Combining research and design: A mixed methods approach aimed at understanding and optimising inpatient medication storage systems.

BACKGROUND: Almost every patient admitted to hospital will receive medication during their stay. Medication errors are an important cause of patient morbidity and mortality, as well as an economic burden for healthcare institutions. Research suggests that current methods of storing medication on hospital wards are not fit for purpose, contributing to inefficiency and error. AIM: To improve medication storage in inpatient areas, by exploring variation and challenges related to medication storage and designing a prototype solution. METHODS: Set in four hospitals in an English teaching hospital trust, the study used a mixed methods approach comprising a quantitative descriptive survey of storage facilities and practices followed by mixed methods observations of medication rounds and interviews with patients, nurses and pharmacy staff. Quantitative data were presented descriptively and qualitative data analysed thematically and using a human-centered design approach. RESULTS: We identified wide variation in medication storage facilities and practices across 77 wards. Observations and staff interviews in six wards revealed five problem areas: poor management of multiple storage facilities; lack of visibility and organisation of medication within trolleys; inadequate size of storage; lack of ownership and knowledge of standard practice; and use of key locks. Patients were largely satisfied with receiving their medication. Systematic and consistent physical organisation of medication in medication trolleys, and integrating and implementing principles of best practice, were identified as areas for intervention. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Variation in medication storage facilities and practices existed both across the organization and on individual wards. Multiple challenges were identified in how medication was stored, which if addressed may improve the efficiency and safety of medication administration and in turn, staff and patient experience. The use of design principles alongside a research approach resulted in a rapid, iterative process for developing and refining potential solutions to improve inpatient medication storage.

Improving feedback on junior doctors' prescribing errors: mixed-methods evaluation of a quality improvement project.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing errors occur in up to 15% of UK inpatient medication orders. However, junior doctors report insufficient feedback on errors. A barrier preventing feedback is that individual prescribers often cannot be clearly identified on prescribing documentation. AIM: To reduce prescribing errors in a UK hospital by improving feedback on prescribing errors. INTERVENTIONS: We developed three linked interventions using plan-do-study-act cycles: (1) name stamps for junior doctors who were encouraged to stamp or write their name clearly when prescribing; (2) principles of effective feedback to support pharmacists to provide feedback to doctors on individual prescribing errors and (3) fortnightly prescribing advice emails that addressed a common and/or serious error. IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION: Interventions were introduced at one hospital site in August 2013 with a second acting as control. Process measures included the percentage of inpatient medication orders for which junior doctors stated their name. Outcome measures were junior doctors' and pharmacists' perceptions of current feedback provision (evaluated using quantitative pre-questionnaires and post-questionnaires and qualitative focus groups) and the prevalence of erroneous medication orders written by junior doctors between August and December 2013. RESULTS: The percentage of medication orders for which junior doctors stated their name increased from about 10% to 50%. Questionnaire responses revealed a significant improvement in pharmacists' perceptions but no significant change for doctors. Focus group findings suggested increased doctor engagement with safe prescribing. Interrupted time series analysis showed no difference in weekly prescribing error rates between baseline and intervention periods, compared with the control site. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest improved experiences around feedback. However, attempts to produce a measurable reduction in prescribing errors are likely to need a multifaceted approach of which feedback should form part.

The Role of Hospital Inpatients in Supporting Medication Safety: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient medication errors are a significant concern. An approach not yet widely studied is to facilitate greater involvement of inpatients with their medication. At the same time, electronic prescribing is becoming increasingly prevalent in the hospital setting. In this study we aimed to explore hospital inpatients' involvement with medication safety-related behaviours, facilitators and barriers to this involvement, and the impact of electronic prescribing. METHODS: We conducted ethnographic observations and interviews in two UK hospital organisations, one with established electronic prescribing and one that changed from paper to electronic prescribing during our study. Researchers and lay volunteers observed nurses' medication administration rounds, pharmacists' ward rounds, doctor-led ward rounds and drug history taking. We also conducted interviews with healthcare professionals, patients and carers. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Observation notes and transcripts were coded thematically. RESULTS: Paper or electronic medication records were shown to patients in only 4 (2%) of 247 cases. However, where they were available during patient-healthcare professional interactions, healthcare professionals often viewed them in order to inform patients about their medicines and answer any questions. Interprofessional discussions about medicines seemed more likely to happen in front of the patient where paper or electronic drug charts were available near the bedside. Patients and carers had more access to paper-based drug charts than electronic equivalents. However, interviews and observations suggest there are potentially more significant factors that affect patient involvement with their inpatient medication. These include patient and healthcare professional beliefs concerning patient involvement, the way in which healthcare professionals operate as a team, and the underlying culture. CONCLUSION: Patients appear to have more access to paper-based records than electronic equivalents. However, to develop interventions to increase patient involvement with medication safety behaviours, a wider range of factors needs to be considered.

