Protocol for the PINCER trial: a cluster randomised trial comparing the effectiveness of a pharmacist-led IT-based intervention with simple feedback in reducing rates of clinically important errors in medicines management in general practices

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.

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.

Investigating the epidemiology of medication errors in adults in community care settings. A retrospective cohort study in central Saudi Arabia

Objectives:

To investigate the period prevalence and risk factors for clinically important prescription and monitoring errors among adults managed in community care in Saudi Arabia (SA).

Methods:

This retrospective cohort study used electronic health record (HER) data. A random sample comprising of 2,000 adults (≥18 years old) visiting Family Medicine clinics in King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center (KFSH & RC), Riyadh, SA, was selected. Data collection took 3 months (October December 2017). Descriptive analyses and logistic regression modeling were performed using STATA (version 14) statistical software.

Results:

The overall period prevalence of medication errors over 15 months was 8.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.5-9.7). Risk factors that significantly predicted overall risk of patients experiencing one or more medication errors were: age ≥65 years, male gender, Saudi nationality, and polypharmacy (defined as the concurrent use of ≥5 drugs).

Conclusions:

Clinically important medication errors were commonly observed in relation to both drug prescription and monitoring.

Identifying potential prescribing safety indicators related to mental health disorders and medications: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Prescribing errors and medication related harm may be common in patients with mental illness. However, there has been limited research focusing on the development and application of prescribing safety indicators (PSIs) for this population.

OBJECTIVE

Identify potential PSIs related to mental health (MH) medications and conditions.

METHODS

Seven electronic databases were searched (from 1990 to February 2019), including the bibliographies of included studies and of relevant review articles. Studies that developed, validated or updated a set of explicit medication-specific indicators or criteria that measured prescribing safety or quality were included, irrespective of whether they contained MH indicators or not. Studies were screened to extract all MH related indicators before two MH clinical pharmacists screened them to select potential PSIs based on established criteria. All indicators were categorised into prescribing problems and medication categories.

RESULTS

79 unique studies were included, 70 of which contained at least one MH related indicator. No studies were identified that focused on development of PSIs for patients with mental illness. A total of 1386 MH indicators were identified (average 20 (SD = 25.1) per study); 245 of these were considered potential PSIs. Among PSIs the most common prescribing problem was 'Potentially inappropriate prescribing considering diagnoses or conditions' (n = 91, 37.1%) and the lowest was 'omission' (n = 5, 2.0%). 'Antidepressant' was the most common PSI medication category (n = 85, 34.7%).

CONCLUSION

This is the first systematic review to identify a comprehensive list of MH related potential PSIs. This list should undergo further validation and could be used as a foundation for the development of new suites of PSIs applicable to patients with mental illness.

Self-reported and routinely collected electronic healthcare resource-use data for trial-based economic evaluations: the current state of play in England and considerations for the future

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are generally regarded as the "gold standard" for providing quantifiable evidence around the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new healthcare technologies. In order to perform the economic evaluations associated with RCTs, there is a need for accessible and good quality resource-use data; for the purpose of discussion here, data that best reflect the care received. Traditionally, researchers have developed questionnaires for resource-use data collection. However, the evolution of routinely collected electronic data within care services provides new opportunities for collecting data without burdening patients or caregivers (e.g. clinicians). This paper describes the potential strengths and limitations of each data collection method and then discusses aspects for consideration before choosing which method to use.

MAIN TEXT

We describe electronic data sources (large observational datasets, commissioning data, and raw data extraction) that may be suitable data sources for informing clinical trials and the current status of self-reported instruments for measuring resource-use. We assess the methodological risks and benefits, and compare the two methodologies. We focus on healthcare resource-use; however, many of the considerations have relevance to clinical questions. Patient self-report forms a pragmatic and cheap method that is largely under the control of the researcher. However, there are known issues with the validity of the data collected, loss to follow-up may be high, and questionnaires suffer from missing data. Routinely collected electronic data may be more accurate and more practical if large numbers of patients are involved. However, datasets often incur a cost and researchers are bound by the time for data approval and extraction by the data holders.

CONCLUSIONS

Owing to the issues associated with electronic datasets, self-reported methods may currently be the preferred option. However, electronic hospital data are relatively more accessible, informative, standardised, and reliable. Therefore in trials where secondary care constitutes a major driver of patient care, detailed electronic data may be considered superior to self-reported methods; with the caveat of requiring data sharing agreements with third party providers and potentially time-consuming extraction periods. Self-reported methods will still be required when a 'societal' perspective (e.g. quantifying informal care) is desirable for the intended analysis.

Pharmacist joint-working with general practices: evaluating the Sheffield Primary Care Pharmacy Programme. A mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

The NHS in the UK supports pharmacists' deployment into general practices. This article reports on the implementation and impact of the Primary Care Pharmacy Programme (PCPP). The programme is a care delivery model that was undertaken at scale across a city in which community pharmacists (CPs) were matched with general practices and performed clinical duties for one half-day per week.

