Cost effectiveness of a pharmacist-led information technology intervention for reducing rates of clinically important errors in medicines management in general practices (PINCER)

Estimating the economic effect of harm associated with high risk prescribing of oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in England: population based cohort and economic modelling study

OBJECTIVES

To quantify prevalence, harms, and NHS costs in England of problematic oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prescribing in high risk groups.

DESIGN

Population based cohort and economic modelling study.

SETTING

Economic models estimating patient harm associated with NSAID specific hazardous prescribing events, and cost to the English NHS, over a 10 year period, were combined with trends of hazardous prescribing event to estimate national levels of patient harm and NHS costs.

PARTICIPANTS

Eligible participants were prescribed oral NSAIDs and were in five high risk groups: older adults (≥65 years) with no gastroprotection; people who concurrently took oral anticoagulants; or those with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or a history of peptic ulcer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prevalence of hazardous prescribing events, by each event and overall, discounted quality adjusted life years (QALYs) lost, and cost to the NHS in England of managing harm.

RESULTS

QALY losses and cost increases were observed for each hazardous prescribing event (v no hazardous prescribing event). Mean QALYs per person were between 0.01 (95% credibility interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.02) lower with history of peptic ulcer, to 0.11 (0.04 to 0.19) lower with chronic kidney disease. Mean cost increases ranged from a non-statistically significant £14 (€17; $18) (95% CI -£71 to £98) in heart failure, to a statistically significant £1097 (£236 to £2542) in people concurrently taking anticoagulants. Prevalence of hazardous prescribing events per 1000 patients ranged from 0.11 in people who have had a peptic ulcer to 1.70 in older adults. Nationally, the most common hazardous prescribing event (older adults with no gastroprotection) resulted in 1929 (1416 to 2452) QALYs lost, costing £2.46m (£0.65m to £4.68m). The greatest impact was in people concurrently taking oral anticoagulants: 2143 (894 to 4073) QALYs lost, costing £25.41m (£5.25m to £60.01m). Over 10 years, total QALYs lost were estimated to be 6335 (4471 to 8658) and an NHS cost for England of £31.43m (£9.28m to £67.11m).

CONCLUSIONS

NSAIDs continue to be a source of avoidable harm and healthcare cost in these five high risk populations, especially in inducing an acute event in people with chronic condition and people taking oral anticoagulants.

Implementation of an audit and feedback module targeting low-value clinical practices in a provincial trauma quality assurance program: a cost-effectiveness study

BACKGROUND

Audit and Feedback (A&F) interventions based on quality indicators have been shown to lead to significant improvements in compliance with evidence-based care including de-adoption of low-value practices (LVPs). Our primary aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding a hypothetical A&F module targeting LVPs for trauma admissions to an existing quality assurance intervention targeting high-value care and risk-adjusted outcomes. A secondary aim was to assess how certain A&F characteristics might influence its cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using a probabilistic static decision analytic model in the Québec trauma care continuum. We considered the Québec Ministry of Health perspective. Our economic evaluation compared a hypothetical scenario in which the A&F module targeting LVPs is implemented in a Canadian provincial trauma quality assurance program to a status quo scenario in which the A&F module is not implemented. In scenarios analyses we assessed the impact of A&F characteristics on its cost-effectiveness. Results are presented in terms of incremental costs per LVP avoided.

RESULTS

Results suggest that the implementation of A&F module (Cost = $1,480,850; Number of LVPs = 6,005) is associated with higher costs and higher effectiveness compared to status quo (Cost = $1,124,661; Number of LVPs = 8,228). The A&F module would cost $160 per LVP avoided compared to status quo. The A&F module becomes more cost-effective with the addition of facilitation visits; more frequent evaluation; and when only high-volume trauma centers are considered.

CONCLUSION

A&F module targeting LVPs is associated with higher costs and higher effectiveness than status quo and has the potential to be cost-effective if the decision-makers' willingness-to-pay is at least $160 per LVP avoided. This likely represents an underestimate of true ICER due to underestimated costs or missed opportunity costs. Results suggest that virtual facilitation visits, frequent evaluation, and implementing the module in high-volume centers can improve cost-effectiveness.

Relationship between staff and quality of care in care homes: StaRQ mixed methods study

Background

Quality of life and care varies between and within the care homes in which almost half a million older people live and over half a million direct care staff (registered nurses and care assistants) work. The reasons are complex, understudied and sometimes oversimplified, but staff and their work are a significant influence.

Objective(s)

To explore variations in the care home nursing and support workforce; how resident and relatives' needs in care homes are linked to care home staffing; how different staffing models impact on care quality, outcomes and costs; how workforce numbers, skill mix and stability meet residents' needs; the contributions of the care home workforce to enhancing quality of care; staff relationships as a platform for implementation by providers.

Design

Mixed-method (QUAL-QUANT) parallel design with five work packages. WP1 - two evidence syntheses (one realist); WP2 - cross-sectional survey of routine staffing and rated quality from care home regulator; WP3 - analysis of longitudinal data from a corporate provider of staffing characteristics and quality indicators, including safety; WP4 - secondary analysis of care home regulator reports; WP5 - social network analysis of networks likely to influence quality innovation. We expressed our synthesised findings as a logic model.

Setting

English care homes, with and without nursing, with various ownership structures, size and location, with varying quality ratings.