Omitted doses as an unintended consequence of a hospital restricted antibacterial system: a retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine the frequency of omitted doses of antibacterial agents and explore a number of risk factors, including the effect of a restricted antibacterial system. METHODS: Antibacterial data were extracted from a hospital electronic prescribing and medication administration system for the period 1 January to 30 April 2014. Percentage dose omission rates were calculated. Omission rates for the first dose of antibacterial courses were analysed using logistic regression to identify any correlation between first dose omission rates and potential risk factors, including the antibacterials' restriction status and whether or not they were ward stock. RESULTS: The study included 90 761 antibacterial doses. Of these, 6535 (7.2%) were documented as having been omitted; omission of 847 (0.9% of 90 761) was due to medication being unavailable. Non-restricted, ward stock antibacterials had the lowest frequency of omission, with 6.2% (271 of 4391) first doses omitted. The prevalence was 10.4% (27 of 260) for restricted, ward-stock antibacterials (OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.0-2.4, P = 0.027) and 15.5% (53 of 341) for non-restricted, non-ward stock antibacterials (OR = 2.7, 95% CI = 2.0-3.7, P < 0.001). Restricted, non-ward stock antibacterials had the highest frequency (30.7%, 71 of 231; OR = 6.2, 95% CI = 4.5-8.4, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Antibacterials not stocked in clinical areas were significantly more likely to be omitted. The prevalence of omitted doses increased further if the antibiotic was also restricted. To achieve safe, effective antimicrobial use, a balance is needed between promoting antimicrobial stewardship and preventing unintended omitted doses.

Patient and public involvement in data collection for health services research: a descriptive study.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: There is a consensus that patients and the public should be involved in research in a meaningful way. To date, lay people have been mostly involved in developing research ideas and commenting on patient information but not as much in actual data collection. We have had firsthand experience with lay people helping to conduct a study on how patients in hospital are involved with their medicines. In the first part of this study, we observed doctors' ward rounds, pharmacists' ward visits and nurses' drug administration rounds, to find out if and how healthcare professionals interacted with patients about their medicines. Lay people conducted some of these observations. We wanted to explore the benefits and challenges of having lay people conduct these observations, to tell us more about how lay people can be involved in conducting such research. We interviewed the lay members and researchers involved in this research to find out their views. We also looked at the observation notes to identify what the lay people had noticed that the researchers had not. The lay members and researchers reported that lay members added value to the study by bringing new perspectives. Lay people had noticed some different things to the researchers. We experienced some challenges which need to be addressed. These weregetting the lay observers registered with the hospitals to allow them to be on the wards in this capacitylay observers and researchers having different understanding of research procedures such as patient consenttrying to find lay observers of different backgrounds and ethnic groups. ABSTRACT: Background: It is recognised that involving lay people with research in a meaningful rather than tokenistic way is both important and challenging. In a recent health services research study addressing inpatient involvement in medication safety, we sought to overcome this challenge by including lay people in collecting observational data in the hospital setting. The aim of this study was to evaluate lay and researcher perspectives on lay involvement in data collection in order to inform and enhance the future role of lay people in carrying out health services research. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with the lay members who collected observational data in our wider study and the researchers who provided support and/or were involved in their recruitment and training. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded using open thematic analysis. In addition, we conducted secondary analysis of the observational data to identify the specific contributions of lay observers. Results: We interviewed the three lay members and the four researchers involved. Both these interviews and the secondary data analysis demonstrated that the lay members added value to the study by bringing additional general perspectives on communication with hospital inpatients. Combined with researchers' perspectives on interactions more specifically related to medication, this provided a broader answer to our research question of how healthcare professionals facilitate inpatient understanding of their medication and involvement in medication safety. This contrasted to the involvement lay observers reported having in previous research where their role had been more consultative. The lay members all reported that carrying out the observations had been an interesting and informative experience. Some challenges arose including the infrastructure not having been in place to support this specialist lay research role, differing paradigms of research governance held by the public and researchers in relation to consent procedures and difficulties in recruiting a diverse range of members of the public to carry out the role. Conclusions: Lay members can add value to research by being involved in data collection within health services research. There is a need to build infrastructure to better support this involvement.

