Using sociotechnical theory to understand medication safety work in primary care and prescribers' use of clinical decision support: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: The concept of safety work draws attention to the intentional work of ensuring safety within care systems. Clinical decision support (CDS) has been designed to enhance medication safety in primary care by providing decision-making support to prescribers. Sociotechnical theory understands that healthcare settings are complex and dynamically connected systems of fluid networks, human agents, changing relationships and social processes. This study aimed to understand the relationship between safety work and the use of CDS. DESIGN AND SETTING: This qualitative study took place across nine different general practices in England. Stakeholders included general practitioners (GPs) and general practice-based pharmacists and nurse prescribers. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to illicit how the system was used by the participants in the context of medication safety work. Data analysis conducted alongside data collection was thematic and drew on socio-technical theory. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-three interviews were conducted with 14 GPs, three nurse prescribers and three practice pharmacists between February 2018 and June 2020. RESULTS: Safety work was contextually situated in a complex network of relationships. Three interconnected themes were interpreted from the data: (1) the use of CDS within organisational and social practices and workflows; (2) safety work and the use of CDS within the interplay between prescribers, patients and populations; and (3) the affordances embedded in CDS systems. CONCLUSION: The use of sociotechnical theory here extends current thinking in patient safety particularly in the ways that safety work was co-constituted with the use of CDS alerts. This has implications for implementation and use to ensure that the contexts into which such CDS systems are implemented are taken into account. Understanding how alerts can adapt safety culture will help improve the efficacy of CDS systems, enhance prescribing safety and help to further understand how safety work is achieved in primary care.

Medication safety in primary care-from measurement to action.

Topics for DTB review articles are selected by DTB's editorial board to provide concise overviews of medicines and other treatments to help patients get the best care. Articles include a summary of key points and a brief overview for patients. Articles may also have a series of multiple choice CME questions.

Influences on the adoption of patient safety innovation in primary care: a qualitative exploration of staff perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Primary care is changing rapidly to meet the needs of an ageing and chronically ill population. New ways of working are called for yet the introduction of innovative service interventions is complicated by organisational challenges arising from its scale and diversity and the growing complexity of patients and their care. One such intervention is the multi-strand, single platform, Patient Safety Toolkit developed to help practices provide safer care in this dynamic and pressured environment where the likelihood of adverse incidents is increasing. Here we describe the attitudes of staff toward these tools and how their implementation was shaped by a number of contextual factors specific to each practice. METHODS: The Patient Safety Toolkit comprised six tools; a system of rapid note review, an online staff survey, a patient safety questionnaire, prescribing safety indicators, a medicines reconciliation tool, and a safe systems checklist. We implemented these tools at practices across the Midlands, the North West, and the South Coast of England and conducted semi-structured interviews to determine staff perspectives on their effectiveness and applicability. RESULTS: The Toolkit was used in 46 practices and a total of 39 follow-up interviews were conducted. Three key influences emerged on the implementation of the Toolkit these related to their ease of use and the novelty of the information they provide; whether their implementation required additional staff training or practice resource; and finally factors specific to the practice's local environment such as overlapping initiatives orchestrated by their CCG. CONCLUSIONS: The concept of a balanced toolkit to address a range of safety issues proved popular. A number of barriers and facilitators emerged in particular those tools that provided relevant information with a minimum impact on practice resource were favoured. Individual practice circumstances also played a role. Practices with IT aware staff were at an advantage and those previously utilising patient safety initiatives were less likely to adopt additional tools with overlapping outputs. By acknowledging these influences we can better interpret reaction to and adoption of individual elements of the toolkit and optimise future implementation.

Rehabilitation aimed at improving outdoor mobility for people after stroke: a multicentre randomised controlled study (the Getting out of the House Study).