Participants

Managers, residents, families and care home staff.

Findings

Staffing's contribution to quality and personalised care requires: managerial and staff stability and consistency; sufficient staff to develop 'familial' relationships between staff and residents, and staff-staff reciprocity, 'knowing' residents, and skills and competence training beyond induction; supported, well-led staff seeing modelled behaviours from supervisors; autonomy to act. Outcome measures that capture the relationship between staffing and quality include: the extent to which resident needs and preferences are met and culturally appropriate; resident and family satisfaction; extent of residents living with purpose; safe care (including clinical outcomes); staff well-being and job satisfaction were important, but underacknowledged.

Limitations

Many of our findings stem from self-reported and routine data with known biases - such as under reporting of adverse incidents; our analysis may reflect these biases. COVID-19 required adapting our original protocol to make it feasible. Consequently, the effects of the pandemic are reflected in our research methods and findings. Our findings are based on data from a single care home operator and so may not be generalised to the wider population of care homes.

Conclusions

Innovative and multiple methods and theory can successfully highlight the nuanced relationship between staffing and quality in care homes. Modifiable characteristics such as visible philosophies of care and high-quality training, reinforced by behavioural and relational role modelling by leaders can make the difference when sufficient amounts of consistent staff are employed. Greater staffing capacity alone is unlikely to enhance quality in a cost-effective manner. Social network analysis can help identify the right people to aid adoption and spread of quality and innovation. Future research should focus on richer, iterative, evaluative testing and development of our logic model using theoretically and empirically defensible - rather than available - inputs and outcomes.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021241066 and Research Registry registration: 1062.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/144/29) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 8. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

How the Timing of Annual COVID-19 Vaccination of Nursing Home Residents and Staff Affects Its Value

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the epidemiologic, clinical, and economic value of an annual nursing home (NH) COVID-19 vaccine campaign and the impact of when vaccination starts.

DESIGN

Agent-based model representing a typical NH.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

NH residents and staff.

METHODS

We used the model representing an NH with 100 residents, its staff, their interactions, COVID-19 spread, and its health and economic outcomes to evaluate the epidemiologic, clinical, and economic value of varying schedules of annual COVID-19 vaccine campaigns.

RESULTS

Across a range of scenarios with a 60% vaccine efficacy that wanes starting 4 months after protection onset, vaccination was cost saving or cost-effective when initiated in the late summer or early fall. Annual vaccination averted 102 to 105 COVID-19 cases when 30-day vaccination campaigns began between July and October (varying with vaccination start), decreasing to 97 and 85 cases when starting in November and December, respectively. Starting vaccination between July and December saved $3340 to $4363 and $64,375 to $77,548 from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and societal perspectives, respectively (varying with vaccination start). Vaccination's value did not change when varying the COVID-19 peak between December and February. The ideal vaccine campaign timing was not affected by reducing COVID-19 levels in the community, or varying transmission probability, preexisting immunity, or COVID-19 severity. However, if vaccine efficacy wanes more quickly (over 1 month), earlier vaccination in July resulted in more cases compared with vaccinating later in October.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Annual vaccination of NH staff and residents averted the most cases when initiated in the late summer through early fall, at least 2 months before the COVID-19 winter peak but remained cost saving or cost-effective when it starts in the same month as the peak. This supports tethering COVID vaccination to seasonal influenza campaigns (typically in September-October) for providing protection against SARS-CoV-2 winter surges in NHs.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of pharmacist services

BACKGROUND

Challenges to the provision of health care are occurring internationally and are expected to increase in the future, further increasing health spending. As pharmacist roles are evolving and expanding internationally to provide individualised pharmaceutical care it is important to assess the cost-effectiveness of these services.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically synthesise the international literature regarding published economic evaluations of pharmacy services to assess their cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review of economic evaluations of pharmacy services was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, IPA and online journals with search functions likely to publish economic evaluations of pharmacy services. Data were extracted regarding the interventions, the time horizon, the outcomes and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Studies' quality of reporting was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard (CHEERS) statement.

RESULTS

Seventy-five studies were included in the systematic review, including 67 cost-effectiveness analyses, 6 cost-benefit analyses and 2 cost-consequence analyses. Of these, 57 were either dominant or cost-effective using a willingness-to-pay threshold of NZ$46 645 per QALY. A further 11 studies' cost-effectiveness were unable to be evaluated. Interventions considered to be most cost-effective included pharmacist medication reviews, pharmacist adherence strategies and pharmacist management of type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension and warfarin/INR monitoring. The quality of reporting of studies differed with no studies reporting all 28 items of the CHEERS statement.

CONCLUSIONS

There is strong economic evidence to support investment in extended pharmacist services, particularly those focussed on long-term chronic health conditions.

Value of improving patient safety: health economic considerations for rapid response systems-a rapid review of the literature and expert round table

OBJECTIVES

Failure to rescue deteriorating patients in hospital is a well-researched topic. We aimed to explore the impact of safer care on health economic considerations for clinicians, providers and policymakers.

DESIGN

We undertook a rapid review of the available literature and convened a round table of international specialists in the field including experts on health economics and value-based healthcare to better understand health economics of clinical deterioration and impact of systems to reduce failure to rescue.