AIM

To investigate (a) challenges of integration of CPs in general practices, and (b) the perceived impact on care delivery and community pharmacy practice.

DESIGN & SETTING

This mixed-methods study was conducted with CPs, community pharmacy employers (CPEs), scheme commissioners (SCs), and patients in Sheffield.

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews (n = 22) took place with CPs (n = 12), CPEs (n = 2), SCs (n = 3), and patients (n = 5). A cross-sectional survey of PCPP pharmacists (n = 47, 66%) was also used. A descriptive analysis of patient feedback forms was undertaken and a database of pharmacist activities was created.

RESULTS

Eighty-six of 88 practices deployed a pharmacist. Although community pharmacy contracting and backfill arrangements were sometimes complicated, timely deployment was achieved. Development of closer relationships appeared to facilitate extension of initially agreed roles, including transition from 'backroom' to patient-facing clinical work. CPs gained understanding of GP processes and patients' primary care pathway, allowing them to follow up work at the community pharmacy in a more timely way, positively impacting on patients' and healthcare professionals' perceived delivery of care.

CONCLUSION

The PCPP scheme was the first of its kind to achieve almost universal uptake by GPs throughout a large city. The study findings reveal the potential for CP-GP joint-working in increasing perceived positive care delivery and reducing fragmented care, and can inform future implementation at scale and at practice level.

Pharmacist services for non-hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

This review focuses on non-dispensing services from pharmacists, i.e. pharmacists in community, primary or ambulatory-care settings, to non-hospitalised patients, and is an update of a previously-published Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effect of pharmacists' non-dispensing services on non-hospitalised patient outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trial registers in March 2015, together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We included non-English language publications. We ran top-up searches in January 2018 and have added potentially eligible studies to 'Studies awaiting classification'.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of pharmacist services compared with the delivery of usual care or equivalent/similar services with the same objective delivered by other health professionals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures of Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. Two review authors independently checked studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risks of bias. We evaluated the overall certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 116 trials comprising 111 trials (39,729 participants) comparing pharmacist interventions with usual care and five trials (2122 participants) comparing pharmacist services with services from other healthcare professionals. Of the 116 trials, 76 were included in meta-analyses. The 40 remaining trials were not included in the meta-analyses because they each reported unique outcome measures which could not be combined. Most trials targeted chronic conditions and were conducted in a range of settings, mostly community pharmacies and hospital outpatient clinics, and were mainly but not exclusively conducted in high-income countries. Most trials had a low risk of reporting bias and about 25%-30% were at high risk of bias for performance, detection, and attrition. Selection bias was unclear for about half of the included studies.Compared with usual care, we are uncertain whether pharmacist services reduce the percentage of patients outside the glycated haemoglobin target range (5 trials, N = 558, odds ratio (OR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 2.22; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may reduce the percentage of patients whose blood pressure is outside the target range (18 trials, N = 4107, OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.55; low-certainty evidence) and probably lead to little or no difference in hospital attendance or admissions (14 trials, N = 3631, OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.11; moderate-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may make little or no difference to adverse drug effects (3 trials, N = 590, OR 1.65, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.24) and may slightly improve physical functioning (7 trials, N = 1329, mean difference (MD) 5.84, 95% CI 1.21 to 10.48; low-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may make little or no difference to mortality (9 trials, N = 1980, OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.12, low-certaintly evidence).Of the five studies that compared services delivered by pharmacists with other health professionals, no studies evaluated the impact of the intervention on the percentage of patients outside blood pressure or glycated haemoglobin target range, hospital attendance and admission, adverse drug effects, or physical functioning.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate that pharmacist services have varying effects on patient outcomes compared with usual care. We found no studies comparing services delivered by pharmacists with other healthcare professionals that evaluated the impact of the intervention on the six main outcome measures. The results need to be interpreted cautiously because there was major heterogeneity in study populations, types of interventions delivered and reported outcomes.There was considerable heterogeneity within many of the meta-analyses, as well as considerable variation in the risks of bias.

The Helicobacter Eradication Aspirin Trial (HEAT): A Large Simple Randomised Controlled Trial Using Novel Methodology in Primary Care

Background

Clinical trials measuring the effect of an intervention on clinical outcomes are more influential than those investigating surrogate measures but are costly. We developed methods to reduce costs substantially by using existing data in primary care systems, to ask whether Helicobacter pylori eradication would reduce the incidence of hospitalisation for ulcer bleeding in aspirin users.

