Search

Abstract Background Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) refers to the prescription of medications that carry a higher risk of adverse outcomes, such as drug interactions, falls, and cognitive impairment. PIP is of particular concern in older adults, and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Socioeconomic deprivation has been identified as a potential risk factor for PIP. However, the extent of this relationship remains unclear. This review aimed to synthesize the current literature on the association between PIP and socioeconomic status (SES) in older adults. Methods A literature search was conducted using the databases Medline, Embase and CINAHL. A search strategy was developed to capture papers examining three key concepts: PIP, socioeconomic deprivation and older/elderly populations. Peer-reviewed quantitative research published between 1/1/2000 and 31/12/2022 was eligible for inclusion. Results Twenty articles from 3,966 hits met the inclusion criteria. The sample size of included studies ranged from 668 to 16.5million individuals, with the majority from Europe (n = 8) and North America (n = 8). Most defined older patients as being 65 or over (n = 12) and used income (n = 7) or subsidy eligibility (n = 5) to assess SES. In all, twelve studies reported a statistically significant association between socioeconomic deprivation and an increased likelihood of experiencing PIP. Several of these reported some association after adjusting for number of drugs taken, or the presence of polypharmacy. The underlying reasons for the association are unclear, although one study found that the association between deprivation and higher PIP prevalence could not be explained by poorer access to healthcare facilities or practitioners. Conclusion The findings suggest some association between an older person’s SES and their likelihood of being exposed to PIP. SES appears to be one of several factors that act independently and in concert to influence an older person’s likelihood of experiencing PIP. This review highlights that prioritising older people living in socioeconomically-deprived circumstances may be an efficient strategy when carrying out medication reviews.

Abstract Background Most women use medication during pregnancy. Pregnancy-induced changes in physiology may require antenatal dose alterations. Yet, evidence-based doses in pregnancy are missing. Given historically limited data, pharmacokinetic models may inform pregnancy-adjusted doses. However, implementing model-informed doses in clinical practice requires support from relevant stakeholders. Purpose To explore the perceived barriers and facilitators for model-informed antenatal doses among healthcare practitioners (HCPs) and pregnant women. Methods Online focus groups and interviews were held among healthcare practitioners (HCPs) and pregnant women from eight countries across Europe, Africa and Asia. Purposive sampling was used to identify pregnant women plus HCPs across various specialties prescribing or providing advice on medication to pregnant women. Perceived barriers and facilitators for implementing model-informed doses in pregnancy were identified and categorised using a hybrid thematic analysis. Results Fifty HCPs and 11 pregnant women participated in 12 focus groups and 16 interviews between January 2022 and March 2023. HCPs worked in the Netherlands (n = 32), the UK (n = 7), South Africa (n = 5), Uganda (n = 4), Kenya, Cameroon, India and Vietnam (n = 1 each). All pregnant women resided in the Netherlands. Barriers and facilitators identified by HCPs spanned 14 categories across four domains whereas pregnant women described barriers and facilitators spanning nine categories within the same domains. Most participants found current antenatal dosing information inadequate and regarded model-informed doses in pregnancy as a valuable and for some, much-needed addition to antenatal care. Although willingness-to-follow model-informed antenatal doses was high across both groups, several barriers for implementation were identified. HCPs underlined the need for transparent model validation and endorsement of the methodology by recognised institutions. Foetal safety was deemed a critical knowledge gap by both groups. HCPs’ information needs and preferred features for model-informed doses in pregnancy varied. Several pregnant women expressed a desire to access information and partake in decisions on antenatal dosing. Conclusions Given the perceived limitations of current pharmacotherapy for pregnant women and foetuses, model-informed dosing in pregnancy was seen as a promising means to enhance antenatal care by pregnant women and healthcare practitioners.

Objective Little is known about how nurses adapt medication administration practices to preserve safety. The capacity to adapt and respond before harm occurs has been labelled ‘resilience’. Current evidence examining medication safety largely focuses on errors and what goes wrong. This review aimed to synthesise evidence for the application of resilience principles and practices in nursing medication administration.Design The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guided the review, which was registered with PROSPERO.Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO and CINAHL databases were searched from 14 August 2020 to 1 January 2021 for English-language studies.Methods A systematic review of empirical studies of any design relating to resilience and safety in nursing medication administration in the inpatient setting was conducted. Methodological quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data were synthesised thematically.Results Thirty-two studies with a range of methodologies of mostly good quality met the inclusion criteria. Eleven interventional studies included two that evaluated the effectiveness of education interventions and nine exploratory studies with outcomes showing the impact of an intervention designed or examined to build resilience. Twenty-one non-interventional studies showed how resilience principles are put into practice. Only three studies explicitly named the concept of resilience. Resilient medication administration strategies result from five triggers.Conclusions Nurses’ resilience practices were found to be responses to identified trigers that threaten safety and productivity. These were often short term, real-time proactive adaptations to preserve safety, compensating for and responding to complexities in the modern healthcare setting.PROSPERO registration number CRD42018087928.

Electronic hospital pharmacy (EHP) systems are ubiquitous in today’s hospitals, with many also implementing electronic prescribing (EP) systems; both contain a potential wealth of medication-related data to support quality improvement. The reasons for reuse and users of this data are generally unknown. Our objectives were to survey secondary use of data (SUD) from EHP and EP systems in UK hospitals, to identify users of and factors influencing SUD.A national postal survey was sent out to all hospital chief pharmacists with pre-notifications and follow-up reminders. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed.Of 187 hospital organisations, 65 (35%) responded. All had EHP systems (for ≥20 years) and all reused data; 50 (77%) had EP systems (established 1–10 years) but only 40 (80%) reused data. Reported facilitators for SUD included medication safety, providing feedback, benchmarking, saving time and patient experience. The purposes of SUD included audits, quality improvement, risk management and general medication-related reporting. Earlier introduction of SUD could provide an opportunity to heighten local improvement initiatives.Data from EHP systems is reused for multiple purposes. Evaluating SUD and sharing experiences could provide richer insight into potential SUD and barriers/factors to consider when implementing or upgrading EP/EHP systems.