RESULTS

Only a limited number of publications have examined the health economic impact of failure to rescue. Literature examining this topic lacked detail and we identified no publications on long-term cost outside the hospital following a deterioration event. The recent pandemic has added limited literature on prevention of deterioration in the patients' home.Cost-effectiveness and cost-efficiency are dependent on broader system effects of adverse events. We suggest including the care needs beyond the hospital and loss of income of patients and/or their informal carers as well as sickness of healthcare staff exposed to serious adverse events in the analysis of adverse events. They are likely to have a larger health economic impact than the direct attributable cost of the hospital admission of the patient suffering the adverse event. Premorbid status of a patient is a major confounder for health economic considerations.

CONCLUSION

In order to optimise health at the population level, we must limit long-term effects of adverse events through improvement of our ability to rapidly recognise and respond to acute illness and worsening chronic illness both in the home and the hospital.

Economic evaluation of a collaborative model of pharmaceutical care in an Irish hospital: cost-utility analysis

Background: A complex, collaborative pharmaceutical care intervention including medication review and reconciliation demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in the prevalence of discharge medication error and improved quality of prescribing for hospitalised adults.  This study sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of this intervention. Methods: A cost-utility analysis was undertaken using a decision-analytic framework. The evaluation was undertaken from the Health Service Executive's perspective, the payer for primary and secondary care settings. Direct costs associated with managing hypothetical harm consequent to intercepted discharge medication error and consequences in terms of quality-adjusted life years loss were key input parameters. Analysis was structured within a decision tree model in Microsoft Excel® populated with consequences as utilities, estimated costs using macro- and micro-costing approaches, and event probabilities generated from the original study. Incremental analysis, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: The results of analysis for the base-care demonstrated that the intervention dominated standard care with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -€36,537.24/quality-adjusted life year, indicating that the intervention is less costly and more effective. The one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses both demonstrated that the intervention dominated standard care. The model was relatively robust to variation in input parameters through one-way sensitivity analysis. The cost of discharge medication error and effect parameters relating to standard care were most sensitive to change. Discussion: The analysis demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of a complex pharmaceutical intervention which will support decision-making regarding implementation. This is the first cost-utility analysis of a complex, collaborative pharmaceutical care intervention, adding to the scant evidence-base in the field.

Exploring the challenges to safer prescribing and medication monitoring in prisons: A qualitative study with health care staff

Introduction

Research suggests that patients who are prisoners experience greater morbidity, increased health inequalities and frequent preventable harm, compared to the general population. Little is known about the process and influencing factors for safe prescribing in the unique prison environment, which may limit the development efforts to improve the quality of care in prisons. This study aimed to understand the process and challenges associated with prescribing in prisons, explore the causes and impact of these challenges, and explore approaches to improve prescribing safety in prisons.

Methods

Grounded theory informed data collection and analysis of a nominal group discussion by seven participants and semi-structured telephone interviews with twenty prison healthcare staff, including GPs, pharmacists, psychiatrists and nurses.

Findings

The underlying complexity of prescribing in prison settings increased the level of challenge and influenced the safety of this process. Multiple contributors to the challenges of safe prescribing were identified (comprising governance and policy; the prison structure; staff retention, training and skill mix; IT systems and interface; polypharmacy and co-morbidity; tradability and patient behaviour) with overarching constructs of variations in practice/policy and the influence of prison culture. Participants identified measures to address these challenges through multi-disciplinary collaborative working, increased consistency in processes, and the need for more innovation and education/training.

Conclusions

Our study highlighted that healthcare provision in prisons is unique and needs to tailor the care provided to patients without enforcing a model focused on primary, secondary or tertiary care. Participants emphasised a necessary shift in workplace culture and behaviour change to support improvements. The COM-B model of behaviour change may be effectively applied to develop interventions in organisations that have in-depth understanding of their own unique challenges.

Scaling-up a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER) to reduce hazardous prescribing in general practices: Multiple interrupted time series study

BACKGROUND

We previously reported on a randomised trial demonstrating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER). We sought to investigate whether PINCER was effective in reducing hazardous prescribing when rolled out at scale in UK general practices.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We used a multiple interrupted time series design whereby successive groups of general practices received the PINCER intervention between September 2015 and April 2017. We used 11 prescribing safety indicators to identify potentially hazardous prescribing and collected data over a maximum of 16 quarterly time periods. The primary outcome was a composite of all the indicators; a composite for indicators associated with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding was also reported, along with 11 individual indicators of hazardous prescribing. Data were analysed using logistic mixed models for the quarterly event numbers with the appropriate denominator, and calendar time included as a covariate. PINCER was implemented in 370 (94.1%) of 393 general practices covering a population of almost 3 million patients in the East Midlands region of England; data were successfully extracted from 343 (92.7%) of these practices. For the primary composite outcome, the PINCER intervention was associated with a decrease in the rate of hazardous prescribing of 16.7% (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 0.86) at 6 months and 15.3% (aOR 0.85, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.90) at 12 months postintervention. The unadjusted rate of hazardous prescribing reduced from 26.4% (22,503 patients in the numerator/853,631 patients in the denominator) to 20.1% (11,901 patients in the numerator/591,364 patients in the denominator) at 6 months and 19.1% (3,868 patients in the numerator/201,992 patients in the denominator). The greatest reduction in hazardous prescribing associated with the intervention was observed for the indicators associated with GI bleeding; for the GI composite indicator, there was a decrease of 23.9% at both 6 months (aOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.80) and 12 months (aOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.82) postintervention. The unadjusted rate of hazardous prescribing reduced from 31.4 (16,185 patients in the numerator/515,879 patients in the denominator) to 21.2% (7,607 patients in the numerator/358,349 patients in the denominator) at 6 months and 19.5% (2,369 patients in the numerator/121,534 patients in the denominator). We adjusted for calendar time and practice, but since this was an observational study, the findings may have been influenced by unknown confounding factors or behavioural changes unrelated to the PINCER intervention. Data were also not collected for all practices at 6 months and 12 months postintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