Methods

The Helicobacter Eradication Aspirin Trial (HEAT) is a National Institute of Health Research-funded, double-blind placebo controlled randomised trial of the effects of H. pylori eradication on subsequent ulcer bleeding in infected individuals taking aspirin daily, conducted in practices across the whole of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. A bespoke web-based trial management system developed for the trial (and housed within the secure NHS Data Network) communicates directly with the HEAT Toolkit software downloaded at participating practices, which issues queries searching entry criteria (≥ 60 years, on chronic aspirin ≤ 325 mg daily, not on anti-ulcer therapy or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) for GP review of eligibility. Trial participation is invited using a highly secure automated online mail management system. Interested patients are seen once for consent and breath testing. Those with a positive test are randomised to eradication treatment (lansoprazole, clarithromycin, metronidazole) or placebo, with drug sent by post. Events are tracked by upload of accumulating information in the GP database, patient contact, review of National Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics data.

Results

HEAT is the largest Clinical Research Network-supported drug trial, with 115,660 invitation letters sent from 850 practices, 22,922 volunteers, and 3038 H. pylori positive patients randomised to active or placebo treatment after 2.5 years of recruitment. 178 practices have performed their first follow-up data search to identify 21 potential endpoints to date.

Discussion

HEAT is important medically, because aspirin is so widely used, and methodologically, as a successful trial would show that large-scale studies of important clinical outcomes can be conducted at a fraction of the cost of those conducted by industry, which in turn will help to ensure that trials of primarily medical rather than commercial interest can be conducted successfully in the UK.

•

HEAT, a large clinical trial investigating effects of H. pylori eradication on incidence of ulcer bleeding in aspirin users

•

HEAT methodology allows large-scale trials of important clinical outcomes to be conducted at low cost affordable to the NHS

•

As the largest CRN-supported drug study, HEAT has currently invited participation from over 115,000 patients countrywide

A review of the methodological challenges in assessing the cost effectiveness of pharmacist interventions

Pharmacists' roles are shifting away from medicines supply and the provision of patient education involving acute medications towards consultation-type services for chronic medications. Determining the cost effectiveness of pharmacist interventions has been complicated by methodological challenges. A critique of 31 economic evaluations carried out alongside comparative studies of pharmacist interventions published between 2003 and 2013 (12 from the UK, six from the USA) found a range of disease-specific and cross-therapeutic interventions targeting both patients and prescribers in a range of settings evaluated through a variety of study designs. Only ten were full economic evaluations, five of which were based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The intervention was usually quite well described, but the comparator was not always clearly described, and some interventions are very context specific due to the variability in pharmacist services available in different countries and practice settings. Complex multidirectional aims of most pharmacist interventions have led to many process, intermediate and longer-term outcomes being included in any one study. Quality of resource use and cost data varied. Most incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were generated from process indicators such as errors and adherence, with only four studies reporting cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Very few studies examined the effect of uncertainty, and methods used were not very clear in some cases. The principal finding from our critique is that poor RCT study design or analysis precludes many studies from finding pharmacist interventions effective or cost effective. We conclude with a set of recommendations for future study design.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

We recently showed that a pharmacist-led information technology-based intervention (PINCER) was significantly more effective in reducing medication errors in general practices than providing simple feedback on errors, with cost per error avoided at £79 (US$131). We aimed to estimate cost effectiveness of the PINCER intervention by combining effectiveness in error reduction and intervention costs with the effect of the individual errors on patient outcomes and healthcare costs, to estimate the effect on costs and QALYs.

METHODS

We developed Markov models for each of six medication errors targeted by PINCER. Clinical event probability, treatment pathway, resource use and costs were extracted from literature and costing tariffs. A composite probabilistic model combined patient-level error models with practice-level error rates and intervention costs from the trial. Cost per extra QALY and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were generated from the perspective of NHS England, with a 5-year time horizon.

RESULTS

The PINCER intervention generated £2,679 less cost and 0.81 more QALYs per practice [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER): -£3,037 per QALY] in the deterministic analysis. In the probabilistic analysis, PINCER generated 0.001 extra QALYs per practice compared with simple feedback, at £4.20 less per practice. Despite this extremely small set of differences in costs and outcomes, PINCER dominated simple feedback with a mean ICER of -£3,936 (standard error £2,970). At a ceiling 'willingness-to-pay' of £20,000/QALY, PINCER reaches 59 % probability of being cost effective.

CONCLUSIONS

PINCER produced marginal health gain at slightly reduced overall cost. Results are uncertain due to the poor quality of data to inform the effect of avoiding errors.

The prevalence and nature of prescribing and monitoring errors in English general practice: a retrospective case note review

BACKGROUND

Relatively little is known about prescribing errors in general practice, or the factors associated with error.

AIM

To determine the prevalence and nature of prescribing and monitoring errors in general practices in England.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Retrospective case-note review of unique medication items prescribed over a 12-month period to a 2% random sample of patients. Fifteen general practices across three primary care trusts in England.

METHOD

A total of 6048 unique prescription items prescribed over the previous 12 months for 1777 patients were examined. The data were analysed by mixed effects logistic regression. The main outcome measures were prevalence of prescribing and monitoring errors, and severity of errors, using validated definitions.