A descriptive exploratory study of how admissions caused by medication-related harm are documented within inpatients' medical records.

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug reactions, poor patient adherence and errors, here collectively referred to as medication-related harm (MRH), cause around 2.7-8.0% of UK hospital admissions. Communication gaps between successive healthcare providers exist, but little is known about how MRH is recorded in inpatients' medical records. We describe the presence and quality of MRH documentation for patients admitted to a London teaching hospital due to MRH. Additionally, the international classification of disease 10th revision (ICD-10) codes attributed to confirmed MRH-related admissions were studied to explore appropriateness of their use to identify these patients. METHODS: Clinical pharmacists working on an admissions ward in a UK hospital identified patients admitted due to suspected MRH. Six different data sources in each patient's medical record, including the discharge summary, were subsequently examined for MRH-related information. Each data source was examined for statements describing the MRH: symptom and diagnosis, identification of the causative agent, and a statement of the action taken or considered. Statements were categorised as 'explicit' if unambiguous or 'implicit' if open to interpretation. ICD-10 codes attributed to confirmed MRH cases were recorded. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were identified over 141 data collection days; 75 met our inclusion criteria. MRH documentation was generally present (855 of 1307 statements were identified; 65%), and usually explicit (705 of 855; 82%). The causative agent had the lowest proportion of explicit statements (139 of 201 statements were explicit; 69%). For two (3%) discharged patients, the causal agent was documented in their paper medical record but not on the discharge summary. Of 64 patients with a confirmed MRH diagnosis at discharge, only six (9%) had a MRH-related ICD-10 code. CONCLUSIONS: Availability of information in the paper medical record needs improving and communication of MRH-related information could be enhanced by using explicit statements and documenting reasons for changing medications. ICD-10 codes underestimate the true occurrence of MRH.

The use and functionality of electronic prescribing systems in english acute NHS trusts: a cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: To describe current use of electronic prescribing (EP) in English acute NHS hospital trusts, and the use of multiple EP systems within the same hospital. DESIGN: Descriptive cross-sectional postal survey. SETTING: Acute NHS hospital trusts in England. PARTICIPANTS: The survey was sent to chief pharmacists in all acute English NHS hospital trusts in 2011. Where trusts comprised multiple hospitals, respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire for their main acute hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of EP use in acute NHS hospitals; number of different EP systems in each hospital; stages of the patient pathway in which EP used; extent of deployment across the hospital; comprehensiveness regarding the drugs prescribed; decision support functionalities used. RESULTS: We received responses from 101 trusts (61%). Seventy (69%) respondent hospitals had at least one form of EP in use. More than half (39;56%) of hospitals with EP had more than one system in use, representing 60 different systems. The most common were systems used only for discharge prescribing, used in 48 (48% of respondent hospitals). Specialist chemotherapy EP systems were second most common (34; 34%). Sixteen specialist inpatient systems were used across 15 hospitals, most commonly in adult critical care. Only 13 (13%) respondents used inpatient electronic prescribing across all adult medical and surgical wards. Overall, 24 (40%) systems were developed 'in-house'. Decision support functionality varied widely. CONCLUSIONS: It is UK government policy to encourage the adoption of EP in hospitals. Our work shows that EP is prevalent in English hospitals, although often in limited clinical areas and for limited types of prescribing. The diversity of systems in use, often within the same hospital, may create challenges for staff training and patient safety.