The PINCER intervention, when rolled out at scale in routine clinical practice, was associated with a reduction in hazardous prescribing by 17% and 15% at 6 and 12 months postintervention. The greatest reductions in hazardous prescribing were for indicators associated with risk of GI bleeding. These findings support the wider national rollout of PINCER in England.

Understanding factors that could influence patient acceptability of the use of the PINCER intervention in primary care: A qualitative exploration using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability

Introduction

Medication errors are an important cause of morbidity and mortality. The pharmacist-led IT-based intervention to reduce clinically important medication errors (PINCER) intervention was shown to reduce medication errors when tested in a cluster randomised controlled trial and when implemented across one region of England. Now that it has been rolled out nationally, and to enhance findings from evaluations with staff and stakeholders, this paper is the first to report patients’ perceived acceptability on the use of PINCER in primary care and proposes suggestions on how delivery of PINCER related care could be delivered in a way that is acceptable and not unnecessarily burdensome.

Methods

A total of 46 participants living with long-term health conditions who had experience of medication reviews and/or monitoring were recruited through patient participant groups and social media. Semi-structured, qualitative interviews and focus groups were conducted face-to-face or via telephone. A thematic analysis was conducted and findings mapped to the constructs of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA).

Results

Two themes were identified and interpreted within the most relevant TFA construct: Perceptions on the purpose and components of PINCER (Affective Attitude and Intervention Coherence) and Perceived patient implications (Burden and Self-efficacy). Overall perceptions on PINCER were positive with participants showing good understanding of the components. Access to medication reviews, which PINCER related care can involve, was reported to be limited and a lack of consistency in practitioners delivering reviews was considered challenging, as was lack of communication between primary care and other health-care providers. Patients thought it would be helpful if medication reviews and prescription renewal times were synchronised. Remote medication review consultations were more convenient for some but viewed as a barrier to communication by others. It was acknowledged that some patients may be more resistant to change and more willing to accept changes initiated by general practitioners.

Conclusions

Participants found the concept of PINCER acceptable; however, acceptability could be improved if awareness on the role of primary care pharmacists is raised and patient-pharmacist relationships enhanced. Being transparent with communication and delivering streamlined and consistent but flexible PINCER related care is recommended.

Understanding factors influencing uptake and sustainable use of the PINCER intervention at scale: A qualitative evaluation using Normalisation Process Theory

Introduction

Medication errors are an important cause of morbidity and mortality. The pharmacist-led IT-based intervention to reduce clinically important medication errors (PINCER) has demonstrated improvements in primary care medication safety, and whilst now the subject of national roll-out its optimal and sustainable use across health contexts has not been fully explored. As part of a qualitative evaluation we aimed to identify factors influencing successful adoption, embedding and sustainable use of PINCER across primary care settings in England, UK.

Methods

Semi-structured face-to-face or telephone interviews, including follow-up interviews and an online survey were conducted with professionals knowledgeable of PINCER. Interview recruitment targeted four early adopter regions; the survey was distributed nationally. Initial data analysis was inductive, followed by analysis using a coding framework. A deductive matrix approach was taken to map the framework to the Normalisation Process Theory (NPT). Themes were then identified.

Results

Fifty participants were interviewed, 18 participated in a follow-up interview. Eighty-one general practices and three Clinical Commissioning Groups completed the survey. Four themes were identified and interpreted within the relevant NPT construct: Awareness & Perceptions (Coherence), Receptivity to PINCER (Cognitive Participation), Engagement [Collective Action] and Reflections & Adaptations (Reflexive Monitoring). Variability was identified in how PINCER awareness was raised and how staff worked to operationalise the intervention. Facilitators for use included stakeholder investment, favourable evidence, inclusion in policy, incentives, fit with individual and organisational goals and positive experiences. Barriers included lack of understanding, capacity concerns, operational difficulties and the impact of COVID-19. System changes such as adding alerts on clinical systems were indicative of embedding and continued use.

Conclusions

The NPT helped understand motives behind engagement and the barriers and facilitators towards sustainable use. Optimising troubleshooting support and encouraging establishments to adopt an inclusive approach to intervention adoption and utilisation could help accelerate uptake and help establish ongoing sustainable use.