RESULTS

Prescribing and/or monitoring errors were detected in 4.9% (296/6048) of all prescription items (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.4% to 5.5%). The vast majority of errors were of mild to moderate severity, with 0.2% (11/6048) of items having a severe error. After adjusting for covariates, patient-related factors associated with an increased risk of prescribing and/or monitoring errors were: age <15 years (odds ratio [OR] = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.19 to 2.94, P = 0.006) or >64 years (OR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.04 to 2.73, P = 0.035), and higher numbers of unique medication items prescribed (OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.12 to 1.19, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Prescribing and monitoring errors are common in English general practice, although severe errors are unusual. Many factors increase the risk of error. Having identified the most common and important errors, and the factors associated with these, strategies to prevent future errors should be developed, based on the study findings.

Description and process evaluation of pharmacists' interventions in a pharmacist-led information technology-enabled multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial for reducing medication errors in general practice (PINCER trial)

OBJECTIVE

To undertake a process evaluation of pharmacists' recommendations arising in the context of a complex IT-enabled pharmacist-delivered randomised controlled trial (PINCER trial) to reduce the risk of hazardous medicines management in general practices.

METHODS

PINCER pharmacists manually recorded patients' demographics, details of interventions recommended, actions undertaken by practice staff and time taken to manage individual cases of hazardous medicines management. Data were coded, double-entered into SPSS version 15 and then summarised using percentages for categorical data (with 95% confidence interval (CI)) and, as appropriate, means (± standard deviation) or medians (interquartile range) for continuous data.

KEY FINDINGS

Pharmacists spent a median of 20 min (interquartile range 10, 30) reviewing medical records, recommending interventions and completing actions in each case of hazardous medicines management. Pharmacists judged 72% (95% CI 70, 74; 1463/2026) of cases of hazardous medicines management to be clinically relevant. Pharmacists recommended 2105 interventions in 74% (95% CI 73, 76; 1516/2038) of cases and 1685 actions were taken in 61% (95% CI 59, 63; 1246/2038) of cases; 66% (95% CI 64, 68; 1383/2105) of interventions recommended by pharmacists were completed and 5% (95% CI 4, 6; 104/2105) of recommendations were accepted by general practitioners (GPs), but not completed at the end of the pharmacists' placement; the remaining recommendations were rejected or considered not relevant by GPs.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcome measures were used to target pharmacist activity in general practice towards patients at risk from hazardous medicines management. Recommendations from trained PINCER pharmacists were found to be broadly acceptable to GPs and led to ameliorative action in the majority of cases. It seems likely that the approach used by the PINCER pharmacists could be employed by other practice pharmacists following appropriate training.

Protocol for the New Medicine Service Study: a randomized controlled trial and economic evaluation with qualitative appraisal comparing the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the New Medicine Service in community pharmacies in England

BACKGROUND

Medication non-adherence is considered an important cause of morbidity and mortality in primary care. This study aims to determine the effectiveness, cost effectiveness and acceptability of a complex intervention delivered by community pharmacists, the New Medicine Service (NMS), compared with current practice in reducing non-adherence to, and problems with, newly prescribed medicines for chronic conditions.

METHODS/DESIGN

Research subject group: patients aged 14 years and above presenting in a community pharmacy for a newly prescribed medicine for asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); hypertension; type 2 diabetes or anticoagulant/antiplatelet agents in two geographical regions in England.

DESIGN

parallel group patient-level pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

INTERVENTIONS

patients randomized to either: (i) current practice; or (ii) NMS intervention comprising pharmacist-delivered support for a newly prescribed medicine.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

proportion of adherent patients at six, ten and 26 weeks from the date of presenting their prescriptions at the pharmacy; cost effectiveness of the intervention versus current practice at 10 weeks and 26 weeks; in-depth qualitative understanding of the operationalization of NMS in pharmacies.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

impact of NMS on: patients' understanding of their medicines, pharmacovigilance, interprofessional and patient-professional relationships and experiences of service users and stakeholders.Economic analysis: Trial-based economic analysis (cost per extra adherent patient) and long-term modeling of costs and health effects (cost per quality-adjusted-life-year) will be conducted from the perspective of National Health Service (NHS) England, comparing NMS with current practice.Qualitative analysis: a qualitative study of NMS implementation in different community settings, how organizational influences affect NMS delivery, patterns of NMS consultations and experiences of professionals and patients participating in NMS, and patients receiving current practice.

SAMPLE SIZE

250 patients in each treatment arm would provide at least 80% power (two-tailed alpha of 0.05) to demonstrate a reduction in patient-reported non-adherence from 20% to 10% in the NMS arm compared with current practice, assuming a 20% drop-out rate.

DISCUSSION

At the time of submission of this article, 58 community pharmacies have been recruited and the interventions are being delivered. Analysis has not yet been undertaken.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current controlled trials: ISRCTN23560818. Clinical Trials US (clinicaltrials.gov): NCT01635361.

