Analysis of the nature and contributory factors of medication safety incidents following hospital discharge using National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) data from England and Wales: a multi-method study

Introduction

Improving medication safety during transition of care is an international healthcare priority. While existing research reveals that medication-related incidents and associated harms may be common following hospital discharge, there is limited information about their nature and contributory factors at a national level which is crucial to inform improvement strategy.

Aim

To characterise the nature and contributory factors of medication-related incidents during transition of care from secondary to primary care.

Method

A retrospective analysis of medication incidents reported to the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) in England and Wales between 2015 and 2019. Descriptive analysis identified the frequency and nature of incidents and content analysis of free text data, coded using the Patient Safety Research Group (PISA) classification, examined the contributory factors and outcome of incidents.

Results

A total of 1121 medication-related incident reports underwent analysis. Most incidents involved patients over 65 years old (55%, n = 626/1121). More than one in 10 (12.6%, n = 142/1121) incidents were associated with patient harm. The drug monitoring (17%) and administration stages (15%) were associated with a higher proportion of harmful incidents than any other drug use stages. Common medication classes associated with incidents were the cardiovascular (n = 734) and central nervous (n = 273) systems. Among 408 incidents reporting 467 contributory factors, the most common contributory factors were organisation factors (82%, n = 383/467) (mostly related to continuity of care which is the delivery of a seamless service through integration, co-ordination, and the sharing of information between different providers), followed by staff factors (16%, n = 75/467).

Conclusion

Medication incidents after hospital discharge are associated with patient harm. Several targets were identified for future research that could support the development of remedial interventions, including commonly observed medication classes, older adults, increase patient engagement, and improve shared care agreement for medication monitoring post hospital discharge.

Plain language summary

Study using reports about unsafe or substandard care mainly written by healthcare professionals to better understand the type and causes of medication safety problems following hospital discharge Why was the study done? The safe use of medicines after hospital discharge has been highlighted by the World Health Organization as an important target for improvement in patient care. Yet, the type of medication problems which occur, and their causes are poorly understood across England and Wales, which may hamper our efforts to create ways to improve care as they may not be based on what we know causes the problem in the first place.What did the researchers do? The research team studied medication safety incident reports collected across England and Wales over a 5-year period to better understand what kind of medication safety problems occur after hospital discharge and why they happen, so we can find ways to prevent them from happening in future.What did the researchers find? The total number of incident reports studied was 1121, and the majority (n = 626) involved older people. More than one in ten of these incidents caused harm to patients. The most common medications involved in the medication safety incidents were for cardiovascular diseases such as high blood pressure, conditions such as mental illness, pain and neurological conditions (e.g., epilepsy) and other illnesses such as diabetes. The most common causes of these incidents were because of the organisation rules, such as information sharing, followed by staff issues, such as not following protocols, individual mistakes and not having the right skills for the task.What do the findings mean? This study has identified some important targets that can be a focus of future efforts to improve the safe use of medicines after hospital discharge. These include concentrating attention on medication for the cardiovascular and central nervous systems (e.g., via incorporating them in prescribing safety indicators and pharmaceutical prioritisation tools), staff skill mix (e.g., embedding clinical pharmacist roles at key parts of the care pathway where greatest risk is suspected), and implementation of electronic interventions to improve timely communication of medication and other information between healthcare providers.

Ambulatory Medication Safety in Primary Care: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To review the literature on medication safety in primary care in the electronic health record era.

METHODS

Included studies measured rates and outcomes of medication safety in patients whose prescriptions were written in primary care clinics with electronic prescribing. Four investigators independently reviewed titles and analyzed abstracts with dual-reviewer review for eligibility, characteristics, and risk of bias.

RESULTS

Of 1464 articles identified, 56 met the inclusion criteria. Forty-three studies were noninterventional and 13 included an intervention. The majority of the studies (30) used their own definition of error. The most common outcomes were potentially inappropriate prescribing/medications (PIPs), adverse drug events (ADEs), and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs). Most of the studies only included high-risk subpopulations (39), usually older adults taking > 4 medications. The rate of PIPs varied widely (0.19% to 98.2%). The rate of ADEs was lower (0.47% to 14.7%). There was poor correlation of PIP and PPO with documented ADEs leading to physical harm.

CONCLUSIONS

This literature is limited by its inconsistent and highly variable outcomes. The majority of medication safety studies in primary care were in high-risk populations and measured potential harms rather than actual harms. Applying algorithms to primary care medication lists significantly overestimates rate of actual harms.

Evaluating the safety of mental health-related prescribing in UK primary care: a cross-sectional study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD)

Background

Most patients with mental illness are managed in primary care, yet there is a lack of data exploring potential prescribing safety issues in this setting for this population.

