unDerstandIng the cauSes of mediCation errOrs and adVerse drug evEnts for patients with mental illness in community caRe (DISCOVER): a qualitative study

Background

It is estimated that 237 million medication errors occur in England each year with a significant number occurring in the community. Our understanding of the causes of preventable medication errors and adverse drug events (ADE) affecting patients with mental illness is limited in this setting. Better understanding of the factors that contribute to errors can support the development of theory-driven improvement interventions.

Methods

Remote qualitative semi-structured interviews with 26 community-based healthcare professionals in England and Wales were undertaken between June-November 2022. Recruitment was undertaken using purposive sampling via professional networks. Interviews were guided by the critical incident technique and analysed using the framework method. Any data that involved speculation was not included in the analysis. Independent analysis was carried out by the research team to extract themes guided by the London Protocol.

Results

A total of 43 medication errors and 12 preventable ADEs were discussed, with two ADEs having an unknown error origin. Prescribing errors were discussed most commonly (n = 24), followed by monitoring errors (n = 8). Six contributory factor themes were identified: the individual (staff); the work environment; the teams/interfaces; the organisation and management; the patient; and the task and technology. The individual (staff) factors were involved in just over 80% of all errors discussed. Participants reported a lack of knowledge regarding psychotropic medication and mental illnesses which accompanied diffusion of responsibility. There were difficulties with team communication, particularly across care interfaces, such as ambiguity/brevity of information being communicated and uncertainty concerning roles which created confusion amongst staff. Unique patient social/behavioural contributory factors were identified such as presenting with challenging behaviour and complex lifestyles, which caused difficulties attending appointments as well as affecting overall clinical management.

Conclusion

These findings highlight that the causes of errors are multifactorial with some unique to this patient group. Key areas to target for improvement include the education/training of healthcare professionals regarding neuropharmacology/mental illnesses and enhancing communication across care interfaces. Future research should explore patient perspectives regarding this topic to help develop a holistic picture. These findings can be used to guide future intervention research to ameliorate medication safety challenges for this patient group.

A Multi-method Exploratory Evaluation of a Service Designed to Improve Medication Safety for Patients with Monitored Dosage Systems Following Hospital Discharge

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Medication safety problems are common post-hospital discharge, and an important global healthcare improvement target. The Transfers of Care Around Medicines (TCAM) service was launched by a National Health Service Trust in the North-West of England, initially focusing on patients with new or existing Monitored Dosage Systems (MDS). The TCAM service is designed to enable the prompt transfer of medication information, with referrals made by hospitals at discharge to a named community pharmacy. This study aimed to explore the utilisation and impact of the TCAM service on medication safety.

METHODS

The evaluation included a descriptive analysis of 3033 anonymised patient referrals to 71 community pharmacies over a 1-year period alongside an assessment of the impact of the TCAM service on unintentional medication discrepancies and adverse drug events using a retrospective before-and-after study design. Impact data were collected across 18 general practices by 16 trained clinical pharmacists.

RESULTS

Most patient referrals (70%, 2126/3033) were marked as 'completed' by community pharmacies, with 15% of completed referrals delayed beyond 30 days. Screening of 411 patient records by clinical pharmacists yielded no statistically significant difference in unintentional medication discrepancies or adverse drug event rates following TCAM implementation using a multivariable regression analysis (unintentional medication discrepancies adjusted odds ratio = 0.79 [95% confidence interval 0.44-1.44, p = 0.46]; and adverse drug events adjusted odds ratio = 1.19 [95% confidence interval 0.57-2.45, p = 0.63]), although there remained considerable uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

The TCAM service facilitated a number of community pharmacy services offered to patients with monitored dosage systems; but the impact of the intervention on unintentional medication discrepancies and adverse drug event rates post-hospital discharge for this patient group was uncertain. The results of this exploratory study can inform the ongoing implementation of the TCAM service at hospital discharge and highlight the need to understand service implementation in different contexts, which may influence its impact on medication safety.

Supporting carers to improve patient safety and maintain their well-being in transitions from mental health hospitals to the community: A prioritisation nominal group technique

INTRODUCTION

Carers of people with mental illness may face distinct challenges, including navigating fragmented health and social services during discharge from mental health hospitals. Currently, limited examples of interventions that support carers of people with mental illness in improving patient safety during transitions of care exist. We aimed to identify problems and solutions to inform future carer-led discharge interventions, which is imperative for ensuring patient safety and the well-being of carers.

METHODS

The nominal group technique was used which combines both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods in four distinct phases: (1) problem identification, (2) solution generation, (3) decision making and (4) prioritisation. The aim was to combine expertise from different stakeholder groups (patients, carers and academics with expertise in primary/secondary care, social care or public health) to identify problems and generate solutions.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight participants generated potential solutions that were grouped into four themes. The most acceptable solution for each was as follows: (1) 'Carer Involvement and Improving Carer Experience' a dedicated family liaison worker, (2) 'Patient Wellness and Education' adapting and implementing existing approaches to help implement the patient care plan, (3) 'Carer Wellness and Education' peer/social support interventions for carers and (4) 'Policy and System Improvements' understanding the co-ordination of care.

CONCLUSION

The stakeholder group concurred that the transition from mental health hospitals to the community is a distressing period, where patients and carers are particularly vulnerable to safety and well-being risks. We identified numerous feasible/acceptable solutions to enable carers to improve patient safety and maintain their own mental wellbeing.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patient and public contributors were represented in the workshop and the focus of the workshop was to identify the problems they faced and co-design potential solutions. Patient and public contributors were involved in the funding application and study design.

Understanding the medication safety challenges for patients with mental illness in primary care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Mental illness and medication safety are key priorities for healthcare systems around the world. Despite most patients with mental illness being treated exclusively in primary care, our understanding of medication safety challenges in this setting is fragmented.