Economic evaluations of audit and feedback interventions: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of audit and feedback (A&F) interventions to improve compliance to healthcare guidelines is supported by randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs. However, there is currently a knowledge gap on their cost-effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess whether A&F interventions targeting improvements in compliance to recommended care are economically favourable.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review including experimental, observational and simulation-based economic evaluation studies of A&F interventions targeting healthcare providers. Comparators were a 'do nothing' strategy, or any other intervention not involving A&F or involving a subset of A&F intervention components. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Econlit, EMBASE, Health Technology Assessment Database, MEDLINE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, ABI/INFORM, Web of Science, ProQuest and websites of healthcare quality associations to December 2021. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, incremental cost-utility ratios, incremental net benefit and incremental cost-benefit ratios. Pairs of reviewers independently selected eligible studies and extracted relevant data. Reporting quality was evaluated using CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards). Results were synthesised using permutation matrices for all studies and predefined subgroups.

RESULTS

Of 13 221 unique citations, 35 studies met our inclusion criteria. The A&F intervention was dominant (ie, at least as effective with lower cost) in 7 studies, potentially cost-effective in 26 and was dominated (ie, the same or less effectiveness and higher costs) in 2 studies. A&F interventions were more likely to be economically favourable in studies based on health outcomes rather than compliance to recommended practice, considering medical costs in addition to intervention costs, published since 2010, and with high reporting quality.

DISCUSSION

Results suggest that A&F interventions may have a high potential to be cost-effective. However, as is common in systematic reviews of economic evaluations, publication bias could have led to an overestimation of their economic value.

Exploration of prescribing error reporting across primary care: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To explore barriers and facilitators to prescribing error reporting across primary care.

DESIGN

Qualitative semi-structured face-to-face and telephone interviews were conducted to explore facilitators and barriers to reporting prescribing errors. Data collection and thematic analysis were informed by the COM-B model of behaviour change. Framework analysis was used for coding and charting the data with the assistance of NVivo software (V.12). General and context specific influences on prescribing error reporting were mapped to constructs from the COM-B model (ie, capability, opportunity and motivation).

SETTING

Primary care organisations, including community pharmacy, general practice and community care from North East England.

PARTICIPANTS

We interviewed a maximal variation purposive sample of 25 participants, including prescribers, community pharmacists and key stakeholders with primary care or medicines safety roles at local, regional and national levels.

RESULTS

Our findings describe a range of factors that influence the capability, opportunity and motivation to report prescribing errors in primary care. Three key contextual factors are also highlighted that were found to underpin many of the behavioural influences on reporting in this setting: the nature of prescribing; heterogeneous priorities for error reporting across and within different primary care organisations; and the complex infrastructure of reporting and learning pathways across primary care. Findings suggest that there is a lack of consistency in how, when and by whom, prescribing errors are reported across primary care.

CONCLUSIONS

Further research is needed to identify cross-organisational and interprofessional consensus on agreed reporting thresholds and how best to facilitate a more collaborative approach to reporting and learning, that is, sensitive to the needs and priorities of disparate organisations across primary care. Despite acknowledged challenges, there may be potential for an increased role of community pharmacy in prescribing error reporting to support future learning.

Economic analysis of the prevalence and clinical and economic burden of medication error in England

OBJECTIVES

To provide national estimates of the number and clinical and economic burden of medication errors in the National Health Service (NHS) in England.

METHODS

We used UK-based prevalence of medication errors (in prescribing, dispensing, administration and monitoring) in primary care, secondary care and care home settings, and associated healthcare resource use, to estimate annual number and burden of errors to the NHS. Burden (healthcare resource use and deaths) was estimated from harm associated with avoidable adverse drug events (ADEs).

RESULTS

We estimated that 237 million medication errors occur at some point in the medication process in England annually, 38.4% occurring in primary care; 72% have little/no potential for harm and 66 million are potentially clinically significant. Prescribing in primary care accounts for 34% of all potentially clinically significant errors. Definitely avoidable ADEs are estimated to cost the NHS £98 462 582 per year, consuming 181 626 bed-days, and causing/contributing to 1708 deaths. This comprises primary care ADEs leading to hospital admission (£83.7 million; causing 627 deaths), and secondary care ADEs leading to longer hospital stay (£14.8 million; causing or contributing to 1081 deaths).

CONCLUSIONS

Ubiquitous medicines use in health care leads unsurprisingly to high numbers of medication errors, although most are not clinically important. There is significant uncertainty around estimates due to the assumption that avoidable ADEs correspond to medication errors, data quality, and lack of data around longer-term impacts of errors. Data linkage between errors and patient outcomes is essential to progress understanding in this area.

Community-Based Services by Pharmacists: A Systematic Review of Cost-Utility Analyses

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review of cost-utility studies of community-based services provided by pharmacists and to examine their reporting and methodological quality.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed in February 2019 using a replicable search strategy in bibliographic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the NHS Economic Evaluations Database from their inception onwards. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, abstracted data from full-text articles, and assessed reporting and methodological quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and Quality of Health Economic Studies checklists.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were included in this review, representing the healthcare systems of the United Kingdom, Spain, France, The Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Canada, the United States of America, and Brazil. Descriptions of the context in which the studies were done, justification of data sources on patient and process outcomes, choices of model, and generalizability of study findings were often inadequately reported. Seven studies (35%) were deemed of high methodological quality, 11 studies (55%) of fair quality, and 2 studies (10%) of poor quality. In addition, various methodological issues related to the randomized controlled trials and observational studies used to generate effectiveness estimates were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

In view of the lack of standardized definitions of expanded services, heterogeneity in study objectives, settings, comparators, methodology, outcomes, and the variable quality of these studies, the value of these services (in terms of costs) compared with quality-adjusted survival remains inconclusive.