Abstract Introduction Barcode medication administration (BCMA) technology helps ensure correct medications are administered by nursing staff through scanning of patient and medication barcodes. In many hospitals scanning rates are low, limiting the potential safety benefits. We aimed to explore the barriers and facilitators to BCMA use in a London hospital. Methods In this mixed methods study we used local quantitative data on BCMA scanning rates to identify clinically similar wards (in terms of patient acuity and workload) with different scanning rates for qualitative exploration. Interviews designed to elicit barriers to using BCMA technology were conducted with nursing staff, supported by observations of medication administration. Qualitative data were analysed inductively and a thematic framework constructed housing key themes, subsequently categorised into barriers and facilitators. To explore patient perspectives of BCMA scanning, a purposive sample of patients were also interviewed. These patient data were analysed deductively according to the thematic framework. Themes were mapped to behavioural science frameworks to further understand the behaviours involved. Results BCMA was operational on 15 wards, with only six having medication scan rates of more than 10% of scannable doses. Of three wards selected for qualitative investigation, the lowest scan rate was 6.7%. Twenty-seven nurses and 15 patients were interviewed. Eleven key themes were identified, encompassing both barriers and facilitators to BCMA use. Barriers included poor trolley ergonomics and perceived time inefficiency. Facilitators included a streamlined process and thorough training. All nurses described BCMA as positive for patient safety. Patients described BCMA as making them “feel safer”. Behavioural science frameworks highlighted the importance of professional role and an individual’s belief in their capability. Conclusion We present a novel exploration of facilitators and barriers to BCMA use from the viewpoint of both patients and nursing staff, highlighting a strong perception that BCMA enhances safety. Barriers were reported on both high and low usage wards, demonstrating the importance of behaviours and motivations. These findings provide a detailed understanding from which to design interventions to support behaviour change and increase BCMA use.

Introduction Medication errors are frequent and have high economic and social impacts; however, some medication errors are more likely to result in harm than others. Therefore, it is critical to determine their severity. Various tools exist to measure and classify the harm associated with medication errors; although, few have been validated internationally.Methods We validated an existing method for assessing the potential severity of medication administration errors (MAEs) in Brazil. Thirty healthcare professionals (doctors, nurses and pharmacists) from Brazil were invited to score 50 cases of MAEs as in the original UK study, regarding their potential harm to the patient, on a scale from 0 to 10. Sixteen cases with known harmful outcomes were included to assess the validity of the scoring. To assess test–retest reliability, 10 cases (of the 50) were scored twice. Potential sources of variability in scoring were evaluated, including the occasion on which the scores were given, the scorers, their profession and the interactions among these variables. Data were analysed using generalisability theory. A G coefficient of 0.8 or more was considered reliable, and a Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess test–retest reliability.Results To obtain a generalisability coefficient of 0.8, a minimum of three judges would need to score each case with their mean score used as an indicator of severity. The method also appeared to be valid, as the judges’ assessments were largely in line with the outcomes of the 16 cases with known outcomes. The Bland-Altman analysis showed that the distribution was homogeneous above and below the mean difference for doctors, pharmacists and nurses.Conclusion The results of this study demonstrate the reliability and validity of an existing method of scoring the severity of MAEs for use in the Brazilian health system.

Abstract Objectives To determine the frequency of clinical decision support system (CDSS) medication-related alerts generated, accepted, or overridden, to assess appropriateness of alert display and overrides, and to characterise the documentation of clinician justification for these overrides in an academic medical centre in Saudi Arabia. Materials and methods System-generated CDSS reports for the period June 2015 to December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed and analysed. Alerts were classified into different types, and rates of alert overrides calculated as percentages of all generated alerts. A subset of 307 overridden alerts was assessed for appropriateness of display and override by two clinical pharmacists. Physician documentation of reasons for overriding alerts were categorised. Results A total of 4,446,730 medication-related alerts were generated from both inpatient and outpatient settings, and 4,231,743 (95.2%) were overridden. The most common alert type was ‘duplicate drug’, accounting for 3,549,736 (79.8%) of alerts. Of 307 alerts assessed for appropriateness, 246 (80%) were judged to be appropriately displayed and 244 (79%) were overridden appropriately. New drug allergy and drug allergy alerts had the highest percentage of being judged as inappropriately overridden. For 1,594,313 alerts (37.7%), ‘no overridden reason selected’ was chosen from the drop-down menu. Conclusions The alert generation and override rate were higher than reported previously in the literature. The small sample size of 307 alerts assessed for appropriateness of alert display and override is a potential limitation. Revision of the CDSS rules for alerts (focusing on specificity and relevance for the local context) is now recommended. Future research should prospectively assess providers’ perspectives, and determine patient harm associated with overridden alerts.

BackgroundEffective, integrated and coordinated communication is essential in providing high quality patient care. Little prior research has detailed the impact of electronic prescribing and medication administration (ePMA) systems on healthcare professionals' (HCPs') communication. We investigated hospital pharmacists', doctors' and nurses' perceptions of how ePMA systems have affected, or are expected to affect, the way they communicate with each other in an inpatient setting.MethodsA qualitative study in three English NHS hospitals: two used different inpatient ePMA systems, and one used paper-based prescribing. We conducted focus groups with pharmacists, and semi-structured individual interviews with doctors and nurses. Transcribed data were analysed inductively using thematic analysis.ResultsNine focus groups, three at each hospital, were conducted with pharmacists with different levels of seniority (58 pharmacists in total). Fourteen doctors and twelve nurses took part in individual interviews. Four themes were generated: modes of communication, reduced pharmacist visibility, system limitations, and future aspirations for ePMA. Whether working with ePMA or paper-based systems, all participants preferred to communicate face-to-face to facilitate collaborative discussions regarding patient care. Participants perceived that ePMA reduced contact time with patients. Pharmacists perceived that both their physical ward presence and their written communication on medication charts had reduced since introduction of ePMA. Doctors felt they were now less likely to ask pharmacists questions due to pharmacists' reduced physical presence on the ward. Hardware and software limitations were identified by all HCPs, with suggestions made for future developments to better support communication.ConclusionePMA does not necessarily support communication among HCPs. Pharmacists and doctors were also concerned that ePMA reduces communication between themselves and their patients. Hospital managers should ensure sufficient hardware for HCPs, including pharmacists, to conduct their work in clinical areas, and work with ePMA system suppliers to develop ways of enhancing, rather than inhibiting, communication.

Objectives To explore the views of junior doctors towards (1) electronic prescribing (EP) training and feedback, (2) readiness for receiving individualised feedback data about EP errors and (3) preferences for receiving and learning from EP feedback.Design Explanatory sequential mixed methods study comprising quantitative survey (phase 1), followed by interviews and focus group discussions (phase 2).Setting Three acute hospitals of a large English National Health Service organisation.Participants 25 of 89 foundation year 1 and 2 doctors completed the phase 1 survey; 5 participated in semi-structured interviews and 7 in a focus group in phase 2.Results Foundation doctors in this mixed methods study reported that current feedback provision on EP errors was lacking or informal, and that existing EP training and resources were underused. They believed feedback about prescribing errors to be important and were keen to receive real-time, individualised EP feedback data. Feedback needed to be in manageable amounts, motivational and clearly signposting how to learn or improve. Participants wanted feedback and better training on the EP system to prevent repeating errors. In addition to individualised EP error data, they were positive about learning from general prescribing errors and aggregated EP data. However, there was a lack of consensus about how best to learn from statistical data. Potential limitations identified by participants included concern about how the data would be collected and whether it would be truly reflective of their performance.Conclusions Junior doctors would value feedback on their prescribing, and are keen to learn from EP errors, develop their clinical prescribing skills and use the EP interface effectively. We identified preferences for EP technology to enable provision of real-time data in combination with feedback to support learning and potentially reduce prescribing errors.