Feedback on prescribing errors to junior doctors: exploring views, problems and preferred methods.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing errors are common in hospital inpatients. However, the literature suggests that doctors are often unaware of their errors as they are not always informed of them. It has been suggested that providing more feedback to prescribers may reduce subsequent error rates. Only few studies have investigated the views of prescribers towards receiving such feedback, or the views of hospital pharmacists as potential feedback providers. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to explore the views of junior doctors and hospital pharmacists regarding feedback on individual doctors' prescribing errors. Objectives were to determine how feedback was currently provided and any associated problems, to explore views on other approaches to feedback, and to make recommendations for designing suitable feedback systems. SETTING: A large London NHS hospital trust. METHODS: To explore views on current and possible feedback mechanisms, self-administered questionnaires were given to all junior doctors and pharmacists, combining both 5-point Likert scale statements and open-ended questions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement scores for statements regarding perceived prescribing error rates, opinions on feedback, barriers to feedback, and preferences for future practice. RESULTS: Response rates were 49% (37/75) for junior doctors and 57% (57/100) for pharmacists. In general, doctors did not feel threatened by feedback on their prescribing errors. They felt that feedback currently provided was constructive but often irregular and insufficient. Most pharmacists provided feedback in various ways; however some did not or were inconsistent. They were willing to provide more feedback, but did not feel it was always effective or feasible due to barriers such as communication problems and time constraints. Both professional groups preferred individual feedback with additional regular generic feedback on common or serious errors. CONCLUSION: Feedback on prescribing errors was valued and acceptable to both professional groups. From the results, several suggested methods of providing feedback on prescribing errors emerged. Addressing barriers such as the identification of individual prescribers would facilitate feedback in practice. Research investigating whether or not feedback reduces the subsequent error rate is now needed.

The evaluation of a novel model of providing ward pharmacy services.

BACKGROUND: In UK hospitals, traditional ward pharmacy services involve pharmacists visiting their wards once or twice a day each weekday. However, to provide a more patient orientated ward pharmacy service, we developed the Imperial Model of Ward Pharmacy. This is based on pharmacists seeing every drug chart every other day, allowing increased focus towards patients' needs on other days. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the Imperial Model of Ward Pharmacy on the prevalence of new medication orders that have not been screened by pharmacists, and doses omitted due to medication being unavailable. METHOD: We conducted an uncontrolled before-and-after study on eight medical wards. In each phase, we collected data on the number and prevalence of active medication orders that had not been screened by a pharmacist at the point of data collection, and the number and prevalence of regular doses documented as being omitted due to drug unavailability, or for which the administration record was left blank. RESULTS: The prevalence of unscreened medication orders reduced from 7.6 % of 1,433 orders to 4.1 % of 1,495 orders (p = 0.0002; Chi square test). There was no change in the prevalence of dose omissions (1.4 % in each phase of the study). CONCLUSION: This is a practical way to move to a more patient-focused service without affecting the safety of the service provided.

The use of a consultant-led ward round checklist to improve paediatric prescribing: an interrupted time series study.

UNLABELLED: A Check and Correct checklist has previously been developed to increase feedback on prescribing quality and enhance physicians' focus on patients' drug charts during ward rounds. Our objective was to assess the impact of introducing such a prescribing checklist on the quality and safety of inpatient prescribing in two paediatric wards in a London teaching hospital. Between 15 March 2011 and 15 May 2011 (pre-intervention) and between 23 May 2011 and 23 July 2011 (post-intervention), we recorded rates of both technical prescription writing errors and clinical prescribing errors twice a week. During the pre-intervention period, the overall technical error rate was 10.8 % (95 % confidence interval 10.3 %-11.2 %); the clinical error rate was 4.7 % (3.4 %-6.6 %). The most common errors were absence of prescriber's contact details and dose omissions. After the implementation of Check and Correct, error rates were 7.3 % (6.9 %-7.8 %) and 5.5 % (3.9 %-7.9 %), respectively. Segmented regression analysis revealed a significant decrease of -5.0 % in the technical error rate (-7.1 to -2.9 %; -37.7 % relative decrease; R (2) = 0.604) following the intervention, independent of changes in overall medical records' documentation quality. Regarding clinical errors, no significant impact of the intervention could be detected. CONCLUSION: Implementing a Check and Correct checklist led to an improvement in the quality of prescription writing. Although a change in culture may be needed to maximise its potential, we would recommend its more widespread use and evaluation.