METHOD

Six electronic databases were searched between January 2000-January 2023. Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant/included studies were also screened for studies. Included studies reported data on epidemiology, aetiology, or interventions related to medication safety for patients with mental illness in primary care. Medication safety challenges were defined using the drug-related problems (DRPs) categorisation.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine studies were included with 77 (97.5%) reporting on epidemiology, 25 (31.6%) on aetiology, and 18 (22.8%) evaluated an intervention. Studies most commonly (33/79, 41.8%) originated from the United States of America (USA) with the most investigated DRP being non-adherence (62/79, 78.5%). General practice was the most common study setting (31/79, 39.2%) and patients with depression were a common focus (48/79, 60.8%). Aetiological data was presented as either causal (15/25, 60.0%) or as risk factors (10/25, 40.0%). Prescriber-related risk factors/causes were reported in 8/25 (32.0%) studies and patient-related risk factors/causes in 23/25 (92.0%) studies. Interventions to improve adherence rates (11/18, 61.1%) were the most evaluated. Specialist pharmacists provided the majority of interventions (10/18, 55.6%) with eight of these studies involving a medication review/monitoring service. All 18 interventions reported positive improvements on some medication safety outcomes but 6/18 reported little difference between groups for certain medication safety measures.

CONCLUSION

Patients with mental illness are at risk of a variety of DRPs in primary care. However, to date, available research exploring DRPs has focused attention on non-adherence and potential prescribing safety issues in older patients with dementia. Our findings highlight the need for further research on the causes of preventable medication incidents and targeted interventions to improve medication safety for patients with mental illness in primary care.

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.

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 the implementation, impact and sustainable use of an electronic pharmacy referral service at hospital discharge: A qualitative evaluation from a sociotechnical perspective

Introduction

The transition of patients across care settings is associated with a high risk of errors and preventable medication-related harm. Ensuring effective communication of information between health professionals is considered important for improving patient safety. A National Health Service(NHS) organisation in the North West of England introduced an electronic transfer of care around medicines (TCAM) system which enabled hospital pharmacists to send information about patient’s medications to their nominated community pharmacy. We aimed to understand the adoption, and the implications for sustainable use in practice of the TCAM service

Methods

We evaluated the TCAM service in a Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and NHS Foundation Trust in Salford, United Kingdom (UK). Participants were opportunistically recruited to take part in qualitative interviews through stakeholder networks and during hospital admission, and included hospital pharmacists, hospital pharmacy technicians, community pharmacists, general practice-based pharmacists, patients and their carers. A thematic analysis, that was iterative and concurrent with data collection, was undertaken using a template approach. The interpretation of the data was informed by broad sociotechnical theory.

Results

Twenty-three interviews were conducted with health care professionals patients and carers. The ways in which the newly implemented TCAM intervention was adopted and used in practice and the perceptions of it from different stakeholders were conceptualised into four main thematic areas: The nature of the network and how it contributed to implementation, use and sustainability; The material properties of the system; How work practices for medicines safety were adapted and evolved; and The enhancement of medication safety activities. The TCAM intervention was perceived as effective in providing community pharmacists with timely, more accurate and enhanced information upon discharge. This allowed for pharmacists to enhance clinical services designed to ensure that accurate medication reconciliation was completed, and the correct medication was dispensed for the patient.

Conclusions

By providing pharmacy teams with accurate and enhanced information the TCAM intervention supported healthcare professionals to establish and/or strengthen interprofessional networks in order to provide clinical services designed to ensure that accurate medication reconciliation and dispensing activities were completed. However, the intervention was implemented into a complex and at times fragmented network, and we recommend opportunities be explored to fully integrate this network to involve patients/carers, general practice pharmacists and two-way communication between primary and secondary care to further enhance the reach and impact of the TCAM service.

Incidence and nature of adverse drug events in paediatric intensive care units: A prospective multicentre study

AIMS

The aim of this study was to assess the incidence, nature, preventability and severity of adverse drug events (ADEs) across three paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) in England.

METHODS

A prospective observational cohort study was conducted across three PICUs over a three-month period during 2019. Included patients were aged ≤18 years and stayed in PICU for a minimum of 24 hours. Identification of suspected ADEs was performed by trained PICU pharmacists. A multidisciplinary expert panel assessed causality, preventability and severity of events.

RESULTS

A total of 302 patients were included and 62 ADEs were confirmed (definite/probable causality). One in six patients experienced one or more ADEs. The estimated incidence of ADEs were 20.5 per 100 patients (95% CI 15.3-27.5) and 16.7 per 1000 patient-days (95% CI 9.3-29.9). The majority of ADEs were judged preventable by the expert panel (36/62, 58.1%). ADEs were commonly involved with medicines prescribing (29/62, 46.8%) and caused temporary patient harm (42/62, 67.7%). Medications for the central nervous system (14/62, 22.6%), infections (13/62, 20.9%) and cardiovascular system (12/62, 19.4%) were commonly implicated with ADEs. Multivariable analysis revealed that patients who stayed in PICU for ≥7 days (OR 6.29, 95% CI 2.42-16.32) were more likely to experience an ADE compared to patients with a stay of 1-6 days.

CONCLUSION

ADEs are common in English PICUs and most of them may be preventable. There is a strong association between ADE occurrence and duration of PICU stay, which represents a target for remedial interventions. Exploring contributory factors of preventable ADEs is now necessary to inform preventive policies.

Implementing prescribing safety indicators in prisons: A mixed methods study

Aims

To examine the prevalence of potentially hazardous prescribing in the prison setting using prescribing safety indicators (PSIs) and explore their implementation and use in practice.

Methods

PSIs were identified and reviewed by the project team following a literature review and a nominal group discussion. Pharmacists at 2 prison sites deployed the PSIs using search protocols within their electronic health record. Prevalence rates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were generated for each indicator. Semi‐structured interviews with 20 prison healthcare staff across England and Wales were conducted to explore the feasibility of deploying and using PSIs in prison settings.