Objectives

Examine the prevalence of, between-practice variation in, and patient and practice-level risk factors for, 18 mental health-related potentially hazardous prescribing indicators and four inadequate medication monitoring indicators in UK primary care.

Method

Cross-sectional analyses of routinely collected electronic health records from 361 practices contributing to Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database. The proportion of patients ‘at risk’ (based on an existing diagnosis, medication, age and/or sex) triggering each indicator and composite indicator was calculated. To examine between-practice variation, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and median OR (MOR) were estimated using two-level logistic regression models. The relationship between patient and practice characteristics and risk of triggering composites including 16 of the 18 prescribing indicators and four monitoring indicators were assessed using multilevel logistic regression.

Results

9.4% of patients ‘at risk’ (151 469 of 1 611 129) triggered at least one potentially hazardous prescribing indicator; between practices this ranged from 3.2% to 24.1% (ICC 0.03, MOR 1.22). For inadequate monitoring, 90.2% of patients ‘at risk’ (38 671 of 42 879) triggered at least one indicator; between practices this ranged from 33.3% to 100% (ICC 0.26, MOR 2.86). Patients aged 35–44, females and those receiving more than 10 repeat prescriptions were at greatest risk of triggering a prescribing indicator. Patients aged less than 25, females and those with one or no repeat prescription were at greatest risk of triggering a monitoring indicator.

Conclusion

Potentially hazardous prescribing and inadequate medication monitoring commonly affect patients with mental illness in primary care, with marked between-practice variation for some indicators. These findings support health providers to identify improvement targets and inform development of improvement efforts to reduce medication-related harm.

Prevalence and Nature of Medication Errors and Medication-Related Harm Following Discharge from Hospital to Community Settings: A Systematic Review

Background

Little is known about the epidemiology of medication errors and medication-related harm following transition from secondary to primary care. This systematic review aims to identify and critically evaluate the available evidence on the prevalence and nature of medication errors and medication-related harm following hospital discharge.

Methods

Studies published between January 1990 and March 2019 were searched across ten electronic databases and the grey literature. No restrictions were applied with publication language or patient population studied. Studies were included if they contained data concerning the rate of medication errors, unintentional medication discrepancies, or adverse drug events. Two authors independently extracted study data.

Results

Fifty-four studies were included, most of which were rated as moderate (39/54) or high (7/54) quality. For adult patients, the median rate of medication errors and unintentional medication discrepancies following discharge was 53% [interquartile range 33–60.5] (n = 5 studies) and 50% [interquartile range 39–76] (n = 11), respectively. Five studies reported adverse drug reaction rates with a median of 27% [interquartile range 18–40.5] and seven studies reported adverse drug event rates with a median of 19% [interquartile range 16–24]. For paediatric patients, one study reported a medication error rate of 66.3% and another an adverse drug event rate of 9%. Almost a quarter of studies (13/54, 24%) utilised a follow-up period post-discharge of 1 month (range 2–180 days). Drug classes most commonly implicated with adverse drug events were antibiotics, antidiabetics, analgesics and cardiovascular drugs.

Conclusions

This is the first systematic review to explore the prevalence and nature of medication errors and adverse drug events following hospital discharge. Targets for future work have been identified.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40264-020-00918-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Ambulatory drug changes in the elderly after hospital discharge: A cohort study

AIM

To describe the ambulatory changes in drug prescriptions 3 months after hospital discharge among elderly patients aged 75 and over, and to identify the reasons for these changes.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was conducted on subjects, discharged between 09/2016 and 01/2017 from the Bordeaux University Hospital. Prescription forms were collected from patients' pharmacists. The main outcome was the occurrence of at least one significant change (SC) defined as an initiation, a discontinuation, a switch or change in drug daily dosage as regards the drugs prescribed upon hospital discharge and those prescribed 3 months after. Whenever drug SC occurred, general practitioners were requested to elicit reasons for such changes.

RESULTS

Among the 126 patients included in our study, 73 underwent a 3-month follow-up period, without death or being re-hospitalised. 87.7% of them had at least one SC 3 months after discharge, with an average of 3.1±2.5 SC per patient. Main changes involved: discontinuation or dose decrease of anxiolytics, hypnotics, antalgics, betablockers and calcium channel blockers; start or dose increase of diuretics, ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers. In patients with a 3-month follow-up period, 27.4% underwent at least one ADR-induced SC.

CONCLUSION

Most elderly patients experience drug prescription changes after discharge. Some, according to drug iatrogenic, could be avoided through better cooperation between hospital and ambulatory prescribers.

Development of prescribing safety indicators related to mental health disorders and medications: Modified e-Delphi study

AIM

To develop a set of prescribing safety indicators related to mental health disorders and medications, and to estimate the risk of harm associated with each indicator.