Abstract 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.

Background: Medication errors are frequent and have a high economic and social impact and is critical to know their severity. A variety of tools exist to measure and classify the harms associated with medication errors, but few are internationally validated. Design and methods: It was decided to validate a method proposed by Dean and Barber for assessment of the potential severity of medication administration errors. A number of thirty health care professionals (doctors, nurses and pharmacists) from Brazil will receive an invitation to take part by scoring 50 cases of medication errors gathered from an original UK study regarding their potential harm to the patient on scale 0 to 10. Sixteen cases with known actual harm outcomes will be used to assess the validity of their scoring. By looking at 10 errors (out of the 50 cases) scored twice, reliability shall be assessed; and potential sources of variability in scoring will be evaluated depending on the severity of each of error case, the occasion when the scores were given, the scorer, their profession, and interactions among these variables. Generalizability theory will be used for analysing data. Expected impact of the study for public health: This study was submitted to the evaluation of the Research Ethics Committee of the Complexo Hospitalar Universitário Professor Edgard Santos and approved under no. 3.102.570/2019. This is the first validation of this method for use in Brazil, and will allow researchers to conduct more standardised evaluations of interventions to reduce the impact of medication errors.

Introduction Prescribing and medication use in palliative care is a multistep process. It requires systems coordination and is enacted through activities of patients, informal carers and professionals. This study compares practice to idealised descriptions of what should happen; identifying when, how and why process disturbances impact on quality and safety. Our objectives are to:Document an intended model (phase 1, scoping review).Refine the model with study of practice (phase 2, ethnography).Use the model to pinpoint ‘hot’ (viewed as problematic by participants) and ‘cold’ spots (observed as problematic by researchers) within or when patients move across three contexts-hospice, hospital and community (home).Create learning recommendations for quality and safety targeted at underlying themes and contributing factors.Methods and analysis The review will scope Ovid Medline, CINAHL and Embase, Google Scholar and Images—no date limits, English language only. The Population (palliative), Concept (medication use), Context (home, hospice, hospital) framework defines inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data will be extracted to create a model illustrating how processes ideally occur, incorporating multiple steps of typical episodes of prescribing and medication use for symptom control. Direct observations, informal conversations around acts of prescribing and medication use, and semistructured interviews will be conducted with a purposive sample of patients, carers and professionals. Drawing on activity theory, we will synthesise analysis of both phases. The analysis will identify when, how and why activities affect patient safety and experience. Generating a rich multivoiced understanding of the process will help identify meaningful targets for improvement.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval granted by the Camden & Kings Cross NHS Regional Ethics Committee (21/LO/0459). A patient and public involvement (PPI) coinvestigator, a multiprofessional steering group and a PPI engagement group are working with the research team. Dissemination of findings is planned through peer-reviewed publications and a stakeholder (policymakers, commissioners, clinicians, researchers, public) report/dissemination event.

Abstract Background There are serious safety risks associated with chemotherapy, often associated with interdependencies in regimens administered over months or years. Various strategies are used to manage these risks. Computerized provider order entry (CPOE) systems are also implemented to improve medication safety. Little is known regarding the effect of CPOE on how clinicians manage chemotherapy interdependencies and their associated safety strategies. Methods We conducted a multi-method qualitative study in a paediatric hospital. We analysed 827 oncology incidents reported following CPOE implementation and carried out semi-structured interviews with doctors (n = 10), nurses (n = 6), a pharmacist, and oncology CPOE team members (n = 2). Results were interpreted according to safety models (ultra-safe, high-reliability organisations [HROs], or ultra-adaptive). Results Incident reports highlighted two interrelated types of interdependencies: those within organisation of clinical activities and those inherent in chemotherapy regimens. Clinicians reported strategies to address chemotherapy risks and interdependencies. These included rigid rules and ‘no go’ contexts for treatment to proceed, typical of the ultra-safe model; use of time (e.g. planning only so far ahead) and sensitivity to operations, typical of HROs. We identified three different time horizons in CPOE use in relation to patients’ treatments: life-long, the whole regimen, and the ‘here and now’. CPOE supported ultra-safe strategies through automation and access to rules/standardisation, but also created difficulties and contributed to incidents. It supported the ‘here and now’ better than a life-long or whole regimen view of a patient treatment. Sensitivity to operations was essential to anticipate and resolve uncertainties, hazards, CPOE limitations, and mismatches between CPOE processes and workflow in practice. Conclusions Within oncology, CPOE appears to move the ‘mix’ of risk strategies towards ultra-safe models of safety and protocol-mandated care. However, in order to operate ultra-safe strategies embedded in CPOE and stay on protocol it is essential for clinicians to be thoughtful and show sensitivity to operations in CPOE use. CPOE design can be advanced by better consideration of mechanisms to support interdependencies.

Abstract Background Attempts to achieve digital transformation across the health service have stimulated increasingly large-scale and more complex change programmes. These encompass a growing range of functions in multiple locations across the system and may take place over extended timeframes. This calls for new approaches to evaluate these programmes. Main body Drawing on over a decade of conducting formative and summative evaluations of health information technologies, we here build on previous work detailing evaluation challenges and ways to tackle these. Important considerations include changing organisational, economic, political, vendor and markets necessitating tracing of evolving networks, relationships, and processes; exploring mechanisms of spread; and studying selected settings in depth to understand local tensions and priorities. Conclusions Decision-makers need to recognise that formative evaluations, if built on solid theoretical and methodological foundations, can help to mitigate risks and help to ensure that programmes have maximum chances of success.

Abstract Background User interface (UI) design features such as screen layout, density of information, and use of colour may affect the usability of electronic prescribing (EP) systems, with usability problems previously associated with medication errors. To identify how to improve existing systems, our aim was to explore prescribers’ perspectives of UI features of a commercially available EP system, and how these may affect patient safety. Methods Two studies were conducted, each including ten participants prescribing a penicillin for a test patient with a penicillin allergy. In study 1, eye-gaze tracking was used as a means to explore visual attention and behaviour during prescribing, followed by a self-reported EP system usability scale. In study 2, a think-aloud method and semi-structured interview were applied to explore participants’ thoughts and views on prescribing, with a focus on UI design and patient safety. Results Study 1 showed high visual attention toward information on allergies and patient information, allergy pop-up alerts, and medication order review and confirmation, with less visual attention on adding medication. The system’s usability was rated ‘below average’. In study 2, participants highlighted EP design features and workflow, including screen layout and information overload as being important for patient safety, benefits of EP systems such as keeping a record of relevant information, and suggestions for improvement in relation to system design (colour, fonts, customization) and patient interaction. Conclusions Specific UI design factors were identified that may improve the usability and/or safety of EP systems. It is suggested that eye-gaze tracking and think-aloud methods are used in future experimental research in this area. Limitations include the small sample size; further work should include similar studies on other EP systems.