Results

Thirteen PSIs were successfully deployed mostly comprising drug–drug interactions (n = 9). Five yielded elevated prevalence rates: use of anticholinergics if aged ≥65 years (Site B: 25.8% [95%CI: 10.4–41.2%]), lack of antipsychotic monitoring for >12 months (Site A: 39.1% [95%CI: 27.1–52.1%]; Site B: 28.6% [95%CI: 17.9–41.4%]), prolonged use of hypnotics (Site B: 46.3% [95%CI: 35.6–57.1%]), antiplatelets prescribed with nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs without gastrointestinal protection (Site A: 12.5% [95%CI: 0.0–35.4%]; Site B: 16.7% [95%CI: 0.4–64.1%]), and selective serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors prescribed with nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs/antiplatelets without gastrointestinal protection (Site A: 39.6% [95%CI: 31.2–48.4%]; Site B: 33.3% [95%CI: 20.8–47.9%]). Prison healthcare staff supported the use of PSIs and identified key considerations to guide its successful implementation, including staff engagement and PSI 'champions'. To respond to PSI searches, stakeholders suggested contextualised patient support through intraprofessional collaboration.

Conclusion

We successfully implemented a suite of PSIs into 2 prisons, identifying those with higher prevalence values as intervention targets. When appropriately resourced and integrated into staff workflow, PSI searches may support prescribing safety in prisons.

Medication Safety in Mental Health Hospitals: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Incidents Reported to the National Reporting and Learning System

BACKGROUND

Medication safety incidents commonly occur in mental health hospitals. There is a need to improve the understanding of the circumstances that are thought to have played a part in the origin of these incidents to design safer systems to improve patient safety.

AIM

This study aimed to undertake a mixed-methods analysis of medication safety incidents reported to the National Reporting and Learning System in England and Wales in 2010 to 2017.

METHOD

Quantitative analyses of anonymized medication safety incidents occurring in mental health hospitals that were reported to the National Reporting and Learning System during an 8-year period were undertaken to characterize their type, severity, and the medication(s) involved. Second, a content analysis of the free-text reports associated with all incidents of at least moderate harm severity was undertaken to identify the underlying contributory factors.

RESULTS

Overall, 94,134 medication incident reports were examined, of which 10.4% (n = 9811) were reported to have resulted in harm. The 3 most frequent types of reported medication incidents involved omission of medication (17,302; 18.3%), wrong frequency (11,882; 12.6%), and wrong/unclear dose of medication (10,272; 10.9%). Medicines from the central nervous system (42,609; 71.0%), cardiovascular (4537; 7.6%), and endocrine (3669; 6.1%) medication classes were the most frequently involved with incidents. Failure to follow protocols (n = 93), lack of continuity of care (n = 92), patient behaviors (n = 62), and lack of stock (n = 51) were frequently reported as contributory factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Medication incidents pose an enduring threat to patient safety in mental health hospitals. This study has identified important targets that can guide the tailored development of remedial interventions.

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.

A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Medication Safety Incidents Reported in Neonatal and Children's Intensive Care

BACKGROUND

Critically ill neonates and paediatric patients may be at a greater risk of medication-related safety incidents than those in other clinical areas.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine the nature of, and contributory factors associated with, medication-related safety incidents reported in neonatal and paediatric intensive care units (ICUs).

METHODS

We carried out a mixed-methods analysis of anonymised medication safety incidents reported to the National Reporting and Learning System that involved children (aged ≤ 18 years) admitted to ICUs across England and Wales over a 9-year period (2010-2018). Data were analysed descriptively, and free-text descriptions of harmful incidents were examined to explore potential contributory factors associated with incidents.

RESULTS

In total, 25,567 eligible medication-related incident reports were examined. Incidents commonly occurred during the medicines administration (n = 13,668 [53.5%]) and prescribing stages (n = 7412 [29%]). The most commonly implicated error types were drug omission (n = 4812 [18.8%]) and dosing errors (n = 4475 [17.5%]). Neonates were commonly involved in reported incidents (n = 12,235 [47.9%]). Anti-infectives (n = 6483 [25.4%]) were the medications most commonly associated with incidents and commonly involved neonates. Incidents that were reported to have caused patient harm accounted for 12.2% (n = 3129) and commonly involved neonates (n = 1570/3129 [50.2%]). Common contributing factors to harmful incidents included staff-related factors (68.7%), such as failure to follow protocols or errors in documentation, which were often associated with working conditions, inadequate guidelines, and design of systems and protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

Neonates were commonly involved in medication-related incidents reported in children's intensive care settings. Improvements in staffing and workload, design of systems and processes, and the use of anti-infective medications may reduce this risk.

Evaluating the Utilisation of a Service Designed to Enhance Care with Medicines Following Acute Hospital Discharge: A Retrospective Study

Introduction

Medication safety challenges are common after hospital discharge and an important global health care improvement target [1,2]. ‘Transfers of Care Around Medicines’ (TCAM) services have been suggested as an intervention that may help address this problem, and are designed to enable the referral of patients on discharge from the hospital to a named community pharmacy in the surrounding Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). A TCAM service was launched by a large NHS Trust in England in February 2019 to enhance medicines communication and optimisation between primary and secondary care following hospital discharge. The TCAM service is delivered through the PharmOutcomes™ platform, and the initial focus of the service was to support patients with new or existing Monitored Dosage Systems (MDS).

Aim

To evaluate the utilisation of the TCAM service in the host NHS Trust and surrounding CCG through the examination of the nature and outcome of referrals made to community pharmacy.

Method

Anonymised service delivery data of patients referred from the TCAM service via the PharmOutcomes™ platform between March 2019 – February 2020 were retrospectively examined. The data comprised important variables, including patient demographics, status and time of referrals, and referral outcomes including problems/errors identified with medications and services provided by the community pharmacy such as medicines reconciliation. Study approvals were obtained from the host NHS Trust and the Health Research Authority (HRA); the study was exempt from the University Research Ethics Committee (UREC) approval [2019-7048-10983].