METHOD

A modified two-stage electronic Delphi. The first stage consisted of two rounds in which 31 experts rated their agreement with a set of 101 potential mental health related prescribing safety indicators using a five-point scale and given the opportunity to suggest other indicators. Indicators that achieved 80% agreement were accepted. The second stage comprised a single round in which 29 members estimated the risk of harm for each accepted indicator by assessing the occurrence likelihood and outcome severity using two five-point scales. Indicators were considered high or extreme risk when at least 80% of participants rated each indicator as high or extreme.

RESULTS

Seventy-five indicators were accepted in the first stage. Following the second stage, 42 (56%) were considered to be high or extreme risk for patient care. The 42 indicators comprised different types of hazardous prescribing, including drug-disease interactions (n = 12), drug-drug interactions (n = 9), inadequate monitoring (n = 5), inappropriate duration (n = 4), inappropriate dose (n = 4), omissions (n = 4), potentially inappropriate medications (n = 3) and polypharmacy (n = 1). These indicators also covered different mental health related medication classes, including antipsychotics (n = 14), mood stabilisers (n = 8), antidepressants (n = 6), sedative, hypnotics and anxiolytics (n = 6), anticholinergic (n = 6) and nonspecific psychotropics (n = 2).

CONCLUSION

This study has developed the first suite of prescribing safety indicators related to mental health disorders and medications, which could inform the development of future safety improvement initiatives and interventional studies.

High-risk medication in community care: a scoping review

PURPOSE

To review the international literature related to high-risk medication (HRM) in community care, in order to (1) define a definition of HRM and (2) list the medication that is considered HRM in community care.

METHODS

Scoping review: Five databases were systematically searched (MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, Web Of Science, and Cochrane) and extended with a hand search of cited references. Two researchers reviewed the papers independently. All extracted definitions and lists of HRM were subjected to a self-developed quality appraisal. Data were extracted, analysed and summarised in tables. Critical attributes were extracted in order to analyse the definitions.

RESULTS

Of the 109 papers retrieved, 36 met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Definitions for HRM in community care were used inconsistently among the papers, and various recurrent attributes of the concept HRM were used. Taking the recurrent attributes and the quality score of the definitions into account, the following definition could be derived: "High-risk medication are medications with an increased risk of significant harm to the patient. The consequences of this harm can be more serious than those with other medications". A total of 66 specific medications or categories were extracted from the papers. Opioids, insulin, warfarin, heparin, hypnotics and sedatives, chemotherapeutic agents (excluding hormonal agents), methotrexate and hypoglycaemic agents were the most common reported HRM in community care.

CONCLUSION

The existing literature pertaining to HRM in community care was examined. The definitions and medicines reported as HRM in the literature are used inconsistently. We suggested a definition for more consistent use in future research and policy. Future research is needed to determine more precisely which definitions should be considered for HRM in community care.

Primary care workflow process mapping of medication-related activities performed by non-provider staff: A pilot project's approach

BACKGROUND

A workflow process mapping approach was previously developed to understand the impact of primary care medication use processes on medication safety. The workflow process mapping approach was applied to a pilot project in one primary care practice.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this article is to: (1) exemplify how workflow process mapping was implemented in one primary care practice to characterize medication safety issues (i.e., critical workflow gaps/deviations), (2) discuss the identified critical medication safety workflow gaps and deviations, and (3) summarize the pragmatic, practice-level recommendations developed to enhance practice-level medication safety.

METHODS

Four medication-related activities were directly observed, including: (1) medication reconciliation, (2) warfarin medication management, (3) vaccination administration, and (4) medication renewal requests. Observations occurred with registered nurses, medical assistants, and telephone operators. An ideal-state and observed workflow process map was created for each medication-related activity and was compared to identify critical medication safety workflow gaps and deviations. Practice-level recommendations were developed to enhance workflow and medication safety across all medication-related activities.

RESULTS

111 medication-related observations were recorded over 6-weeks across all 4 workflows (100 observation hours). A total of 17 critical workflow safety gaps, 9 critical workflow step deviations, and 9 workflow sequence deviations were identified. Seventy-six percent of total workflow gaps resulted from inappropriate medication verification. Most workflow step deviations (33%) were due to inappropriate documentation, whereas most sequence deviations (44%) stemmed from inadequate medication verification. Practice-level recommendations to enhance warfarin medication safety were prioritized and implemented prior to the completion of the pilot project.

CONCLUSION

The results of this workflow mapping pilot project exemplify the need to enhance primary care medication safety for workflows conducted by non-provider staff members in primary care practices. Additionally, this approach can be used to identify opportunities for primary care pharmacist integration, particularly for practices with little or no prior pharmacist involvement.