BackgroundThe English Global Digital Exemplar (GDE) program is one of the first concerted efforts to create a digital health learning ecosystem across a national health service. ObjectiveThis study aims to explore mechanisms that support or inhibit the exchange of interorganizational digital transformation knowledge. MethodsWe conducted a formative qualitative evaluation of the GDE program. We used semistructured interviews with clinical, technical, and managerial staff; national program managers and network leaders; nonparticipant observations of knowledge transfer activities through attending meetings, workshops, and conferences; and documentary analysis of policy documents. The data were thematically analyzed by drawing on a theory-informed sociotechnical coding framework. We used a mixture of deductive and inductive methods, supported by NVivo software, to facilitate coding. ResultsWe conducted 341 one-on-one and 116 group interviews, observed 86 meetings, and analyzed 245 documents from 36 participating provider organizations. We also conducted 51 high-level interviews with policy makers and vendors; performed 77 observations of national meetings, workshops, and conferences; and analyzed 80 national documents. Formal processes put in place by the GDE program to initiate and reinforce knowledge transfer and learning have accelerated the growth of informal knowledge networking and helped establish the foundations of a learning ecosystem. However, formal networks were most effective when supported by informal networking. The benefits of networking were enhanced (and costs reduced) by geographical proximity, shared culture and context, common technological functionality, regional and strategic alignments, and professional agendas. ConclusionsKnowledge exchange is most effective when sustained through informal networking driven by the mutual benefits of sharing knowledge and convergence between group members in their organizational and technological setting and goals. Policy interventions need to enhance incentives and reduce barriers to sharing across the ecosystem, be flexible in tailoring formal interventions to emerging needs, and promote informal knowledge sharing.

Summary: Health information technology can support the development of national learning health and care systems, which can be defined as health and care systems that continuously use data-enabled infrastructure to support policy and planning, public health, and personalisation of care. The COVID-19 pandemic has offered an opportunity to assess how well equipped the UK is to leverage health information technology and apply the principles of a national learning health and care system in response to a major public health shock. With the experience acquired during the pandemic, each country within the UK should now re-evaluate their digital health and care strategies. After leaving the EU, UK countries now need to decide to what extent they wish to engage with European efforts to promote interoperability between electronic health records. Major priorities for strengthening health information technology in the UK include achieving the optimal balance between top-down and bottom-up implementation, improving usability and interoperability, developing capacity for handling, processing, and analysing data, addressing privacy and security concerns, and encouraging digital inclusivity. Current and future opportunities include integrating electronic health records across health and care providers, investing in health data science research, generating real-world data, developing artificial intelligence and robotics, and facilitating public–private partnerships. Many ethical challenges and unintended consequences of implementation of health information technology exist. To address these, there is a need to develop regulatory frameworks for the development, management, and procurement of artificial intelligence and health information technology systems, create public–private partnerships, and ethically and safely apply artificial intelligence in the National Health Service.

Abstract Background Some medications carry increased risk of patient harm when they are given in error. In incident reports, names of the medications that are involved in errors could be found written both in a specific medication field and/or within the free text description of the incident. Analysing only the names of the medications implicated in a specific unstructured medication field does not give information of the associated factors and risk areas, but when analysing unstructured free text descriptions, the information about the medication involved and associated risk factors may be buried within other non-relevant text. Thus, the aim of this study was to extract medication names most commonly used in free text descriptions of medication administration incident reports to identify terms most frequently associated with risk for each of these medications using text mining. Method Free text descriptions of medication administration incidents (n = 72,390) reported in 2016 to the National Reporting and Learning System for England and Wales were analysed using SAS® Text miner. Analysis included text parsing and filtering free text to identify most commonly mentioned medications, followed by concept linking, and clustering to identify terms associated with commonly mentioned medications and the associated risk areas. Results The following risk areas related to medications were identified: 1. Allergic reactions to antibacterial drugs, 2. Intravenous administration of antibacterial drugs, 3. Fentanyl patches, 4. Checking and documenting of analgesic doses, 5. Checking doses of anticoagulants, 6. Insulin doses and blood glucose, 7. Administration of intravenous infusions. Conclusions Interventions to increase medication administration safety should focus on checking patient allergies and medication doses, especially for intravenous and transdermal medications. High-risk medications include insulin, analgesics, antibacterial drugs, anticoagulants, and potassium chloride. Text mining may be useful for analysing large free text datasets and should be developed further.

Abstract Background The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise peer-reviewed literature assessing the impact of electronic prescribing (eP) systems on the working practices of healthcare professionals (HCPs) in the inpatient setting and identify implications for practice and research. Methods We searched PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane and the Cumulative Index to Nursing Allied Health Literature databases for studies published from inception to November 2018. We included controlled, uncontrolled, observational and descriptive studies that explored the effect of eP on HCPs’ working practices in an inpatient setting. Data on setting, eP system and impact on working practices were extracted. Methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Emergent themes were identified and subjected to narrative synthesis. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration CRD42017075804). Results Searches identified 1301 titles and abstracts after duplicate removal. 171 papers underwent full-text review. A total of 25 studies met the inclusion criteria, from nine different countries. Nineteen were of commercial eP systems. There were a range of study designs; most (n = 14) adopted quantitative methods such as cross-sectional surveys, ten adopted qualitative approaches and a further one used mixed methods. Fourteen of the 25 studies were deemed to be of high quality. Four key themes were identified: communication, time taken to complete tasks, clinical workflow, and workarounds. Within each theme, study findings differed as to whether the effects of eP on HCPs’ working practices were positive or negative. Conclusion There is a lack of consensus within the literature on the impact of eP on HCPs’ working practices. Future research should explore the strategies resulting in a positive impact on HCPs’ working practices and learn from those that have not been successful.