Improving Transplant Medication Safety Through a Technology and Pharmacist Intervention (ISTEP): Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Medication errors, adverse drug events, and nonadherence lead to increased health care utilization and increased risk of adverse clinical outcomes, including graft loss, in solid organ transplant recipients. Veterans living with organ transplants represent a population that is at substantial risk for medication safety events and fragmented care coordination issues. To improve medication safety and long-term clinical outcomes in veteran transplant patients, interventions should address interorganizational system failures and provider-level and patient-level factors.

Objective

This study aims to measure the clinical and economic effectiveness of a pharmacist-led, technology-enabled intervention, compared with usual care, in veteran organ transplant recipients.

Methods

This is a 24-month prospective, parallel-arm, cluster-randomized, controlled multicenter study. The pharmacist-led intervention uses an innovative dashboard system to improve medication safety and health outcomes, compared with usual posttransplant care. Pharmacists at 10 study sites will be consented into this study before undergoing randomization, and 5 sites will then be randomized to each study arm. Approximately, 1600 veteran transplant patients will be included in the assessment of the primary outcome across the 10 sites.

Results

This study is ongoing. Institutional review board approval was received in October 2018 and the study opened in March 2019. To date there are no findings from this study, as the delivery of the intervention is scheduled to occur over a 24-month period. The first results are expected to be submitted for publication in August 2021.

Conclusions

With this report, we describe the study design, methods, and outcome measures that will be used in this ongoing clinical trial. Successful completion of the Improving Transplant Medication Safety through a Technology and Pharmacist Intervention study will provide empirical evidence of the effectiveness of a feasible and scalable technology-enabled intervention on improving medication safety and costs.

Clinical Trial

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03860818; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03860818

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/13821

Economic impact of potentially inappropriate prescribing and related adverse events in older people: a cost-utility analysis using Markov models

OBJECTIVES

To determine the economic impact of three drugs commonly involved in potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in adults aged ≥65 years, including their adverse effects (AEs): long-term use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), benzodiazepines and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) at maximal dose; to assess cost-effectiveness of potential interventions to reduce PIP of each drug.

DESIGN

Cost-utility analysis. We developed Markov models incorporating the AEs of each PIP, populated with published estimates of probabilities, health system costs (in 2014 euro) and utilities.

PARTICIPANTS

A hypothetical cohort of 65 year olds analysed over 35 1-year cycles with discounting at 5% per year.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios with 95% credible intervals (CIs, generated in probabilistic sensitivity analysis) between each PIP and an appropriate alternative strategy. Models were then used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of potential interventions to reduce PIP for each of the three drug classes.

RESULTS

All three PIP drugs and their AEs are associated with greater cost and fewer QALYs compared with alternatives. The largest reduction in QALYs and incremental cost was for benzodiazepines compared with no sedative medication (€3470, 95% CI €2434 to €5001; -0.07 QALYs, 95% CI -0.089 to -0.047), followed by NSAIDs relative to paracetamol (€806, 95% CI €415 and €1346; -0.07 QALYs, 95% CI -0.131 to -0.026), and maximal dose PPIs compared with maintenance dose PPIs (€989, 95% CI -€69 and €2127; -0.01 QALYs, 95% CI -0.029 to 0.003). For interventions to reduce PIP, at a willingness-to-pay of €45 000 per QALY, targeting NSAIDs would be cost-effective up to the highest intervention cost per person of €1971. For benzodiazepine and PPI interventions, the equivalent cost was €1480 and €831, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term benzodiazepine and NSAID prescribing are associated with significantly increased costs and reduced QALYs. Targeting inappropriate NSAID prescribing appears to be the most cost-effective PIP intervention.

SMASH! The Salford medication safety dashboard

BACKGROUND

Patient safety is vital to well-functioning health systems. A key component is safe prescribing, particularly in primary care where most medications are prescribed. Previous research demonstrated that the number of patients exposed to potentially hazardous prescribing can be reduced by interrogating the electronic health record (EHR) database of general practices and providing feedback to general practitioners in a pharmacist-led intervention. We aimed to develop and roll out an online dashboard application that delivers this audit and feedback intervention in a continuous fashion.

METHOD

Based on initial system requirements we designed the dashboard's user interface over 3 iterations with 6 general practitioners (GPs), 7 pharmacists and a member of the public. Prescribing safety indicators from previous work were implemented in the dashboard. Pharmacists were trained to use the intervention and deliver it to general practices.

RESULTS

A web-based electronic dashboard was developed and linked to shared care records in Salford, UK. The completed dashboard was deployed in all but one (n=43) general practices in the region. By November 2017, 36 pharmacists had been trained in delivering the intervention to practices. There were 135 registered users of the dashboard, with an average of 91 user sessions a week.

CONCLUSION

We have developed and successfully rolled out of a complex, pharmacist-led dashboard intervention in Salford, UK. System usage statistics indicate broad and sustained uptake of the intervention. The use of systems that provide regularly updated audit information may be an important contributor towards medication safety in primary care.