Quality of reporting of complex healthcare interventions and applicability of the CReDECI list - a survey of publications indexed in PubMed

Background

The development and evaluation of complex interventions in healthcare has obtained increased awareness. The Medical Research Council’s (MRC) framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions and its update offers guidance for researchers covering the phases development, feasibility/piloting, and evaluation. Comprehensive reporting of complex interventions enhances transparency and is essential for researchers and policy-makers. Recently, a set of 16 criteria for reporting complex interventions in healthcare (CReDECI) was published. The aim of this study is to evaluate the reporting quality in publications of complex interventions adhering to either the first or the updated MRC framework, and to evaluate the applicability of CReDECI.

Methods

A systematic PubMed search was conducted. Two reviewers independently checked titles and abstracts for inclusion. Trials on complex interventions adhering to the MRC framework and including an evaluation study in English and German were included. For all included trials and for all publications which reported on phases prior to the evaluation study, related publications were identified via forward citation tracking. The quality of reporting was assessed independently by two reviewers using CReDECI. Inter-rater agreement and time needed to complete the assessment were determined.

Results

Twenty-six publications on eight trials were included. The number of publications per trial ranged from 1 to 6 (mean 3.25). The trials demonstrate a good reporting quality for the criteria referring to the development and feasibility/piloting. For the criteria addressing the introduction of the intervention and the evaluation, quality of reporting varied widely. Two trials fulfilled 7 and 8 items respectively, five trials fulfilled one to five items and one trial offered no information on any item. The mean number of items with differing ratings per trial was two. The time needed to rate a trial ranged from 30 to 90 minutes, depending on the number of publications.

Conclusions

Adherence to the MRC framework seems to have a positive impact on the reporting quality on the development and piloting of complex interventions. Reporting on the evaluation could be improved. CReDECI is a practical instrument to check the reporting quality of complex interventions and could be used alongside design-specific reporting guidelines.

A systematic review of the use of theory in randomized controlled trials of audit and feedback

BACKGROUND

Audit and feedback is one of the most widely used and promising interventions in implementation research, yet also one of the most variably effective. Understanding this variability has been limited in part by lack of attention to the theoretical and conceptual basis underlying audit and feedback. Examining the extent of theory use in studies of audit and feedback will yield better understanding of the causal pathways of audit and feedback effectiveness and inform efforts to optimize this important intervention.

METHODS

A total of 140 studies in the 2012 Cochrane update on audit and feedback interventions were independently reviewed by two investigators. Variables were extracted related to theory use in the study design, measurement, implementation or interpretation. Theory name, associated reference, and the location of theory use as reported in the study were extracted. Theories were organized by type (e.g., education, diffusion, organization, psychology), and theory utilization was classified into seven categories (justification, intervention design, pilot testing, evaluation, predictions, post hoc, other).

RESULTS

A total of 20 studies (14%) reported use of theory in any aspect of the study design, measurement, implementation or interpretation. In only 13 studies (9%) was a theory reportedly used to inform development of the intervention. A total of 18 different theories across educational, psychological, organizational and diffusion of innovation perspectives were identified. Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations and Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory were the most widely used (3.6% and 3%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The explicit use of theory in studies of audit and feedback was rare. A range of theories was found, but not consistency of theory use. Advancing our understanding of audit and feedback will require more attention to theoretically informed studies and intervention design.

High-risk prescribing and monitoring in primary care: how common is it, and how can it be improved?

The safety of medication use in primary care is an area of increasing concern for health systems internationally. Systematic reviews estimate that 3-4% of all unplanned hospital admissions are due to preventable drug-related morbidity, the majority of which have been attributed to shortcomings in the prescribing and monitoring stages of the medication use process. We define high-risk prescribing as medication prescription by professionals, for which there is evidence of significant risk of harm to patients, and which should therefore either be avoided or (if avoidance is not possible) closely monitored and regularly reviewed for continued appropriateness. Although prevalence estimates vary depending on the instrument used, cross-sectional studies conducted in primary care equivocally show that it is common and there is evidence that it can be reduced. Quality improvement strategies, such as clinical decision support, performance feedback and pharmacist-led interventions have been shown to be effective in reducing prescribing outcomes but evidence of improved patient outcomes remains limited. The increasing implementation of electronic medical records in primary care offer new opportunities to combine different strategies to improve medication safety in primary care and to integrate services provided by different stakeholders. In this review article, we describe the spectrum of high-risk medication use in primary care, review approaches to its measurement and summarize research into its prevalence. Based on previously developed interventions to change professional practice, we propose a systematic approach to improve the safety of medication use in primary care and highlight areas for future research.

An embedded longitudinal multi-faceted qualitative evaluation of a complex cluster randomized controlled trial aiming to reduce clinically important errors in medicines management in general practice

Background

There is a need to shed light on the pathways through which complex interventions mediate their effects in order to enable critical reflection on their transferability. We sought to explore and understand key stakeholder accounts of the acceptability, likely impact and strategies for optimizing and rolling-out a successful pharmacist-led information technology-enabled (PINCER) intervention, which substantially reduced the risk of clinically important errors in medicines management in primary care.