Results

A total of 3,033 TCAM referrals to 67 community pharmacies were analysed. Most referrals were for patients aged 70 and above (72%, n=2,195) and 56% (n=1,713/3,033) of the referrals were for female patients. The number of referrals varied between 215 and 310 per month (median 246, Inter quartile range [IQR] 234 - 268). Most referrals (67%, 2,038/3,033) were marked as ‘completed’ by the community pharmacies, with 32.8% (n=995) left uncompleted. The rate of referral completion varied between 59 and 80% per month (median 66.4, IQR 64.5 - 70). Five (0.2%) patients were identified by community pharmacies that had adverse drug reactions (ADRs) from the cohort of 2,038 patients with completed referrals, with 45 (2%, n=45/2,038) identified as having issues that necessitated referral to the general practitioner (GP). The most common reason for referral to GP was medication changes identified from hospital, incorrect repeat prescriptions following discharge, to request a new prescription or weekly MDS, and to inform the GP that the patient has stopped taking their medication. The most common services carried out in community pharmacies following referral were reported as medicines reconciliation (47%, n=954/2,038), followed by review of information (46.7%, n=952/2,038), home delivery of medication (39%, n=798/2,038), review MDS arrangements (23.6%, n=482/2,038), commence MDS (18.6%, n=380/2,038), and pharmacy managed repeat service (12%, n=254/2,038). The main strength of this study is the inclusion of referral data that occurred over a one-year period, while the data were limited in generalisability due to inclusion of one geographical region and only patients using MDS.

Conclusion

The findings of this study may inform the ongoing development of electronic pharmacy referral systems for use at hospital discharge.

References

1. Alqenae FA, Steinke D, Keers RN. Prevalence and Nature of Medication Errors and Medication-Related Harm Following Discharge from Hospital to Community Settings: A Systematic Review. Drug safety. 2020 Mar 3:1–21.

2. World Health Organization. Global patient safety challenge: medication without harm. 2017; p. 1–16. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/255263/1/WHO-HIS-SDS-2017.6-eng.pdf?ua=1&ua=1 . Accessed 20 September 2020.

Developing Best Practice Guidance for Discharge Planning Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method

Background: Discharge from acute mental health inpatient units is often a vulnerable period for patients. Multiple professionals and agencies are involved and processes and procedures are not standardized, often resulting in communication delays and co-ordination failures. Early and appropriate discharge planning and standardization of procedures could make inpatient care safer. Aim: To inform the development of a multi-component best practice guidance for discharge planning (including the 6 component SAFER patient flow bundle) to support safer patient transition from mental health hospitals to the community. Methods: Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness method, a panel of 10 professional stakeholders (psychiatrists, psychiatric nurses, clinical psychologists, pharmacists, academics, and policy makers) rated evidence-based statements. Six hundred and sixty-eight statements corresponding to 10 potential components of discharge planning best practice were rated on a 9-point integer scale for clarity, appropriateness and feasibility (median ≥ 7-9) using an online questionnaire then remote online face-to-face meetings. Results: Five of the six "SAFER" patient flow bundle components were appropriate and feasible for inpatient mental health. One component, "Early Flow," was rated inappropriate as mental health settings require more flexibility. Overall, 285 statements were rated as appropriate and feasible. Forty-four statements were considered appropriate but not feasible to implement. Discussion: This consensus study has identified components of a best practice guidance/intervention for discharge planning for UK mental health settings. Although some components describe processes that already happen in everyday clinical interactions (i.e., review by a senior clinician), standardizing such processes could have important safety benefits alongside a tailored and timely approach to post-discharge care.

Preventable medication harm across health care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Mitigating or reducing the risk of medication harm is a global policy priority. But evidence reflecting preventable medication harm in medical care and the factors that derive this harm remain unknown. Therefore, we aimed to quantify the prevalence, severity and type of preventable medication harm across medical care settings.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to compare the prevalence of preventable medication harm. Searches were carried out in Medline, Cochrane library, CINAHL, Embase and PsycINFO from 2000 to 27 January 2020. Data extraction and critical appraisal was undertaken by two independent reviewers. Random-effects meta-analysis was employed followed by univariable and multivariable meta-regression. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I² statistic, and publication bias was evaluated.

PROSPERO

CRD42020164156.

RESULTS

Of the 7780 articles, 81 studies involving 285,687 patients were included. The pooled prevalence for preventable medication harm was 3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2 to 4%, I² = 99%) and for overall medication harm was 9% (95% CI 7 to 11%, I² = 99.5%) of all patient incidence records. The highest rates of preventable medication harm were seen in elderly patient care settings (11%, 95% 7 to 15%, n = 7), intensive care (7%, 4 to 12%, n = 6), highly specialised or surgical care (6%, 3 to 11%, n = 13) and emergency medicine (5%, 2 to 12%, n = 12). The proportion of mild preventable medication harm was 39% (28 to 51%, n = 20, I² = 96.4%), moderate preventable harm 40% (31 to 49%, n = 22, I² = 93.6%) and clinically severe or life-threatening preventable harm 26% (15 to 37%, n = 28, I² = 97%). The source of the highest prevalence rates of preventable harm were at the prescribing (58%, 42 to 73%, n = 9, I² = 94%) and monitoring (47%, 21 to 73%, n = 8, I² = 99%) stages of medication use. Preventable harm was greatest in medicines affecting the 'central nervous system' and 'cardiovascular system'.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest meta-analysis to assess preventable medication harm. We conclude that around one in 30 patients are exposed to preventable medication harm in medical care, and more than a quarter of this harm is considered severe or life-threatening. Our results support the World Health Organisation's push for the detection and mitigation of medication-related harm as being a top priority, whilst highlighting other key potential targets for remedial intervention that should be a priority focus for future research.

