical information systems. 14. Nonjudgmental communication with patients about their concerns and elicitation of symptoms that they perceive to be adverse drug reactions. 15. Avoidance of defensive reactions if patients mention symptoms resulting from medication errors.

1. Errors arise when an action is intended but not performed; errors that arise from poor planning or inadequate knowledge are characterized as mistakes; those that arise from imperfect execution of well-formulated plans are called slips when an erroneous act is committed and lapses when a correct act is omitted. 2. Some tasks are intrinsically prone to error. Examples are tasks that are unfamiliar to the operator or performed under pressure. Tasks that require the calculation of a dosage or dilution are especially susceptible to error. 3. The tasks of prescribing, preparation, and administration of medicines are complex, and are carried out within a complex system; errors can occur at each of many steps and the error rate for the overall process is therefore high. 4. The error rate increases when health-care professionals are inexperienced, inattentive, rushed, distracted, fatigued, or depressed; orthopaedic surgeons and nurses may be more likely than other health-care professionals to make medication errors. 5. Medication error rates in hospital are higher in paediatric departments and intensive care units than elsewhere. 6. Rates of medication errors may be higher in very young or very old patients. 7. Intravenous antibiotics are the drugs most commonly involved in medication errors in hospital; antiplatelet agents, diuretics, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are most likely to account for 'preventable admissions'. 8. Computers effectively reduce the rates of easily counted errors. It is not clear whether they can save lives lost through rare but dangerous errors in the medication process.

1. Medication errors should be amenable to epidemiological analysis, giving insights into the causes of error and the effects of interventions to prevent them or reduce harm from them. 2. There are formidable difficulties in establishing the rates of medication errors. 3. There is no agreement on a clear operational definition of the condition. 4. The methods used to enumerate cases so far have been unreliable or incomplete or both. 5. There is disagreement about whether cases of error that do not cause harm should be included in calculations of error rates. 6. When harm occurs in association with drug therapy, it is often unclear whether the harm might have been prevented, and its occurrence should therefore be considered to result from error. 7. The denominator for calculating the rate of error is both ill-defined and inconsistently measured. Better definitions, more complete evaluation, and more thorough impact assessment may improve matters.

In response to the COVID‐19 pandemic, Health Education England (HEE) and the University of Birmingham provided National Health Service (NHS) staff free access to SCRIPT, a national eLearning programme for safer prescribing and therapeutics. The eLearning was particularly for those returning to work or being redeployed. In the year March 2020‐21, 3412 users registered to access portfolios and opened an aggregate of 17 198 modules. Each user completed a median of 2 (range 1‐50, interquartile range [IQR] 1‐7) assessed learning modules. Marks improved from pre‐test to post‐test by a median of 2 (IQR 0‐3) marks out of 10. The most frequently selected modules were Adherence and Concordance (1109 users), Fluids (981 users) and Diabetic Emergencies (818 users). A total of 878 users accessed the unassessed COVID‐19 module. The SCRIPT modules provided standardised education in core principles relating to prescribing and therapeutics, and were used by professionals from many healthcare disciplines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]