Abstract Background The increasing adoption of hospital electronic prescribing and medication administration (ePA) systems has driven a wealth of research around the impact on patient safety. Yet relatively little research has sought to understand the effects on staff, particularly pharmacists. We aimed to investigate the effects of ePA on pharmacists’ activities, including interactions with patients and health professionals, and their perceptions of medication safety risks. Methods A mixed methods study comprising quantitative direct observations of ward pharmacists before and after implementation of ePA in an English hospital, and semi-structured interviews post-ePA. Quantitative data comprised multi-dimensional work activity sampling to establish the proportion of time ward pharmacists spent on different tasks, with whom and where. These data were extrapolated to estimate task duration. Qualitative interviews with pharmacists explored perceived impact on (i) ward activities, (ii) interactions with patients and different health professionals, (iii) locations where tasks were carried out, and (iv) medication errors. Results Observations totalled 116 h and 50 min. Task duration analysis suggested screening inpatient medication increased by 16 mins per 10 patients reviewed (p = 0.002), and searching for paper drug charts or computer decreased by 2 mins per 10 patients reviewed (p = 0.001). Pharmacists mainly worked alone (58% of time pre- and 65% post-ePA, p = 0.17), with patient interactions reducing from 5 to 2% of time (p = 0.03). Seven main themes were identified from the interviews, underpinned by a core explanatory concept around the enhanced and shifting role of the ward pharmacist post-ePA. Pharmacists perceived there to be a number of valuable safety features with ePA. However, paradoxically, some of these may have also inadvertently contributed to medication errors. Conclusion This study provides quantitative and qualitative insights into the effects of implementing ePA on ward pharmacists’ activities. Some tasks took longer while others reduced, and pharmacists may spend less time with patients with ePA. Pharmacists valued a number of safety features associated with ePA but also perceived an overall increase in medication risk. Pharmacy staff demonstrated a degree of resilience to ensure ‘business as usual’ by enhancing and adapting their role.

Abstract Background A previous census of electronic prescribing (EP) systems in England showed that more than half of hospitals with EP reported more than one EP system within the same hospital. Our objectives were to describe the rationale for having multiple EP systems within a single hospital, and to explore perceptions of stakeholders about the advantages and disadvantages of multiple systems including any impact on patient safety. Methods Hospitals were selected from previous census respondents. A decision matrix was developed to achieve a maximum variation sample, and snowball sampling used to recruit stakeholders of different professional backgrounds. We then used an a priori framework to guide and analyse semi-structured interviews. Results Ten participants, comprising pharmacists and doctors and a nurse, were interviewed from four hospitals. The findings suggest that use of multiple EP systems was not strategically planned. Three co-existing models of EP systems adoption in hospitals were identified: organisation-led, clinician-led and clinical network-led, which may have contributed to multiple systems use. Although there were some perceived benefits of multiple EP systems, particularly in niche specialities, many disadvantages were described. These included issues related to access, staff training, workflow, work duplication, and system interfacing. Fragmentation of documentation of the patient’s journey was a major safety concern. Discussion The complexity of EP systems’ adoption and deficiencies in IT strategic planning may have contributed to multiple EP systems use in the NHS. In the near to mid-term, multiple EP systems may remain in place in many English hospitals, which may create challenges to quality and patient safety.

Background The Global Digital Exemplar (GDE) Programme was designed to promote the digitisation of hospital services in England. Selected provider organisations that were reasonably digitally-mature were funded with the expectation that they would achieve internationally recognised levels of excellence and act as exemplars (‘GDE sites’) and share their learning with somewhat less digitally-mature Fast Follower (FF) sites. Aims This paper explores how partnerships between GDE and FF sites have promoted knowledge sharing and learning between organisations. Methods We conducted an independent qualitative longitudinal evaluation of the GDE Programme, collecting data across 36 provider organisations (including acute, mental health and speciality), 12 of which we studied as in-depth ethnographic case studies. We used a combination of semi-structured interviews with programme leads, vendors and national policy leads, non-participant observations of meetings and workshops, and analysed national and local documents. This allowed us to explore both how inter-organisational learning and knowledge sharing was planned, and how it played out in practice. Thematic qualitative analysis, combining findings from diverse data sources, was facilitated by NVivo 11 and drew on sociotechnical systems theory. Results Formally established GDE and FF partnerships were perceived to enhance learning and accelerate adoption of technologies in most pairings. They were seen to be most successful where they had encouraged, and were supported by, informal knowledge networking, driven by the mutual benefits of information sharing. Informal networking was enhanced where the benefits were maximised (for example where paired sites had implemented the same technological system) and networking costs minimised (for example by geographical proximity, prior links and institutional alignment). Although the intervention anticipated uni-directional learning between exemplar sites and ‘followers’, in most cases we observed a two-way flow of information, with GDEs also learning from FFs, through informal networking which also extended to other health service providers outside the Programme. The efforts of the GDE Programme to establish a learning ecosystem has enhanced the profile of shared learning within the NHS. Conclusions Inter-organisational partnerships have produced significant gains for both follower (FF) and exemplar (GDE) sites. Formal linkages were most effective where they had facilitated, and were supported by, informal networking. Informal networking was driven by the mutual benefits of information sharing and was optimised where sites were well aligned in terms of technology, geography and culture. Misalignments that created barriers to networking between organisations in a few cases were attributed to inappropriate choice of partners. Policy makers seeking to promote learning through centrally directed mechanisms need to create a framework that enables networking and informal knowledge transfer, allowing local organisations to develop bottom-up collaboration and exchanges, where they are productive, in an organic manner.

BackgroundAlmost every patient admitted to hospital will receive medication during their stay. Medication errors are an important cause of patient morbidity and mortality, as well as an economic burden for healthcare institutions. Research suggests that current methods of storing medication on hospital wards are not fit for purpose, contributing to inefficiency and error.AimTo improve medication storage in inpatient areas, by exploring variation and challenges related to medication storage and designing a prototype solution.MethodsSet in four hospitals in an English teaching hospital trust, the study used a mixed methods approach comprising a quantitative descriptive survey of storage facilities and practices followed by mixed methods observations of medication rounds and interviews with patients, nurses and pharmacy staff. Quantitative data were presented descriptively and qualitative data analysed thematically and using a human-centered design approach.ResultsWe identified wide variation in medication storage facilities and practices across 77 wards. Observations and staff interviews in six wards revealed five problem areas: poor management of multiple storage facilities; lack of visibility and organisation of medication within trolleys; inadequate size of storage; lack of ownership and knowledge of standard practice; and use of key locks. Patients were largely satisfied with receiving their medication. Systematic and consistent physical organisation of medication in medication trolleys, and integrating and implementing principles of best practice, were identified as areas for intervention.Discussion and conclusionVariation in medication storage facilities and practices existed both across the organization and on individual wards. Multiple challenges were identified in how medication was stored, which if addressed may improve the efficiency and safety of medication administration and in turn, staff and patient experience. The use of design principles alongside a research approach resulted in a rapid, iterative process for developing and refining potential solutions to improve inpatient medication storage.