Evaluation of a pharmacist-led actionable audit and feedback intervention for improving medication safety in UK primary care: An interrupted time series analysis

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the impact of the pharmacist-led Safety Medication dASHboard (SMASH) intervention on medication safety in primary care.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

SMASH comprised (1) training of clinical pharmacists to deliver the intervention; (2) a web-based dashboard providing actionable, patient-level feedback; and (3) pharmacists reviewing individual at-risk patients, and initiating remedial actions or advising general practitioners on doing so. It was implemented in 43 general practices covering a population of 235,595 people in Salford (Greater Manchester), UK. All practices started receiving the intervention between 18 April 2016 and 26 September 2017. We used an interrupted time series analysis of rates (prevalence) of potentially hazardous prescribing and inadequate blood-test monitoring, comparing observed rates post-intervention to extrapolations from a 24-month pre-intervention trend. The number of people registered to participating practices and having 1 or more risk factors for being exposed to hazardous prescribing or inadequate blood-test monitoring at the start of the intervention was 47,413 (males: 23,073 [48.7%]; mean age: 60 years [standard deviation: 21]). At baseline, 95% of practices had rates of potentially hazardous prescribing (composite of 10 indicators) between 0.88% and 6.19%. The prevalence of potentially hazardous prescribing reduced by 27.9% (95% CI 20.3% to 36.8%, p < 0.001) at 24 weeks and by 40.7% (95% CI 29.1% to 54.2%, p < 0.001) at 12 months after introduction of SMASH. The rate of inadequate blood-test monitoring (composite of 2 indicators) reduced by 22.0% (95% CI 0.2% to 50.7%, p = 0.046) at 24 weeks; the change at 12 months (23.5%) was no longer significant (95% CI -4.5% to 61.6%, p = 0.127). After 12 months, 95% of practices had rates of potentially hazardous prescribing between 0.74% and 3.02%. Study limitations include the fact that practices were not randomised, and therefore unmeasured confounding may have influenced our findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The SMASH intervention was associated with reduced rates of potentially hazardous prescribing and inadequate blood-test monitoring in general practices. This reduction was sustained over 12 months after the start of the intervention for prescribing but not for monitoring of medication. There was a marked reduction in the variation in rates of hazardous prescribing between practices.

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.

Understanding the utilisation of a novel interactive electronic medication safety dashboard in general practice: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Improving medication safety is a major concern in primary care settings worldwide. The Salford Medication safety dASHboard (SMASH) intervention provided general practices in Salford (Greater Manchester, UK) with feedback on their safe prescribing and monitoring of medications through an online dashboard, and input from practice-based trained clinical pharmacists. In this study we explored how staff working in general practices used the SMASH dashboard to improve medication safety, through interactions with the dashboard to identify potential medication safety hazards and their workflow to resolve identified hazards.

METHODS

We used a mixed-methods study design involving quantitative data from dashboard user interaction logs from 43 general practices during the first year of receiving the SMASH intervention, and qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with 22 pharmacists and physicians from 18 practices in Salford.

RESULTS

Practices interacted with the dashboard a median of 12.0 (interquartile range, 5.0-15.2) times per month during the first quarter of use to identify and resolve potential medication safety hazards, typically starting with the most prevalent hazards or those they perceived to be most serious. Having observed a potential hazard, pharmacists and practice staff worked together to resolve that in a sequence of steps (1) verifying the dashboard information, (2) reviewing the patient's clinical records, and (3) deciding potential changes to the patient's medicines. Over time, dashboard use transitioned towards regular but less frequent (median of 5.5 [3.5-7.9] times per month) checks to identify and resolve new cases. The frequency of dashboard use was higher in practices with a larger number of at-risk patients. In 24 (56%) practices only pharmacists used the dashboard; in 12 (28%) use by other practice staff increased as pharmacist use declined after the initial intervention period; and in 7 (16%) there was mixed use by both pharmacists and practice staff over time.

CONCLUSIONS

An online medication safety dashboard enabled pharmacists to identify patients at risk of potentially hazardous prescribing. They subsequently worked with GPs to resolve risks on a case-by-case basis, but there were marked variations in processes between some practices. Workload diminished over time as it shifted towards resolving new cases of hazardous prescribing.

Prevalence, nature and predictors of omitted medication doses in mental health hospitals: A multi-centre study

Objective

Limited evidence concerning the burden and predictors of omitted medication doses within mental health hospitals could severely limit improvement efforts in this specialist setting. This study aimed to determine the prevalence, nature and predictors of omitted medication doses affecting hospital inpatients in two English National Health Service (NHS) mental health trusts.

Methods

Over 6 data collection days trained pharmacy teams screened inpatient prescription charts for scheduled and omitted medication doses within 27 adult and elderly wards across 9 psychiatric hospitals. Data were collected for inpatients admitted up to two weeks prior to each data collection day. Omitted doses were classified as ‘time critical’ and ‘preventable’ based on established criteria. Omitted dose frequencies were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Multilevel logistic regression analyses determined the predictors of omitted dose occurrence, with omission risks presented as adjusted odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI.

Results

18,664 scheduled medication doses were screened for 444 inpatients and 2,717 omissions were identified, resulting in a rate of 14.6% (95% CI 14.1–15.1). The rate of ‘time critical’ omitted doses was 19.3% (95% CI 16.3–22.6%). ‘Preventable’ omitted doses comprised one third of all omissions (34.5%, 930/2694). Logistic regression analysis revealed that medicines affecting the central nervous system were 55% less likely to be omitted compared to all other medication classes (9.9% vs. 18.8%, OR 0.45 (0.40–0.52)) and that scheduled doses administered using non-oral routes were more likely to be omitted compared the oral route (inhaled OR 3.47 (2.64–4.57), topical 2.71 (2.11–3.46), ‘other’ 2.15 (1.19–3.90)). ‘Preventable’ dose omissions were more than twice as likely to occur for ‘time critical’ medications than non-time critical medications (50.4% vs. 33.8%, OR 2.24 (1.22–4.11)).

