Search

Reasons for exclusion as an opportunity for error: details of the reasons why doses were excluded as opportunities for error pre- and post-ePA. (DOCX 13Â kb)

Brief descriptions of medication administration errors observed: a full list of the medication administration errors observed pre- and post-ePA. (DOCX 18Â kb)

Plain English summary Plain English summary There is a consensus that patients and the public should be involved in research in a meaningful way. However, to date, lay people have been mostly involved in developing research ideas and commenting on patient information. We previously published a paper describing our experience with lay partners conducting observations in a study of how patients in hospital are involved with their medicines. In a later part of the same study, lay partners were also involved in analysing interviews that a researcher had conducted with patients, carers and healthcare professionals about patient and carer involvement with medicines in hospital. We therefore wanted to build on our previous paper and report on our experiences with lay partners helping to conduct data analysis. We therefore interviewed the lay members and researchers involved in the analysis to find out their views. Both lay members and researchers reported that lay partners added value to the study by bringing their own perspectives and identifying further areas for the researcher to look for in the interviews. In this way researchers and lay partners were able to work together to produce a richer analysis than would have been possible from either alone. Abstract Background It is recognised that involving lay people in research in a meaningful rather than tokenistic way is both important and challenging. In this paper, we contribute to this debate by describing our experiences of lay involvement in data analysis. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with the lay partners and researchers involved in qualitative data analysis in a wider study of inpatient involvement in medication safety. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded using open thematic analysis. Results We interviewed three lay partners and the three researchers involved. These interviews demonstrated that the lay members added value to the analysis by bringing their own perspectives; these were systematically integrated into the analysis by the lead researcher to create a synergistic output. Some challenges arose, including difficulties in recruiting a diverse range of members of the public to carry out the role; however there were generally fewer challenges in data analysis than there had been with our previous experience of lay partners’ involvement in data collection. Conclusions Lay members can add value to health services research by being involved in qualitative data analysis.

Background Prescribing errors occur in up to 15% of UK inpatient medication orders. However, junior doctors report insufficient feedback on errors. A barrier preventing feedback is that individual prescribers often cannot be clearly identified on prescribing documentation. Aim To reduce prescribing errors in a UK hospital by improving feedback on prescribing errors. Interventions We developed three linked interventions using plan–do–study–act cycles: (1) name stamps for junior doctors who were encouraged to stamp or write their name clearly when prescribing; (2) principles of effective feedback to support pharmacists to provide feedback to doctors on individual prescribing errors and (3) fortnightly prescribing advice emails that addressed a common and/or serious error. Implementation and evaluation Interventions were introduced at one hospital site in August 2013 with a second acting as control. Process measures included the percentage of inpatient medication orders for which junior doctors stated their name. Outcome measures were junior doctors' and pharmacists' perceptions of current feedback provision (evaluated using quantitative pre-questionnaires and post-questionnaires and qualitative focus groups) and the prevalence of erroneous medication orders written by junior doctors between August and December 2013. Results The percentage of medication orders for which junior doctors stated their name increased from about 10% to 50%. Questionnaire responses revealed a significant improvement in pharmacists' perceptions but no significant change for doctors. Focus group findings suggested increased doctor engagement with safe prescribing. Interrupted time series analysis showed no difference in weekly prescribing error rates between baseline and intervention periods, compared with the control site. Conclusion Findings suggest improved experiences around feedback. However, attempts to produce a measurable reduction in prescribing errors are likely to need a multifaceted approach of which feedback should form part.

A 65-year-old man being treated with radiotherapy and chemotherapy for recurrent colonic adenocarcinoma was admitted for management of hypokalaemia and hypomagnesaemia secondary to diarrhoea. He was treated with intravenous infusions of potassium chloride and magnesium sulfate. Following an infusion of magnesium sulfate, he experienced a sudden neurological deterioration. A CT of the head revealed no haemorrhage or evidence of acute ischaemic injury. Results of serum biochemistry later that day revealed an elevated magnesium level. Iatrogenic magnesium toxicity was suspected. Further discussions between the pharmacist and ward staff confirmed that a medication error had been made in the preparation of the infusion resulting in an overdose of intravenous magnesium.

Plain English summary There is a consensus that patients and the public should be involved in research in a meaningful way. To date, lay people have been mostly involved in developing research ideas and commenting on patient information but not as much in actual data collection. We have had firsthand experience with lay people helping to conduct a study on how patients in hospital are involved with their medicines. In the first part of this study, we observed doctors’ ward rounds, pharmacists’ ward visits and nurses’ drug administration rounds, to find out if and how healthcare professionals interacted with patients about their medicines. Lay people conducted some of these observations. We wanted to explore the benefits and challenges of having lay people conduct these observations, to tell us more about how lay people can be involved in conducting such research. We interviewed the lay members and researchers involved in this research to find out their views. We also looked at the observation notes to identify what the lay people had noticed that the researchers had not. The lay members and researchers reported that lay members added value to the study by bringing new perspectives. Lay people had noticed some different things to the researchers. We experienced some challenges which need to be addressed. These weregetting the lay observers registered with the hospitals to allow them to be on the wards in this capacitylay observers and researchers having different understanding of research procedures such as patient consenttrying to find lay observers of different backgrounds and ethnic groups Abstract Background: It is recognised that involving lay people with research in a meaningful rather than tokenistic way is both important and challenging. In a recent health services research study addressing inpatient involvement in medication safety, we sought to overcome this challenge by including lay people in collecting observational data in the hospital setting. The aim of this study was to evaluate lay and researcher perspectives on lay involvement in data collection in order to inform and enhance the future role of lay people in carrying out health services research. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with the lay members who collected observational data in our wider study and the researchers who provided support and/or were involved in their recruitment and training. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded using open thematic analysis. In addition, we conducted secondary analysis of the observational data to identify the specific contributions of lay observers. Results: We interviewed the three lay members and the four researchers involved. Both these interviews and the secondary data analysis demonstrated that the lay members added value to the study by bringing additional general perspectives on communication with hospital inpatients. Combined with researchers’ perspectives on interactions more specifically related to medication, this provided a broader answer to our research question of how healthcare professionals facilitate inpatient understanding of their medication and involvement in medication safety. This contrasted to the involvement lay observers reported having in previous research where their role had been more consultative. The lay members all reported that carrying out the observations had been an interesting and informative experience. Some challenges arose including the infrastructure not having been in place to support this specialist lay research role, differing paradigms of research governance held by the public and researchers in relation to consent procedures and difficulties in recruiting a diverse range of members of the public to carry out the role. Conclusions: Lay members can add value to research by being involved in data collection within health services research. There is a need to build infrastructure to better support this involvement.