Methods

Data were collected at two geographical locations in central England through a combination of one-to-one longitudinal semi-structured telephone interviews (one at the beginning of the trial and another when the trial was well underway), relevant documents, and focus group discussions following delivery of the PINCER intervention. Participants included PINCER pharmacists, general practice staff, researchers involved in the running of the trial, and primary care trust staff. PINCER pharmacists were interviewed at three different time-points during the delivery of the PINCER intervention. Analysis was thematic with diffusion of innovation theory providing a theoretical framework.

Results

We conducted 52 semi-structured telephone interviews and six focus group discussions with 30 additional participants. In addition, documentary data were collected from six pharmacist diaries, along with notes from four meetings of the PINCER pharmacists and feedback meetings from 34 practices. Key findings that helped to explain the success of the PINCER intervention included the perceived importance of focusing on prescribing errors to all stakeholders, and the credibility and appropriateness of a pharmacist-led intervention to address these shortcomings. Central to this was the face-to-face contact and relationship building between pharmacists and a range of practice staff, and pharmacists’ explicitly designated role as a change agent. However, important concerns were identified about the likely sustainability of this new model of delivering care, in the absence of an appropriate support network for pharmacists and career development pathways.

Conclusions

This embedded qualitative inquiry has helped to understand the complex organizational and social environment in which the trial was undertaken and the PINCER intervention was delivered. The longitudinal element has given insight into the dynamic changes and developments over time. Medication errors and ways to address these are high on stakeholders’ agendas. Our results further indicate that pharmacists were, because of their professional standing and skill-set, able to engage with the complex general practice environment and able to identify and manage many clinically important errors in medicines management. The transferability of the PINCER intervention approach, both in relation to other prescribing errors and to other practices, is likely to be high.

Bayesian cohort and cross-sectional analyses of the PINCER trial: a pharmacist-led intervention to reduce medication errors in primary care

Background

Medication errors are an important source of potentially preventable morbidity and mortality. The PINCER study, a cluster randomised controlled trial, is one of the world’s first experimental studies aiming to reduce the risk of such medication related potential for harm in general practice. Bayesian analyses can improve the clinical interpretability of trial findings.

Methods

Experts were asked to complete a questionnaire to elicit opinions of the likely effectiveness of the intervention for the key outcomes of interest - three important primary care medication errors. These were averaged to generate collective prior distributions, which were then combined with trial data to generate Bayesian posterior distributions. The trial data were analysed in two ways: firstly replicating the trial reported cohort analysis acknowledging pairing of observations, but excluding non-paired observations; and secondly as cross-sectional data, with no exclusions, but without acknowledgement of the pairing. Frequentist and Bayesian analyses were compared.

Findings

Bayesian evaluations suggest that the intervention is able to reduce the likelihood of one of the medication errors by about 50 (estimated to be between 20% and 70%). However, for the other two main outcomes considered, the evidence that the intervention is able to reduce the likelihood of prescription errors is less conclusive.

Conclusions

Clinicians are interested in what trial results mean to them, as opposed to what trial results suggest for future experiments. This analysis suggests that the PINCER intervention is strongly effective in reducing the likelihood of one of the important errors; not necessarily effective in reducing the other errors. Depending on the clinical importance of the respective errors, careful consideration should be given before implementation, and refinement targeted at the other errors may be something to consider.

Clinical decision support systems could be modified to reduce 'alert fatigue' while still minimizing the risk of litigation

Clinical decision support systems--interactive computer systems that help doctors make clinical choices--can reduce errors in drug prescribing by offering real-time alerts about possible adverse reactions. But physicians and other users often suffer "alert fatigue" caused by excessive numbers of warnings about items such as potentially dangerous drug interactions. As a result, they may pay less attention to or even ignore some vital alerts, thus limiting these systems' effectiveness. Designers and vendors sharply limit the ability to modify alert systems because they fear being exposed to liability if they permit removal of a warning that could have prevented a harmful prescribing error. Our analysis of product liability principles and existing research into the use of clinical decision support systems, however, finds that more finely tailored or parsimonious warnings could ease alert fatigue without imparting a high risk of litigation for vendors, purchasers, and users. Even so, to limit liability in this area, we recommend stronger government regulation of clinical decision support systems and development of international practice guidelines highlighting the most important warnings.

A pharmacist-led information technology intervention for medication errors (PINCER): a multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Medication errors are common in primary care and are associated with considerable risk of patient harm. We tested whether a pharmacist-led, information technology-based intervention was more effective than simple feedback in reducing the number of patients at risk of measures related to hazardous prescribing and inadequate blood-test monitoring of medicines 6 months after the intervention.