Conclusions

Omitted medication doses occur commonly in mental health hospitals with ‘preventable’ omissions a key contributor to this burden. Important targets for remedial intervention have been identified.

Modelling the interactive behaviour of users with a medication safety dashboard in a primary care setting

OBJECTIVE

To characterise the use of an electronic medication safety dashboard by exploring and contrasting interactions from primary users (i.e. pharmacists) who were leading the intervention and secondary users (i.e. non-pharmacist staff) who used the dashboard to engage in safe prescribing practices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a 10-month observational study in which 35 health professionals used an instrumented medication safety dashboard for audit and feedback purposes in clinical practice as part of a wider intervention study. We modelled user interaction by computing features representing exploration and dwell time through user interface events that were logged on a remote database. We applied supervised learning algorithms to classify primary against secondary users.

RESULTS

We observed values for accuracy above 0.8, indicating that 80% of the time we were able to distinguish a primary user from a secondary user. In particular, the Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) yielded the highest values of precision (0.88), recall (0.86) and F-measure (0.86). The behaviour of primary users was distinctive in that they spent less time between mouse clicks (lower dwell time) on the screens showing the overview of the practice and trends. Secondary users exhibited a higher dwell time and more visual search activity (higher exploration) on the screens displaying patients at risk and visualisations.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

We were able to distinguish the interactive behaviour of primary and secondary users of a medication safety dashboard in primary care using timestamped mouse events. Primary users were more competent on population health monitoring activities, while secondary users struggled on activities involving a detailed breakdown of the safety of patients. Informed by these findings, we propose workflows that group these activities and adaptive nudges to increase user engagement.

Prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across medical care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically quantify the prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across a range of medical settings globally.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, Cinahl and Embase, WHOLIS, Google Scholar, and SIGLE from January 2000 to January 2019. The reference lists of eligible studies and other relevant systematic reviews were also searched.

REVIEW METHODS

Observational studies reporting preventable patient harm in medical care. The core outcomes were the prevalence, severity, and types of preventable patient harm reported as percentages and their 95% confidence intervals. Data extraction and critical appraisal were undertaken by two reviewers working independently. Random effects meta-analysis was employed followed by univariable and multivariable meta regression. Heterogeneity was quantified by using the I2 statistic, and publication bias was evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 7313 records identified, 70 studies involving 337 025 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence for preventable patient harm was 6% (95% confidence interval 5% to 7%). A pooled proportion of 12% (9% to 15%) of preventable patient harm was severe or led to death. Incidents related to drugs (25%, 95% confidence interval 16% to 34%) and other treatments (24%, 21% to 30%) accounted for the largest proportion of preventable patient harm. Compared with general hospitals (where most evidence originated), preventable patient harm was more prevalent in advanced specialties (intensive care or surgery; regression coefficient b=0.07, 95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Around one in 20 patients are exposed to preventable harm in medical care. Although a focus on preventable patient harm has been encouraged by the international patient safety policy agenda, there are limited quality improvement practices specifically targeting incidents of preventable patient harm rather than overall patient harm (preventable and non-preventable). Developing and implementing evidence-based mitigation strategies specifically targeting preventable patient harm could lead to major service quality improvements in medical care which could also be more cost effective.

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.

Evaluating the implementation and impact of a pharmacy technician-supported medicines administration service designed to reduce omitted doses in hospitals: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Of the various types of medication administration error that occur in hospitals, dose omissions are consistently reported as among the most common. It has been suggested that greater involvement from pharmacy teams could help address this problem. A pilot service, called pharmacy TECHnician supported MEDicines administration (TECHMED), was introduced in an English NHS hospital for a four-week period in order to reduce preventable medication dose omissions. The objective of this study was to evaluate the implementation, delivery and impact of the pilot TECHMED service using qualitative methods.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with pharmacy technicians, nursing staff and senior management involved with the pilot service were undertaken to evaluate TECHMED. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using the framework approach, guided by Weiss's Theory Based Evaluation model.

RESULTS

Twenty-two stakeholder interviews were conducted with 10 ward-based pharmacy technicians, nine nurses and three members of senior management. Most technicians performed a range of activities in line with the service specification, including locating drugs from a variety of sources, and identified situations where they had prevented missing doses. Nurses reported positive impacts of TECHMED on workload. However, not all technicians fully adhered to the service specification in regard to directly following nursing staff during each medication round, citing reasons related to productivity or perceived intrusiveness towards nursing staff. Some participants also reported a perceived lack of impact of TECHMED on medicine omissions. Seventeen of the 22 interviewees supported an extension of the service. There were however, concerns about the impact on technician workload and some participants advocated support for targeted service extension to wards/rounds with high schedule dose volumes and omitted dose rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study suggest that the implementation of a pharmacy technician-supported medicines administration scheme to reduce omitted doses may be acceptable to staff in an NHS hospital, and that issues with service fidelity, staff resource/capacity and perceived interventions to avoid dose omissions have important implications for the feasibility of extending the service. The study has identified targets for future development in relation to individual and system factors to improve operationalisation of technician-led initiatives to reduce medicines omissions.

Developing a learning health system: Insights from a qualitative process evaluation of a pharmacist-led electronic audit and feedback intervention to improve medication safety in primary care

INTRODUCTION

Developments in information technology offer opportunities to enhance medication safety in primary care. We evaluated the implementation and adoption of a complex pharmacist-led intervention involving the use of an electronic audit and feedback surveillance dashboard to identify patients potentially at risk of hazardous prescribing or monitoring of medicines in general practices. The intervention aimed to create a rapid learning health system for medication safety in primary care. This study aimed to explore how the intervention was implemented, adopted and embedded into practice using a qualitative process evaluation.

METHODS

Twenty two participants were purposively recruited from eighteen out of forty-three general practices receiving the intervention as well as clinical commissioning group staff across Salford UK, which reflected the range of contexts in which the intervention was implemented. Interviews explored how pharmacists and GP staff implemented the intervention and how this affected care practice. Data analysis was thematic with emerging themes developed into coding frameworks based on Normalisation Process Theory (NPT).