Introduction Many countries are launching large-scale, digitally enabled change programmes as part of efforts to improve the quality, safety and efficiency of care. We have been commissioned to conduct an independent evaluation of a major national change programme, the Global Digital Exemplar (GDE) Programme, which aims to develop exemplary digital health solutions and encourage their wider adoption by creating a learning ecosystem across English National Health Service (NHS) provider organisations.Methods and analysis This theoretically informed, qualitative, longitudinal formative evaluation comprises five inter-related work packages. We will conduct a combination of 12 in-depth and 24 broader qualitative case studies in GDE sites exploring digital transformation, local learning and mechanisms of spread of knowledge within the Programme and across the wider NHS. Data will be collected through a combination of semistructured interviews with managers, implementation staff (clinical and non-clinical), vendors and policymakers, plus non-participant observations of meetings, site visits, workshops and documentary analysis of strategic local and national plans. Data will be analysed through inductive and deductive methods, beginning with in-depth case study sites and testing the findings against data from the wider sample and national stakeholders.Ethics and dissemination This work is commissioned as part of a national change programme and is therefore a service evaluation. We have ethical approval from the University of Edinburgh. Results will be disseminated at six monthly intervals to national policymakers, and made available via our publicly accessible website. We will also identify lessons for the management and evaluation of large-scale evolving digital health change programmes that are of international relevance.

Background: The administration of medication or fluids via the intravenous route is a common intervention for many hospital inpatients. However, little research has explored the safety and quality of intravenous therapy from the patient’s perspective, despite the role of the patient in patient safety receiving increased attention in recent years. Objective: To explore patients’ perspectives on the perceived quality and safety of intravenous infusions and identify implications for practice. Method: Qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted with 35 hospital patients receiving intravenous infusions in critical care, oncology day care, general medicine, and general surgery areas within 4 National Health Service hospitals in England. Data were analyzed thematically. Results: Four underlying and interlinked themes were identified: knowledge about intravenous infusions, challenges associated with receiving intravenous infusions, the role of health-care professionals, and patients’ attitudes toward receiving infusions. Conclusions: Patients were generally satisfied with receiving infusions; however, factors that contributed to decreased feelings of quality and safety were identified, suggesting areas for intervention. Issues to do with infusion pump alarms, reduced mobility, cannulation, and personal preferences for information, if given more attention, may improve patients’ experiences of receiving intravenous infusions.

Background: Intravenous (IV) medication administration has traditionally been regarded to be error-prone with high potential for harm. A recent US multisite study revealed surprisingly few potentially harmful errors despite a high overall error rate. However, there is limited evidence about infusion practices in England and how they relate to prevalence and types of error. Objectives: To determine the prevalence, types and severity of errors and discrepancies in infusion administration in English hospitals, and to explore sources of variation in errors, discrepancies and practices, including the contribution of smart pumps. Design: Phase 1 comprised an observational point-prevalence study of IV infusions, with debrief interviews and focus groups. Observers compared each infusion against the medication order and local policy. Deviations were classified as either errors or discrepancies based on their potential for patient harm. Contextual issues and reasons for deviations were explored qualitatively during observer debriefs, and analytically in supplementary analyses. Phase 2 comprised in-depth observational studies at five of the participating sites to better understand causes of error and how safety is maintained. Workshops were held with key stakeholder groups, including health professionals and policy-makers, the public and industry. Setting: Sixteen English NHS hospital trusts. Results: Point-prevalence data were collected from 1326 patients and 2008 infusions. In total, 240 errors were observed in 231 infusions and 1489 discrepancies were observed in 1065 infusions. Twenty-three errors (1.1% of all infusions) were considered potentially harmful; one might have resulted in short-term patient harm had it not been intercepted, but none was judged likely to prolong hospital stay or result in long-term harm. Types and prevalence of deviations varied widely among trusts, as did local policies. Deviations from medication orders and local policies were sometimes made for efficiency or to respond to patient need. Smart pumps, as currently implemented, had little effect. Staff had developed practices to manage efficiency and safety pragmatically by working around systemic challenges. Limitations: Local observers may have assessed errors differently across sites, although steps were taken to minimise differences through observer training, debriefs, and review and cleaning of data. Each in-depth study involved a single researcher, and these were limited in scale and scope. Conclusions: Errors and discrepancies are common in everyday infusion administration but most have low potential for patient harm. Findings are best understood by viewing IV infusion administration as a complex adaptive system. Better understanding of performance variability to strategically manage risk may be more helpful for improving patient safety than striving to eliminate all deviations. Future work: There is potential value in reviewing policy around IV infusion administration to reduce unnecessary variability, manage staff workload and engage patients, while retaining the principle that policy has to be fit for purpose, contextualised to the particular ward situation and treatment protocol, and sensitive to the risks of different medications. Further work on understanding infusion administration as a complex adaptive system might deliver new insights into managing patient safety. Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Errors in medication use are a patient safety concern globally, with different regions reporting differing error rates, causes of errors and proposed solutions. The objectives of this review were to identify, summarise, review and evaluate published studies on medication errors, drug related problems and adverse drug events in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Methods: A systematic review was carried out using six databases, searching for literature published between January 1990 and August 2016. Research articles focussing on medication errors, drug related problems or adverse drug events within different healthcare settings in the GCC were included. Results: Of 2094 records screened, 54 studies met our inclusion criteria. Kuwait was the only GCC country with no studies included. Prescribing errors were reported to be as high as 91% of a sample of primary care prescriptions analysed in one study. Of drug-related admissions evaluated in the emergency department the most common reason was patient non-compliance. In the inpatient care setting, a study of review of patient charts and medication orders identified prescribing errors in 7% of medication orders, another reported prescribing errors present in 56% of medication orders. The majority of drug related problems identified in inpatient paediatric wards were judged to be preventable. Adverse drug events were reported to occur in 8.5–16.9 per 100 admissions with up to 30% judged preventable, with occurrence being highest in the intensive care unit. Dosing errors were common in inpatient, outpatient and primary care settings. Omission of the administered dose as well as omission of prescribed medication at medication reconciliation were common. Studies of pharmacists’ interventions in clinical practice reported a varying level of acceptance, ranging from 53% to 98% of pharmacists’ recommendations. Conclusions: Studies of medication errors, drug related problems and adverse drug events are increasing in the GCC. However, variation in methods, definitions and denominators preclude calculation of an overall error rate. Research with more robust methodologies and longer follow up periods is now required. Keywords: Medication error, Adverse drug event, Drug related problem, Medication safety, Gulf Cooperation Council

Abstract Background Procedural and documentation deviations relating to intravenous (IV) infusion administration can have important safety consequences. However, research on such deviations is limited. To address this we investigated the prevalence of procedural and documentation deviations in IV infusion administration and explored variability in policy and practice across different hospital trusts. Methods We conducted a mixed methods study. This involved observations of deviations from local policy including quantitative and qualitative data, and focus groups with clinical staff to explore the causes and contexts of deviations. The observations were conducted across five clinical areas (general medicine, general surgery, critical care, paediatrics and oncology day care) in 16 National Health Service (NHS) trusts in England. All infusions being administered at the time of data collection were included. Deviation rates for procedural and documentation requirements were compared between trusts. Local data collectors and other relevant stakeholders attended focus groups at each trust. Policy details and reasons for deviations were discussed. Results At least one procedural or documentation deviation was observed in 961 of 2008 IV infusions (deviation rate 47.9%; 95% confidence interval 45.5–49.8%). Deviation rates at individual trusts ranged from 9.9 to 100% of infusions, with considerable variation in the prevalence of different types of deviation. Focus groups revealed lack of policy awareness, ambiguous policies, safety and practicality concerns, different organisational priorities, and wide variation in policies and practice relating to prescribing and administration of IV flushes and double-checking. Conclusions Deviation rates and procedural and documentation requirements varied considerably between hospital trusts. Our findings reveal areas where local policy and practice do not align. Some policies may be impractical and lack utility. We suggest clearer evidence-based standardisation and local procedures that are contextually practical to address these issues.