METHODS

In this pragmatic, cluster randomised trial general practices in the UK were stratified by research site and list size, and randomly assigned by a web-based randomisation service in block sizes of two or four to one of two groups. The practices were allocated to either computer-generated simple feedback for at-risk patients (control) or a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER), composed of feedback, educational outreach, and dedicated support. The allocation was masked to researchers and statisticians involved in processing and analysing the data. The allocation was not masked to general practices, pharmacists, patients, or researchers who visited practices to extract data. [corrected]. Primary outcomes were the proportions of patients at 6 months after the intervention who had had any of three clinically important errors: non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) prescribed to those with a history of peptic ulcer without co-prescription of a proton-pump inhibitor; β blockers prescribed to those with a history of asthma; long-term prescription of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or loop diuretics to those 75 years or older without assessment of urea and electrolytes in the preceding 15 months. The cost per error avoided was estimated by incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. This study is registered with Controlled-Trials.com, number ISRCTN21785299.

FINDINGS

72 general practices with a combined list size of 480,942 patients were randomised. At 6 months' follow-up, patients in the PINCER group were significantly less likely to have been prescribed a non-selective NSAID if they had a history of peptic ulcer without gastroprotection (OR 0·58, 95% CI 0·38-0·89); a β blocker if they had asthma (0·73, 0·58-0·91); or an ACE inhibitor or loop diuretic without appropriate monitoring (0·51, 0·34-0·78). PINCER has a 95% probability of being cost effective if the decision-maker's ceiling willingness to pay reaches £75 per error avoided at 6 months.

INTERPRETATION

The PINCER intervention is an effective method for reducing a range of medication errors in general practices with computerised clinical records.

FUNDING

Patient Safety Research Portfolio, Department of Health, England.

A cluster randomised stepped wedge trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a multifaceted information technology-based intervention in reducing high-risk prescribing of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and antiplatelets in primary medical care: the DQIP study protocol

Background

High-risk prescribing of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antiplatelet agents accounts for a significant proportion of hospital admissions due to preventable adverse drug events. The recently completed PINCER trial has demonstrated that a one-off pharmacist-led information technology (IT)-based intervention can significantly reduce high-risk prescribing in primary care, but there is evidence that effects decrease over time and employing additional pharmacists to facilitate change may not be sustainable.

Methods/design

We will conduct a cluster randomised controlled with a stepped wedge design in 40 volunteer general practices in two Scottish health boards. Eligible practices are those that are using the INPS Vision clinical IT system, and have agreed to have relevant medication-related data to be automatically extracted from their electronic medical records. All practices (clusters) that agree to take part will receive the data-driven quality improvement in primary care (DQIP) intervention, but will be randomised to one of 10 start dates. The DQIP intervention has three components: a web-based informatics tool that provides weekly updated feedback of targeted prescribing at practice level, prompts the review of individual patients affected, and summarises each patient's relevant risk factors and prescribing; an outreach visit providing education on targeted prescribing and training in the use of the informatics tool; and a fixed payment of 350 GBP (560 USD; 403 EUR) up front and a small payment of 15 GBP (24 USD; 17 EUR) for each patient reviewed in the 12 months of the intervention. We hypothesise that the DQIP intervention will reduce a composite of nine previously validated measures of high-risk prescribing. Due to the nature of the intervention, it is not possible to blind practices, the core research team, or the data analyst. However, outcome assessment is entirely objective and automated. There will additionally be a process and economic evaluation alongside the main trial.

Discussion

The DQIP intervention is an example of a potentially sustainable safety improvement intervention that builds on the existing National Health Service IT-infrastructure to facilitate systematic management of high-risk prescribing by existing practice staff. Although the focus in this trial is on Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and antiplatelets, we anticipate that the tested intervention would be generalisable to other types of prescribing if shown to be effective.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, dossier number: NCT01425502

Receptionist input to quality and safety in repeat prescribing in UK general practice: ethnographic case study

OBJECTIVE

To describe, explore, and compare organisational routines for repeat prescribing in general practice to identify contributors and barriers to safety and quality.

DESIGN

Ethnographic case study.

SETTING

Four urban UK general practices with diverse organisational characteristics using electronic patient records that supported semi-automation of repeat prescribing.

PARTICIPANTS

395 hours of ethnographic observation of staff (25 doctors, 16 nurses, 4 healthcare assistants, 6 managers, and 56 reception or administrative staff), and 28 documents and other artefacts relating to repeat prescribing locally and nationally.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Potential threats to patient safety and characteristics of good practice.