The Rise of Patient Safety-II: Should We Give Up Hope on Safety-I and Extracting Value From Patient Safety Incidents? Comment on "False Dawns and New Horizons in Patient Safety Research and Practice"

Who could disagree with the seemingly common-sense reasoning that: "We must learn from the things that go wrong."? Despite major investments to improve patient safety, relatively few evaluations demonstrate convincing reductions in risk, harm, serious error or death. This disappointing trajectory of improvement from learning from errors or Safety-I as it is sometimes known has led some researchers to argue that there is more to be gained by learning from the majority of healthcare episodes: the things that go right. Based on this premise, socalled Safety-II has emerged as a new paradigm. In this commentary, we consider the ongoing value of Safety-I based approaches and explore whether now is the time to abandon learning from "the bad" and re-energise data collection and analysis by focusing on "the good."

'The big buzz': a qualitative study of how safe care is perceived, understood and improved in general practice

Background

Exploring frontline staff perceptions of patient safety is important, because they largely determine how improvement interventions are understood and implemented. However, research evidence in this area is very limited. This study therefore: explores participants’ understanding of patient safety as a concept; describes the factors thought to contribute to patient safety incidents (PSIs); and identifies existing improvement actions and potential opportunities for future interventions to help mitigate risks.

Methods

A total of 34 semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 general practitioners, 12 practice nurses and 11 practice managers in the West of Scotland. The data were thematically analysed.

Results

Patient safety was considered an important and integral part of routine practice. Participants perceived a proportion of PSIs as being inevitable and therefore not preventable. However, there was consensus that most factors contributing to PSIs are amenable to improvement efforts and acknolwedgement that the potential exists for further enhancements in care procedures and systems. Most were aware of, or already using, a wide range of safety improvement tools for this purpose. While the vast majority was able to identify specific, safety-critical areas requiring further action, this was counter-balanced by the reality that additional resources were a decisive requirment.

Conclusion

The perceptions of participants in this study are comparable with the international patient safety literature: frontline staff and clinicians are aware of and potentially able to address a wide range of safety threats. However, they require additional resources and support to do so.

Cost Effectiveness of Support for People Starting a New Medication for a Long-Term Condition Through Community Pharmacies: An Economic Evaluation of the New Medicine Service (NMS) Compared with Normal Practice

BACKGROUND

The English community pharmacy New Medicine Service (NMS) significantly increases patient adherence to medicines, compared with normal practice. We examined the cost effectiveness of NMS compared with normal practice by combining adherence improvement and intervention costs with the effect of increased adherence on patient outcomes and healthcare costs.

METHODS

We developed Markov models for diseases targeted by the NMS (hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma and antiplatelet regimens) to assess the impact of patients' non-adherence. Clinical event probability, treatment pathway, resource use and costs were extracted from literature and costing tariffs. Incremental costs and outcomes associated with each disease were incorporated additively into a composite probabilistic model and combined with adherence rates and intervention costs from the trial. Costs per extra quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) were calculated from the perspective of NHS England, using a lifetime horizon.

RESULTS

NMS generated a mean of 0.05 (95% CI 0.00-0.13) more QALYs per patient, at a mean reduced cost of -£144 (95% CI -769 to 73). The NMS dominates normal practice with a probability of 0.78 [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) -£3166 per QALY]. NMS has a 96.7% probability of cost effectiveness compared with normal practice at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that targeting each disease with NMS has a probability over 0.90 of cost effectiveness compared with normal practice at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that the NMS increased patient medicine adherence compared with normal practice, which translated into increased health gain at reduced overall cost.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Trial reference number NCT01635361 ( http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01635361 ). Current Controlled trials: Trial reference number ISRCTN 23560818 ( http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN23560818/ ; DOI 10.1186/ISRCTN23560818 ). UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN) study 12494 ( http://public.ukcrn.org.uk/Search/StudyDetail.aspx?StudyID=12494 ).

FUNDING

Department of Health Policy Research Programme.

Professional, structural and organisational interventions in primary care for reducing medication errors