Objectives: To conduct a systematic review and narrative synthesis of interventions based on secondary use of data (SUD) from electronic prescribing (EP) and electronic hospital pharmacy (EHP) systems and their effectiveness in secondary care, and to identify factors influencing SUD. Method: The search strategy had four facets: 1. Electronic databases, 2. Medication safety, 3. Hospitals and quality/safety, and 4. SUD. Searches were conducted within EMBASE, Medline, CINAHL, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts. Empirical SUD intervention studies that aimed to improve medication safety and/or quality, and any studies providing insight into factors affecting SUD were included. Results: We identified nine quantitative studies of SUD interventions and five qualitative studies. SUD interventions were complex and fell into four categories, with ‘provision of feedback’ the most common. While heterogeneous, the majority of quantitative studies reported positive findings in improving medication safety but little detail was provided on the interventions implemented. The five qualitative studies collectively provide an overview of the SUD process, which typically comprised nine steps from data identification to analysis. Factors influencing the SUD process were electronic systems implementation and level of functionality, knowledge and skills of SUD users, organisational context, and policies around data reuse and security. Discussion and Conclusion: The majority of the SUD interventions were successful in improving medication safety, however, what contributes to this success needs further exploration. From synthesis of research evidence in this review, an integrative framework was developed to describe the processes, mechanisms, and barriers for effective SUD.

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.

Abstract Background The aim of the study was to explore the impact of the implementation of an electronic prescribing and medication administration system (ePA) on the safety of medication administration in an inpatient hospital setting. Objectives were to compare the prevalence and types of: 1) medication administration errors, and 2) documentation discrepancies, between a paper and an ePA system. Additionally, we wanted to describe any observed changes to medication administration practices. Methods The study was based on an elderly medicine ward in an English hospital. From December 2014 to June 2015, nurses’ medication administration rounds were observed every 5 days before and after ePA implementation using an interrupted time-series approach. Medication administration error and documentation discrepancy rates pre- versus post-ePA were analysed descriptively and chi-squared tests used to test for any difference; segmented regression analysis was used to determine changes in longitudinal trend. Results Observations were made at 15 pre- and 15 post-ePA implementation time-points. Pre-ePA on paper, there were 18 medication administration errors in 428 opportunities for error (4.2%; 95% confidence interval 2.3–6.1%), and with ePA there were 18 in 528 (3.4%; 95% confidence interval 1.9–5.0%; p = 0.64). Regarding documentation, pre-ePA on paper there were 5 discrepancies in 460 observed documentations (1.1%; 95% confidence interval 0.1–2.0%); with ePA there were 18 in 557 (3.2%; 95% confidence interval 1.8–4.7%; p = 0.04). The most common electronic documentation discrepancy was documentation that a dose had been administered when it had not. Segmented regression analysis was unable to detect any significant longitudinal changes. Changes to working practices post-ePA were observed, such as nurses demonstrating less-consistent self-checking when preparing and administering medications. Conclusions Findings suggest no change in medication error rate, although ePA encourages certain types of errors and mitigates others. There was a statistically significant increase in documentation discrepancies which is likely to be due to adoption of new working practices with ePA.

Abstract Background Globally, healthcare systems face major challenges with medicines management and medication adherence. Medication adherence determines medication effectiveness and can be the single most effective intervention for improving health outcomes. In anticipation of growth in eHealth interventions worldwide, we explore the role of eHealth in the patients’ medicines management journey in primary care, focusing on personalisation and intelligent monitoring for greater adherence. Discussion eHealth offers opportunities to transform every step of the patient’s medicines management journey. From booking appointments, consultation with a healthcare professional, decision-making, medication dispensing, carer support, information acquisition and monitoring, to learning about medicines and their management in daily life. It has the potential to support personalisation and monitoring and thus lead to better adherence. For some of these dimensions, such as supporting decision-making and providing reminders and prompts, evidence is stronger, but for many others more rigorous research is urgently needed. Conclusions Given the potential benefits and barriers to eHealth in medicines management, a fine balance needs to be established between evidence-based integration of technologies and constructive experimentation that could lead to a game-changing breakthrough. A concerted, transdisciplinary approach adapted to different contexts, including low- and middle-income contries is required to realise the benefits of eHealth at scale.

Barcode medication administration (BCMA) is advocated as a technology that reduces medication errors relating to incorrect patient identity, drug or dose. Little is known, however, about the impact it has on nursing workflow. Our aim was to investigate the impact of BCMA on nursing activity and workflow. A comparative study was conducted on two similar surgical wards within an acute UK hospital. We observed nurses during drug rounds on a non-BCMA ward and a BCMA ward. Data were collected on drug round duration, timeliness of medication administration, patient identification, medication verification and general workflow patterns. BCMA appears not to alter drug round duration, although it may reduce the administration time per dose. Workflow was more streamlined, with less use of the medicines room. The rate of patient identification increased from 74% (of 47) patients to 100% (of 43), with 95% of 255 scannable medication doses verified using the system. This study suggests that BCMA does not affect drug round duration; further research is required to determine the impact it has on timeliness of medication administration. There was reduced variability in the medication administration workflow of nurses, along with an increased patient identification rate and high medication scan rate, representing potential benefits to patient safety.