BACKGROUND: One-third of stroke patients are dependent on others to get outside their homes. This can cause people to become housebound, leading to increased immobility, poor health, isolation and misery. There is some evidence that outdoor mobility rehabilitation can reduce these limitations. OBJECTIVE: To test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an outdoor mobility rehabilitation intervention for stroke patients. DESIGN: Multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial, with two groups allocated at a 1 : 1 ratio plus qualitative participant interviews. SETTING: Fifteen UK NHS stroke services throughout England, Scotland and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 568 stroke patients who wished to get out of the house more often, mean age of 71 years: 508 reached the 6-month follow-up and 10 were interviewed. INTERVENTION: Control was delivered prior to randomisation to all participants, and consisted of verbal advice and transport and outdoor mobility leaflets. Intervention was a targeted outdoor mobility rehabilitation programme delivered by 29 NHS therapists to 287 randomly chosen participants for up to 12 sessions over 4 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was participant health-related quality of life, measured by the Short Form questionnaire-36 items, version 2 (Social Function domain), 6 months after baseline. Secondary outcomes were functional ability, mobility, number of journeys (from monthly travel diaries), satisfaction with outdoor mobility (SWOM), psychological well-being and resource use [health care and Personal Social Services (PSS)] 6 months after baseline. Carer well-being was recorded. All outcome measures were collected by post and repeated 12 months after baseline. Outcomes for the groups were compared using statistical significance testing and adjusted for multiple membership to account for the effect of multiple therapists at different sites. Interviews were analysed using interpretive phenomenology to explore confidence. RESULTS: A median of seven intervention sessions [interquartile range (IQR) 3-7 sessions], median duration of 369 minutes (IQR 170-691.5 minutes) per participant was delivered. There was no significant difference between the groups on health-related quality of life (social function). There were no significant differences between groups in functional ability, psychological well-being or SWOM at 6- or 12-month follow-ups. There was a significant difference observed for travel journeys with the intervention group being 42% more likely to make a journey compared with the control group [rate ratio 1.42, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.14 to 1.67] at 6 months and 76% more likely (rate ratio 1.76, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.95) at 12 months. The number of journeys was affected by the therapist effect. The mean incremental cost (total NHS and PSS cost) of the intervention was £3413.75 (95% CI -£448.43 to £7121.00), with an incremental quality-adjusted life-year gain of -0.027 (95% CI -0.060 to 0.007) according to the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions and -0.003 (95% CI -0.016 to 0.006) according to the Short Form questionnaire-6 Dimensions. At baseline, 259 out of 281 (92.2%) participants in the control group were dissatisfied with outdoor mobility but at the 6-month assessment this had reduced to 77.7% (181/233), a 15% reduction. The corresponding reduction in the intervention group was slightly greater (21%) than 268 out of 287 (93.4%) participants dissatisfied with outdoor mobility at baseline to 189 out of 261 (72.4%) at 6 months. Participants described losing confidence after stroke as being detrimental to outdoor mobility. Recruitment and retention rates were high. The intervention was deliverable by the NHS but had a neutral effect in all areas apart from potentially increasing the number of journeys. This was dependent on the therapist effect, meaning that some therapists were more successful than others. The control appeared to affect change. CONCLUSIONS: The outdoor mobility intervention provided in this study to these stroke patients was not clinically effective or cost-effective. However, the provision of personalised information and monthly diaries should be considered for all people who wish to get out more. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN58683841. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A multi-centre randomised controlled trial of rehabilitation aimed at improving outdoor mobility for people after stroke: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Up to 42% of all stroke patients do not get out of the house as much as they would like. This can impede a person's quality of life. This study is testing the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a new outdoor mobility rehabilitation intervention by comparing it to usual care. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multi-centre parallel group individually randomised, controlled trial. At least 506 participants will be recruited through 15 primary and secondary care settings and will be eligible if they are over 18 years of age, have had a stroke and wish to get out of the house more often. Participants are being randomly allocated to either the intervention group or the control group. Intervention group participants receive up to 12 rehabilitation outdoor mobility sessions over up to four months. The main component of the intervention is repeated practice of outdoor mobility with a therapist. Control group participants are receiving the usual intervention for outdoor mobility limitations: verbal advice and provision of leaflets provided over one session.Outcome measures are being collected using postal questionnaires, travel calendars and by independent assessors. The primary outcome measure is the Social Function domain of the SF36v2 quality of life assessment six months after recruitment. The secondary outcome measures include: functional ability, mobility, the number of journeys (monthly travel diaries), satisfaction with outdoor mobility, mood, health-related quality of life, resource use of health and social care. Carer mood information is also being collected.The mean Social Function score of the SF-36v2 will be compared between treatment arms using a multiple membership form of mixed effects multiple regression analysis adjusting for centre (as a fixed effect), age and baseline Social Function score as covariates and therapist as a multiple membership random effect. Regression coefficients and 95% confidence intervals will be presented. DISCUSSION: This study protocol describes a pragmatic randomised controlled trial that will hopefully provide robust evidence of the benefit of outdoor mobility interventions after stroke for clinicians working in the community. The results will be available towards the end of 2012. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN58683841.

Further challenges to medical dominance? The case of nurse and pharmacist supplementary prescribing.

Doctors have traditionally been viewed as the dominant healthcare profession, with the authority to prescribe medicines, but recent non-medical prescribing initiatives have been viewed as possible challenges to such dominance. Using the example of the introduction of supplementary prescribing in the UK, this study sought to explore whether such initiatives represent a challenge to medical authority. Ten case study sites in England involving primary and secondary care and a range of clinical areas were used to undertake a total of 77 observations of supplementary prescribing consultations and interviews with 28 patients, 11 doctors and nurse and pharmacist prescribers at each site. Supplementary prescribing was viewed positively by all participants but several doctors and patients appeared to lack awareness and understanding of supplementary prescribing. Continued medical authority was supported empirically in five areas: patients' and supplementary prescribers' perception of doctors as being hierarchically superior; doctors legitimation of nurses' and pharmacists' prescribing initially; doctors' belief that they could control (particularly nurses') access to prescribing training; supplementary prescribers' frequent recourse to use doctors' advice, coupled with doctors' encouragement of such 'knock on door' prescribing advice policies; doctors' denigration of most routine prescribing but claims that diagnosis was more skilled and key to medicine. Supplementary prescribing appeared to be successfully accomplished in practice in a range of clinical settings and was acceptable to all involved but did not ultimately challenge medical dominance. However, more recent nurse and pharmacist independent prescribing (involving diagnosis) may represent a more significant threat.