RESULTS

Engagement with the dashboard involved a process of sense-making in which pharmacists considered it added value to their work. The intervention helped to build respect, improve trust and develop relationships between pharmacists and GPs. Collaboration and communication between pharmacists and clinicians was primarily initiated by pharmacists and was important for establishing the intervention. The intervention operated as a rapid learning health system as it allowed for the evidence in the dashboard to be translated into changes in work practices and into transformations in care.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlighted the importance of the combined use of information technology and the role of pharmacists working in general practice settings. Medicine optimisation activities in primary care may be enhanced by the implementation of a pharmacist-led electronic audit and feedback system. This intervention established a rapid learning health system that swiftly translated data from electronic health records into changes in practice to improve patient care. Using NPT provided valuable insights into the ways in which developing relationships, collaborations and communication between health professionals could lead to the implementation, adoption and sustainability of the intervention.

What causes medication administration errors in a mental health hospital? A qualitative study with nursing staff

Objective

Medication administration errors (MAEs) are a common risk to patient safety in mental health hospitals, but an absence of in-depth studies to understand the underlying causes of these errors limits the development of effective remedial interventions. This study aimed to investigate the causes of MAEs affecting inpatients in a mental health National Health Service (NHS) hospital in the North West of England.

Methods

Registered and student mental health nurses working in inpatient psychiatric units were identified using a combination of direct advertisement and incident reports and invited to participate in semi-structured interviews utilising the critical incident technique. Interviews were designed to capture the participants’ experiences of inpatient MAEs. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and subject to framework analysis to illuminate the underlying active failures, error/violation-provoking conditions and latent failures according to Reason’s model of accident causation.

Results

A total of 20 participants described 26 MAEs (including 5 near misses) during the interviews. The majority of MAEs were skill-based slips and lapses (n = 16) or mistakes (n = 5), and were caused by a variety of interconnecting error/violation-provoking conditions relating to the patient, medicines used, medicines administration task, health care team, individual nurse and working environment. Some of these local conditions had origins in wider organisational latent failures. Recurrent and influential themes included inadequate staffing levels, unbalanced staff skill mix, interruptions/distractions, concerns with how the medicines administration task was approached and problems with communication.

Conclusions

To our knowledge this is the first published in-depth qualitative study to investigate the underlying causes of specific MAEs in a mental health hospital. Our findings revealed that MAEs may arise due to multiple interacting error and violation provoking conditions and latent ‘system’ failures, which emphasises the complexity of this everyday task facing practitioners in clinical practice. Future research should focus on developing and testing interventions which address key local and wider organisational ‘systems’ failures to reduce error.

Understanding the causes of intravenous medication administration errors in hospitals: a qualitative critical incident study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the underlying causes of intravenous medication administration errors (MAEs) in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals.

SETTING

Two NHS teaching hospitals in the North West of England.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty nurses working in a range of inpatient clinical environments were identified and recruited using purposive sampling at each study site.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Semistructured interviews were conducted with nurse participants using the critical incident technique, where they were asked to discuss perceived causes of intravenous MAEs that they had been directly involved with. Transcribed interviews were analysed using the Framework approach and emerging themes were categorised according to Reason's model of accident causation.

RESULTS

In total, 21 intravenous MAEs were discussed containing 23 individual active failures which included slips and lapses (n=11), mistakes (n=8) and deliberate violations of policy (n=4). Each active failure was associated with a range of error and violation provoking conditions. The working environment was implicated when nurses lacked healthcare team support and/or were exposed to a perceived increased workload during ward rounds, shift changes or emergencies. Nurses frequently reported that the quality of intravenous dose-checking activities was compromised due to high perceived workload and working relationships. Nurses described using approaches such as subconscious functioning and prioritising to manage their duties, which at times contributed to errors.

CONCLUSIONS

Complex interactions between active and latent failures can lead to intravenous MAEs in hospitals. Future interventions may need to be multimodal in design in order to mitigate these risks and reduce the burden of intravenous MAEs.

Impact of interventions designed to reduce medication administration errors in hospitals: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is a need to identify effective interventions to minimize the threat posed by medication administration errors (MAEs).

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to review and critically appraise interventions designed to reduce MAEs in the hospital setting.

DATA SOURCES

Ten electronic databases were searched between 1985 and November 2013.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled trials (CTs) reporting rates of MAEs or related adverse drug events between an intervention group and a comparator group were included. Data from each study were independently extracted and assessed for potential risk of bias by two authors. Risk ratios (RRs, with 95 % confidence intervals [CIs]) were used to examine the effect of an intervention.

RESULTS

Six RCTs and seven CTs were included. Types of interventions clustered around four main themes: medication use technology (n = 4); nurse education and training (n = 3); changing practice in anesthesia (n = 2); and ward system changes (n = 4). Reductions in MAE rates were reported by five studies; these included automated drug dispensing (RR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.53-1.00), computerized physician order entry (RR 0.51, 95 % 0.40-0.66), barcode-assisted medication administration with electronic administration records (RR 0.71, 95 % CI 0.53-0.95), nursing education/training using simulation (RR 0.17, 95 % CI 0.08-0.38), and clinical pharmacist-led training (RR 0.76, 95 % CI 0.67-0.87). Increased or equivocal outcome rates were found for the remaining studies. Weaknesses in the internal or external validity were apparent for most included studies.

LIMITATIONS

Theses and conference proceedings were excluded and data produced outside commercial publishing were not searched.

CONCLUSIONS

There is emerging evidence of the impact of specific interventions to reduce MAEs in hospitals, which warrant further investigation using rigorous and standardized study designs. Theory-driven efforts to understand the underlying causes of MAEs may lead to more effective interventions in the future.

Prevalence, nature and predictors of prescribing errors in mental health hospitals: a prospective multicentre study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence, nature and predictors of prescribing errors (PEs) in three mental health hospitals.