METHODS

Observation of how doctors, receptionists, and other administrative staff contributed to, and collaborated on, the repeat prescribing routine. Analysis included mapping prescribing routines, building a rich description of organisational practices, and drawing these together through narrative synthesis. This was informed by a sociological model of how organisational routines shape and are shaped by information and communications technologies. Results Repeat prescribing was a complex, technology-supported social practice requiring collaboration between clinical and administrative staff, with important implications for patient safety. More than half of requests for repeat prescriptions were classed as "exceptions" by receptionists (most commonly because the drug, dose, or timing differed from what was on the electronic repeat list). They managed these exceptions by making situated judgments that enabled them (sometimes but not always) to bridge the gap between the idealised assumptions about tasks, roles, and interactions that were built into the electronic patient record and formal protocols, and the actual repeat prescribing routine as it played out in practice. This work was creative and demanded both explicit and tacit knowledge. Clinicians were often unaware of this input and it did not feature in policy documents or previous research. Yet it was sometimes critical to getting the job done and contributed in subtle ways to safeguarding patients. Conclusion Receptionists and administrative staff make important "hidden" contributions to quality and safety in repeat prescribing in general practice, regarding themselves accountable to patients for these contributions. Studying technology-supported work routines that seem mundane, standardised, and automated, but which in reality require a high degree of local tailoring and judgment from frontline staff, opens up a new agenda for the study of patient safety.

Development of prescribing-safety indicators for GPs using the RAND Appropriateness Method

BACKGROUND

In the UK, a process of revalidation is being introduced to allow doctors to demonstrate that they meet current professional standards, are up-to-date, and fit to practise. Given the serious risks to patients from hazardous use of medicines it will be appropriate, as part of the revalidation process, to assess the safety of prescribing by GPs.

AIM

To identify a set of potential prescribing-safety indicators for the purposes of revalidation of individual GPs in the UK.

DESIGN AND SETTING

The RAND Appropriateness Method was used to identify, develop, and obtain agreement on the indicators in UK general practice.

METHOD

Twelve GPs from across the UK with a wide variety of characteristics assessed indicators for appropriateness of use in revalidation.

RESULTS

Forty-seven safety indicators were considered appropriate for assessing the prescribing safety of individual GPs for the purposes of revalidation (appropriateness was defined as an overall panel median score of ≥ 7 (on a 1-9 scale), with no more than three panel members rating the indicator outside the 3-point distribution around the median]. After removing indicators that were variations on the same theme, a final set of 34 indicators was obtained; these cover hazardous prescribing across a range of therapeutic areas, hazardous drug-drug combinations, prescribing with a history of allergy, and inadequate laboratory-test monitoring.

CONCLUSION

This study identified a set of 34 indicators that were considered, by a panel of 12 GPs, to be appropriate for use in assessing the safety of GP prescribing for the purposes of revalidation. Violation of any of the 34 indicators indicates a potential patient-safety problem.

Sample size calculations for cluster randomised controlled trials with a fixed number of clusters

Abstract

Conclusions

Designing a CRCT with a fixed number of clusters might mean that the study will not be feasible, leading to the notion of a minimum detectable difference (or a maximum achievable power), irrespective of how many individuals are included within each cluster.

Planned implementations of ePrescribing systems in NHS hospitals in England: a questionnaire study

Objectives

To describe the plans of English NHS hospitals to implement ePrescribing systems.

Design and setting

Questionnaire-based survey of attendees of the National ePrescribing Forum.

Participants

A piloted questionnaire was distributed to all NHS and non-NHS hospital-based attendees. The questionnaire enquired about any completed or planned implementation of ePrescribing systems, the specific systems of interest, and functionality they offered.

Main outcome measures

Estimate of the number of NHS Trusts planning to implement ePrescribing systems.

Results

Ninety-one of the 166 questionnaires distributed to NHS hospital-based staff were completed and returned. Of those, six were incomplete, resulting in a total usable response rate of 51% (n = 85). Eighty-two percent (n = 46) of the 56 Trusts represented at the Forum were either ‘thinking of implementing’ or ‘currently implementing’ an ePrescribing system, such as Ascribe (13%, n = 7) and JAC (20%, n = 11). Forty percent (n = 22) of respondents specified other systems, including those procured by NHS Connecting for Health e.g. RiO, Lorenzo and Cerner. Knowledge support, decision support and computerized links to other elements of patients’ individual care records were the functionalities of greatest interest.

Conclusion

There is considerable reported interest and activity in implementing ePrescribing systems in hospitals across England. Whether such developments have the desired impact on improving the safety of prescribing is however, yet to be determined.

Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions?

BACKGROUND TO THE DEBATE

The UK Medical Research Council defines complex interventions as those comprising "a number of separate elements which seem essential to the proper functioning of the interventions although the 'active ingredient' of the intervention that is effective is difficult to specify." A typical example is specialist care on a stroke unit, which involves a wide range of health professionals delivering a variety of treatments. Michelle Campbell and colleagues have argued that there are "specific difficulties in defining, developing, documenting, and reproducing complex interventions that are subject to more variation than a drug". These difficulties are one of the reasons why it is challenging for researchers to systematically review complex interventions and synthesize data from separate studies. This PLoS Medicine Debate considers the challenges facing systematic reviewers and suggests several ways of addressing them.