Urinary incontinence management in women: audit in general practice.

OBJECTIVES: In several Western European countries guidelines regarding urinary incontinence (UI) management in general practice have been drawn up. The aim of this study was to evaluate guideline adherence with feedback in general practice in order to improve UI management. METHODS: First, a retrospective audit of female patient records was performed with Egton Medical Information System compared with the NICE Guideline regarding UI. Between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2006 patients, 18-65 years of age, with newly diagnosed UI (ICPC U04) were included in two general practices in Nottingham, UK. Second, results were presented to the general practitioners (GPs) in a feedback session. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were identified to have newly reported UI. Gynaecological examination was performed in 51% of cases. Additionally, in 40% of patients a urine sample was obtained for dipstick. Follow-up was performed in 34% of the 65 cases. During a feedback session GPs became aware they do not adhere to these guideline items consistently. Patients often report UI as final after several other problems during one single consultation. CONCLUSION: Most women with UI were not managed according to the NICE Guideline. Audit feedback created awareness of current UI management in general practice and can therefore be used in improving UI management.

Stakeholders' views of UK nurse and pharmacist supplementary prescribing.

OBJECTIVES: Supplementary prescribing (SP) by pharmacists and nurses in the UK represents a unique approach to improving patients' access to medicines and better utilizing health care professionals' skills. Study aims were to explore the views of stakeholders involved in SP policy, training and practice, focusing upon issues such as SP benefits, facilitators, challenges, safety and costs, thereby informing future practice and policy. METHOD: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 43 purposively sampled UK stakeholders, including pharmacist and nurse supplementary prescribers, doctors, patient groups representatives, academics and policy developers. Analysis of transcribed interviews was undertaken using a process of constant comparison and framework analysis, with coding of emergent themes. RESULTS: Stakeholders generally viewed SP positively and perceived benefits in terms of improved access to medicines and fewer delays, along with a range of facilitators and barriers to the implementation of this form of non-medical prescribing. Stakeholders' views on the economic impact of SP varied, but safety concerns were not considered significant. Future challenges and implications for policy included SP being potentially superseded by independent nurse and pharmacist prescribing, and the need to improve awareness of SP. Several potential tensions emerged including nurses' versus pharmacists' existing skills and training needs, supplementary versus independent prescribing, SP theory versus practice and prescribers versus non-prescribing peers. CONCLUSION: SP appeared to be broadly welcomed by stakeholders and was perceived to offer patient benefits. Several years after its introduction in the UK, stakeholders still perceived several implementation barriers and challenges and these, together with various tensions identified, might affect the success of supplementary and other forms of non-medical prescribing.

Nonmedical prescribing in the United kingdom: developments and stakeholder interests.

This article reflects upon the introduction of nonmedical prescribing in the United Kingdom and describes the historical developments within the National Health Service over the last 2 decades, together with an assessment of the impact of this prescribing for various stakeholders, drawing upon relevant research. We argue that a number of issues are associated with the introduction and development of nonmedical prescribing, including benefits to patients, the promise of increased autonomy for professions such as nursing and pharmacy, explicit and implicit government objectives, and threats to medical dominance and autonomy.

Nurse and pharmacist supplementary prescribing in the UK--a thematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVES: Supplementary prescribing (SP) represents a recent development in non-medical prescribing in the UK, involving a tripartite agreement between independent medical prescriber, dependent prescriber and patient, enabling the dependent prescriber to prescribe in accordance with a patient-specific clinical management plan (CMP). The aim in this paper is to review, thematically, the literature on nurse and pharmacist SP, to inform further research, policy and education. METHODS: A review of the nursing and pharmacy SP literature from 1997 to 2007 was undertaken using searches of electronic databases, grey literature and journal hand searches. RESULTS: Nurses and pharmacists were positive about SP but the medical profession were more critical and lacked awareness/understanding, according to the identified literature. SP was identified in many clinical settings but implementation barriers emerged from the empirical and anecdotal literature, including funding problems, delays in practicing and obtaining prescription pads, encumbering clinical management plans and access to records. Empirical studies were often methodological weaknesses and under-evaluation of safety, economic analysis and patients' experiences were identified in empirical studies. There was a perception that nurse and pharmacist independent prescribing may supersede supplementary prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for additional research regarding SP and despite nurses' and pharmacists' enthusiasm, implementation issues, medical apathy and independent prescribing potentially undermine the success of SP.