SETTING

Inpatient units in three National Health Service (NHS) mental health hospitals in the North West of England.

PARTICIPANTS

Trained clinical pharmacists prospectively recorded the number of PEs in newly written or omitted prescription items screened during their routine work on 10 data collection days. A multidisciplinary panel reviewed PE data using established methods to confirm (1) the presence of a PE, (2) the type of PE and (3) whether errors were clinically relevant and likely to cause harm.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Frequency, nature and predictors of PEs.

RESULTS

Of 4427 screened prescription items, 281 were found to have one or more PEs (error rate 6.3% (95% CI 5.6 to 7.1%)). Multivariate analysis revealed that specialty trainees (OR 1.23 (1.01 to 1.51)) and staff grade psychiatrists (OR 1.50 (1.05 to 2.13)) were more likely to make PEs when compared to foundation year (FY) one doctors, and that specialty trainees and consultant psychiatrists were twice as likely to make clinically relevant PEs (OR 2.61 (2.11 to 3.22) and 2.03 (1.66 to 2.50), respectively) compared to FY one staff. Prescription items screened during the prescription chart rewrite (OR 0.52 (0.33 to 0.82)) or at discharge (OR 0.87 (0.79 to 0.97)) were less likely to be associated with PEs than items assessed during inpatient stay, although they were more likely to be associated with clinically relevant PEs (OR 2.27 (1.72 to 2.99) and 4.23 (3.68 to 4.87), respectively). Prescription items screened at hospital admission were five times more likely (OR 5.39 (2.72 to 10.69)) to be associated with clinically relevant errors than those screened during patient stay.

CONCLUSIONS

PEs may be more common in mental health hospitals than previously reported and important targets to minimise these errors have been identified.

Causes of medication administration errors in hospitals: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence

BACKGROUND

Underlying systems factors have been seen to be crucial contributors to the occurrence of medication errors. By understanding the causes of these errors, the most appropriate interventions can be designed and implemented to minimise their occurrence.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to systematically review and appraise empirical evidence relating to the causes of medication administration errors (MAEs) in hospital settings.

DATA SOURCES

Nine electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, ASSIA, PsycINFO, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, Health Management Information Consortium and Social Science Citations Index) were searched between 1985 and May 2013.

STUDY SELECTION

Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to identify eligible publications through title analysis followed by abstract and then full text examination. English language publications reporting empirical data on causes of MAEs were included. Reference lists of included articles and relevant review papers were hand searched for additional studies. Studies were excluded if they did not report data on specific MAEs, used accounts from individuals not directly involved in the MAE concerned or were presented as conference abstracts with insufficient detail.

DATA APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

A total of 54 unique studies were included. Causes of MAEs were categorised according to Reason's model of accident causation. Studies were assessed to determine relevance to the research question and how likely the results were to reflect the potential underlying causes of MAEs based on the method(s) used.

RESULTS

Slips and lapses were the most commonly reported unsafe acts, followed by knowledge-based mistakes and deliberate violations. Error-provoking conditions influencing administration errors included inadequate written communication (prescriptions, documentation, transcription), problems with medicines supply and storage (pharmacy dispensing errors and ward stock management), high perceived workload, problems with ward-based equipment (access, functionality), patient factors (availability, acuity), staff health status (fatigue, stress) and interruptions/distractions during drug administration. Few studies sought to determine the causes of intravenous MAEs. A number of latent pathway conditions were less well explored, including local working culture and high-level managerial decisions. Causes were often described superficially; this may be related to the use of quantitative surveys and observation methods in many studies, limited use of established error causation frameworks to analyse data and a predominant focus on issues other than the causes of MAEs among studies.

LIMITATIONS

As only English language publications were included, some relevant studies may have been missed.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence from studies included in this systematic review suggests that MAEs are influenced by multiple systems factors, but if and how these arise and interconnect to lead to errors remains to be fully determined. Further research with a theoretical focus is needed to investigate the MAE causation pathway, with an emphasis on ensuring interventions designed to minimise MAEs target recognised underlying causes of errors to maximise their impact.

Prevalence and Nature of Medication Administration Errors in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review of Direct Observational Evidence

OBJECTIVE:

To systematically review empirical evidence on the prevalence and nature of medication administration errors (MAEs) in health care settings.

DATA SOURCES:

Ten electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Scopus, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, PsycINFO, Cochrane Reviews and Trials, British Nursing Index, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Health Management Information Consortium) were searched (1985-May 2012).

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION:

English-language publications reporting MAE data using the direct observation method were included, providing an error rate could be determined. Reference lists of all included articles were screened for additional studies.

DATA SYNTHESIS:

In all, 91 unique studies were included. The median error rate (interquartile range) was 19.6% (8.6–28.3%) of total opportunities for error including wrong-time errors and 8.0% (5.1–10.9%) without timing errors, when each dose could be considered only correct or incorrect. The median rate of error when more than 1 error could be counted per dose was 25.6% (20.8–41.7%) and 20.7% (9.7–30.3%), excluding wrong-time errors. A higher median MAE rate was observed for the intravenous route (53.3% excluding timing errors (IQR 26.6–57.9%)) compared to when all administration routes were studied (20.1%; 9.0–24.6%), where each dose could accumulate more than one error. Studies consistently reported wrong time, omission, and wrong dosage among the 3 most common MAE subtypes. Common medication groups associated with MAEs were those affecting nutrition and blood, gastrointestinal system, cardiovascular system, central nervous system, and antiinfectives. Medication administration error rates varied greatly as a product of differing medication error definitions, data collection methods, and settings of included studies. Although MAEs remained a common occurrence in health care settings throughout the time covered by this review, potential targets for intervention to minimize MAEs were identified.

CONCLUSIONS:

Future research should attend to the wide methodological inconsistencies between studies to gain a greater measure of comparability to help guide any forthcoming interventions.