BACKGROUND:Inpatient medication errors are a significant concern. An approach not yet widely studied is to facilitate greater involvement of inpatients with their medication. At the same time, electronic prescribing is becoming increasingly prevalent in the hospital setting. In this study we aimed to explore hospital inpatients' involvement with medication safety-related behaviours, facilitators and barriers to this involvement, and the impact of electronic prescribing. METHODS:We conducted ethnographic observations and interviews in two UK hospital organisations, one with established electronic prescribing and one that changed from paper to electronic prescribing during our study. Researchers and lay volunteers observed nurses' medication administration rounds, pharmacists' ward rounds, doctor-led ward rounds and drug history taking. We also conducted interviews with healthcare professionals, patients and carers. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Observation notes and transcripts were coded thematically. RESULTS:Paper or electronic medication records were shown to patients in only 4 (2%) of 247 cases. However, where they were available during patient-healthcare professional interactions, healthcare professionals often viewed them in order to inform patients about their medicines and answer any questions. Interprofessional discussions about medicines seemed more likely to happen in front of the patient where paper or electronic drug charts were available near the bedside. Patients and carers had more access to paper-based drug charts than electronic equivalents. However, interviews and observations suggest there are potentially more significant factors that affect patient involvement with their inpatient medication. These include patient and healthcare professional beliefs concerning patient involvement, the way in which healthcare professionals operate as a team, and the underlying culture. CONCLUSION:Patients appear to have more access to paper-based records than electronic equivalents. However, to develop interventions to increase patient involvement with medication safety behaviours, a wider range of factors needs to be considered.

Medications are mostly taken in patients' own homes, increasingly administered by carers, yet studies of medication safety have been largely conducted in the hospital setting. We aimed to review studies of how carers cause and/or prevent medication administration errors (MAEs) within the patient's home; to identify types, prevalence and causes of these MAEs and any interventions to prevent them.A narrative systematic review of literature published between 1 Jan 1946 and 23 Sep 2013 was carried out across the databases EMBASE, MEDLINE, PSYCHINFO, COCHRANE and CINAHL. Empirical studies were included where carers were responsible for preventing/causing MAEs in the home and standardised tools used for data extraction and quality assessment.Thirty-six papers met the criteria for narrative review, 33 of which included parents caring for children, two predominantly comprised adult children and spouses caring for older parents/partners, and one focused on paid carers mostly looking after older adults. The carer administration error rate ranged from 1.9 to 33% of medications administered and from 12 to 92.7% of carers administering medication. These included dosage errors, omitted administration, wrong medication and wrong time or route of administration. Contributory factors included individual carer factors (e.g. carer age), environmental factors (e.g. storage), medication factors (e.g. number of medicines), prescription communication factors (e.g. comprehensibility of instructions), psychosocial factors (e.g. carer-to-carer communication), and care-recipient factors (e.g. recipient age). The few interventions effective in preventing MAEs involved carer training and tailored equipment.This review shows that home medication administration errors made by carers are a potentially serious patient safety issue. Carers made similar errors to those made by professionals in other contexts and a wide variety of contributory factors were identified. The home care setting should be a priority for the development of patient safety interventions.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the prevalence and types of prescribing and dispensing errors occurring with high-alert medications and to propose preventive measures to avoid errors with these medications. INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of adverse events in health care has increased, and medication errors are probably the most common cause of these events. Pediatric patients are known to be a high-risk group and are an important target in medication error prevention. METHODS: Observers collected data on prescribing and dispensing errors occurring with high-alert medications for pediatric inpatients in a university hospital. In addition to classifying the types of error that occurred, we identified cases of concomitant prescribing and dispensing errors. RESULTS: One or more prescribing errors, totaling 1,632 errors, were found in 632 (89.6%) of the 705 high-alert medications that were prescribed and dispensed. We also identified at least one dispensing error in each high-alert medication dispensed, totaling 1,707 errors. Among these dispensing errors, 723 (42.4%) content errors occurred concomitantly with the prescribing errors. A subset of dispensing errors may have occurred because of poor prescription quality. The observed concomitancy should be examined carefully because improvements in the prescribing process could potentially prevent these problems. CONCLUSION: The system of drug prescribing and dispensing at the hospital investigated in this study should be improved by incorporating the best practices of medication safety and preventing medication errors. High-alert medications may be used as triggers for improving the safety of the drug-utilization system.

Research has documented the problem of medication administration errors and their causes. However, little is known about how nurses administer medications safely or how existing systems facilitate or hinder medication administration; this represents a missed opportunity for implementation of practical, effective, and low-cost strategies to increase safety.To identify system factors that facilitate and/or hinder successful medication administration focused on three inter-related areas: nurse practices and workarounds, workflow, and interruptions and distractions.We used a mixed-methods ethnographic approach involving observational fieldwork, field notes, participant narratives, photographs, and spaghetti diagrams to identify system factors that facilitate and/or hinder successful medication administration in three inpatient wards, each from a different English NHS trust. We supplemented this with quantitative data on interruptions and distractions among other established medication safety measures.Overall, 43 nurses on 56 drug rounds were observed. We identified a median of 5.5 interruptions and 9.6 distractions per hour. We identified three interlinked themes that facilitated successful medication administration in some situations but which also acted as barriers in others: (1) system configurations and features, (2) behaviour types among nurses, and (3) patient interactions. Some system configurations and features acted as a physical constraint for parts of the drug round, however some system effects were partly dependent on nurses' inherent behaviour; we grouped these behaviours into 'task focused', and 'patient-interaction focused'. The former contributed to a more streamlined workflow with fewer interruptions while the latter seemed to empower patients to act as a defence barrier against medication errors by being: (1) an active resource of information, (2) a passive information resource, and/or (3) a 'double-checker'.We have identified practical examples of system effects on work optimisation and nurse behaviours that potentially increase medication safety, and conceptualized ways in which patient involvement can increase medication safety in hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: To describe current use of electronic prescribing (EP) in English acute NHS hospital trusts, and the use of multiple EP systems within the same hospital. DESIGN: Descriptive cross-sectional postal survey. SETTING: Acute NHS hospital trusts in England. PARTICIPANTS: The survey was sent to chief pharmacists in all acute English NHS hospital trusts in 2011. Where trusts comprised multiple hospitals, respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire for their main acute hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of EP use in acute NHS hospitals; number of different EP systems in each hospital; stages of the patient pathway in which EP used; extent of deployment across the hospital; comprehensiveness regarding the drugs prescribed; decision support functionalities used. RESULTS: We received responses from 101 trusts (61%). Seventy (69%) respondent hospitals had at least one form of EP in use. More than half (39;56%) of hospitals with EP had more than one system in use, representing 60 different systems. The most common were systems used only for discharge prescribing, used in 48 (48% of respondent hospitals). Specialist chemotherapy EP systems were second most common (34; 34%). Sixteen specialist inpatient systems were used across 15 hospitals, most commonly in adult critical care. Only 13 (13%) respondents used inpatient electronic prescribing across all adult medical and surgical wards. Overall, 24 (40%) systems were developed 'in-house'. Decision support functionality varied widely. CONCLUSIONS: It is UK government policy to encourage the adoption of EP in hospitals. Our work shows that EP is prevalent in English hospitals, although often in limited clinical areas and for limited types of prescribing. The diversity of systems in use, often within the same hospital, may create challenges for staff training and patient safety.