BACKGROUND

Medication-related adverse events in primary care represent an important cause of hospital admissions and mortality. Adverse events could result from people experiencing adverse drug reactions (not usually preventable) or could be due to medication errors (usually preventable).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of professional, organisational and structural interventions compared to standard care to reduce preventable medication errors by primary healthcare professionals that lead to hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and mortality in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trial registries on 4 October 2016, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We also searched several sources of grey literature.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials in which healthcare professionals provided community-based medical services. We also included interventions in outpatient clinics attached to a hospital where people are seen by healthcare professionals but are not admitted to hospital. We only included interventions that aimed to reduce medication errors leading to hospital admissions, emergency department visits, or mortality. We included all participants, irrespective of age, who were prescribed medication by a primary healthcare professional.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data. Each of the outcomes (hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and mortality), are reported in natural units (i.e. number of participants with an event per total number of participants at follow-up). We presented all outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE tool to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 30 studies (169,969 participants) in the review addressing various interventions to prevent medication errors; four studies addressed professional interventions (8266 participants) and 26 studies described organisational interventions (161,703 participants). We did not find any studies addressing structural interventions. Professional interventions included the use of health information technology to identify people at risk of medication problems, computer-generated care suggested and actioned by a physician, electronic notification systems about dose changes, drug interventions and follow-up, and educational interventions on drug use aimed at physicians to improve drug prescriptions. Organisational interventions included medication reviews by pharmacists, nurses or physicians, clinician-led clinics, and home visits by clinicians.There is a great deal of diversity in types of professionals involved and where the studies occurred. However, most (61%) of the interventions were conducted by pharmacists or a combination of pharmacists and medical doctors. The studies took place in many different countries; 65% took place in either the USA or the UK. They all ranged from three months to 4.7 years of follow-up, they all took place in primary care settings such as general practice, outpatients' clinics, patients' homes and aged-care facilities. The participants in the studies were adults taking medications and the interventions were undertaken by healthcare professionals including pharmacists, nurses or physicians. There was also evidence of potential bias in some studies, with only 18 studies reporting adequate concealment of allocation and only 12 studies reporting appropriate protection from contamination, both of which may have influenced the overall effect estimate and the overall pooled estimate. Professional interventionsProfessional interventions probably make little or no difference to the number of hospital admissions (risk ratio (RR) 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.96; 2 studies, 3889 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Professional interventions make little or no difference to the number of participants admitted to hospital (adjusted RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 1 study, 3661 participants; high-certainty evidence). Professional interventions may make little or no difference to the number of emergency department visits (adjusted RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.02; 2 studies, 1067 participants; low-certainty evidence). Professional interventions probably make little or no difference to mortality in the study population (adjusted RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.17; 1 study, 3538 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Organisational interventionsOverall, it is uncertain whether organisational interventions reduce the number of hospital admissions (adjusted RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.03; 11 studies, 6203 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Overall, organisational interventions may make little difference to the total number of people admitted to hospital in favour of the intervention group compared with the control group (adjusted RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99; 13 studies, 152,237 participants; low-certainty evidence. Overall, it is uncertain whether organisational interventions reduce the number of emergency department visits in favour of the intervention group compared with the control group (adjusted RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.15; 5 studies, 1819 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Overall, it is uncertain whether organisational interventions reduce mortality in favour of the intervention group (adjusted RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03; 12 studies, 154,962 participants; very low-certainty evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on moderate- and low-certainty evidence, interventions in primary care for reducing preventable medication errors probably make little or no difference to the number of people admitted to hospital or the number of hospitalisations, emergency department visits, or mortality. The variation in heterogeneity in the pooled estimates means that our results should be treated cautiously as the interventions may not have worked consistently across all studies due to differences in how the interventions were provided, background practice, and culture or delivery of the interventions. Larger studies addressing both professional and organisational interventions are needed before evidence-based recommendations can be made. We did not identify any structural interventions and only four studies used professional interventions, and so more work needs to be done with these types of interventions. There is a need for high-quality studies describing the interventions in more detail and testing patient-related outcomes.

Economic Evaluation of Hospital and Community Pharmacy Services

Objective: To review the international body of literature from 2010 to 2015 concerning methods of economic evaluations used in hospital- and community-based studies of pharmacy services in publicly funded health systems worldwide, their clinical outcomes, and economic effectiveness. Data Sources: The literature search was undertaken between May 2, 2015, and September 4, 2015. Keywords included “health economics” and “evaluation” “assessment” or “appraisal,” “methods,” “hospital” or “community” or “residential care,” “pharmacy” or “pharmacy services” and “cost minimisation analysis” or “cost utility analysis” or “cost effectiveness analysis” or “cost benefit analysis.” The databases searched included MEDLINE, PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct, Springer Links, and Scopus, and journals searched included PLoS One, PLoS Medicine, Nature, Health Policy, Pharmacoeconomics, The European Journal of Health Economics, Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, and Journal of Health Economics. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Studies were selected on the basis of study inclusion criteria. These criteria included full-text original research articles undertaking an economic evaluation of hospital- or community-based pharmacy services in peer-reviewed scientific journals and in English, in countries with a publicly funded health system published between 2010 and 2015. Data Synthesis: 14 articles were included in this review. Cost-utility analysis (CUA) was the most utilized measure. Cost-minimization analysis (CMA) was not used by any studies. The limited use of cost-benefit analyses (CBAs) is likely a result of technical challenges in quantifying the cost of clinical benefits, risks, and outcomes. Hospital pharmacy services provided clinical benefits including improvements in patient health outcomes and reductions in adverse medication use, and all studies were considered cost-effective due to meeting a cost-utility (per quality-adjusted life year) threshold or were cost saving. Community pharmacy services were considered cost-effective in 8 of 10 studies. Conclusions: Economic evaluations of hospital and community pharmacy services are becoming increasingly commonplace to enable an understanding of which health care services provide value for money and to inform policy makers as to which services will be cost-effective in light of limited health care resources.

The economics of medicines optimization: policy developments, remaining challenges and research priorities

BACKGROUND

This review scopes the evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve suboptimal use of medicines in order to determine the evidence gaps and help inform research priorities.

SOURCES OF DATA

Systematic searches of the National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

The majority of the studies evaluated interventions to improve adherence, inappropriate prescribing and prescribing errors.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

Interventions tend to be specific to a particular stage of the pathway and/or to a particular disease and have mostly been evaluated for their effect on intermediate or process outcomes.

GROWING POINTS

Medicines optimization offers an opportunity to improve health outcomes and efficiency of healthcare.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

The available evidence is insufficient to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions to address suboptimal medicine use in the UK NHS. Decision modelling, evidence synthesis and elicitation have the potential to address the evidence gaps and help prioritize research.