Implementation and adoption of nationwide electronic health records in secondary care in England: final qualitative results from prospective national evaluation in "early adopter" hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the implementation and adoption of the NHS detailed care records service in "early adopter" hospitals in England. DESIGN: Theoretically informed, longitudinal qualitative evaluation based on case studies. SETTING: 12 "early adopter" NHS acute hospitals and specialist care settings studied over two and a half years. DATA SOURCES: Data were collected through in depth interviews, observations, and relevant documents relating directly to case study sites and to wider national developments that were perceived to impact on the implementation strategy. Data were thematically analysed, initially within and then across cases. The dataset consisted of 431 semistructured interviews with key stakeholders, including hospital staff, developers, and governmental stakeholders; 590 hours of observations of strategic meetings and use of the software in context; 334 sets of notes from observations, researchers' field notes, and notes from national conferences; 809 NHS documents; and 58 regional and national documents. RESULTS: Implementation has proceeded more slowly, with a narrower scope and substantially less clinical functionality than was originally planned. The national strategy had considerable local consequences (summarised under five key themes), and wider national developments impacted heavily on implementation and adoption. More specifically, delays related to unrealistic expectations about the capabilities of systems; the time needed to build, configure, and customise the software; the work needed to ensure that systems were supporting provision of care; and the needs of end users for training and support. Other factors hampering progress included the changing milieu of NHS policy and priorities; repeatedly renegotiated national contracts; different stages of development of diverse NHS care records service systems; and a complex communication process between different stakeholders, along with contractual arrangements that largely excluded NHS providers. There was early evidence that deploying systems resulted in important learning within and between organisations and the development of relevant competencies within NHS hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the NHS Care Records Service in "early adopter" sites proved time consuming and challenging, with as yet limited discernible benefits for clinicians and no clear advantages for patients. Although our results might not be directly transferable to later adopting sites because the functionalities we evaluated were new and untried in the English context, they shed light on the processes involved in implementing major new systems. The move to increased local decision making that we advocated based on our interim analysis has been pursued and welcomed by the NHS, but it is important that policymakers do not lose sight of the overall goal of an integrated interoperable solution.

Including pharmacists on consultant-led ward rounds: a prospective non-randomised controlled trial.

This study aimed to compare interventions made by pharmacists attending consultant-led ward rounds in addition to providing a ward pharmacy service, with those made by pharmacists providing a word pharmacy service alone. A prospective non-randomised controlled study on five inpatient medical wards was carried out at two teaching hospitals. A mean of 1.73 physician-accepted interventions were made per patient for the study group, compared to 0.89 for the control (Mann Whitney U, p < 0.001) with no difference between groups in the nature or clinical importance of the interventions. One physician-accepted intervention was made every eight minutes during the consultant-led ward rounds, compared to one every 63 minutes during a ward pharmacist visit. Pharmacists attending consultant-led ward rounds in addition to undertaking a ward pharmacist visit make significantly more interventions per patient than those made by pharmacists undertaking a ward pharmacist visit alone, rectifying prescribing errors and optimising treatment.

Prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: a three-centre study of their prevalence, types and causes.

AIM: To compare the prevalence and causes of prescribing errors in newly written medication orders and how quickly they were rectified, in three NHS organisations. METHODS: Errors in newly written inpatient and discharge medication orders were recorded in Spring/Summer 2009 by ward pharmacists on medical admissions and surgical wards, as well as the number of erroneous doses administered (or omitted) before errors were corrected. Logistic regression analysis was used to explore the effects of ward (nested within organisation) and clinical specialty, and whether the pharmacist had checked the patient's medication history during data collection. Causes were explored using semistructured interviews with key informants. RESULTS: Overall, 1025 prescribing errors were identified in 974 of 6605 medication orders (14.7%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 13.8% to 15.6%). A mean of 0.9 doses were administered (or omitted) before each error was corrected (range 0-11), with differences between specialties and organisations. The error rate on medical admissions wards (16.3%) was significantly higher than that on surgical wards (12.2%), but this was accounted for by the higher proportion of prescribing being on admission, where omission of patients' usual medication was often identified. There were significant differences among wards (and organisations). Contributing factors included lack of feedback on errors, poor documentation and communication of prescribing decisions, and lack of information about patients' medication histories from primary care. CONCLUSIONS: There were variations among wards, organisations and specialties in error rates and how quickly they were rectified. Exploring reasons for differences between organisations may be useful in identifying best practice and potential solutions.

A quality improvement programme to increase compliance with an anti-infective prescribing policy.

OBJECTIVES: The UK Department of Health has made recommendations on safe and appropriate prescribing of anti-infectives. In response, we reviewed our anti-infective policies to ensure they were in line with best practice. As a result, a new adult anti-infective policy was launched. To help facilitate its implementation, a quality improvement programme was established, with the aim of achieving >90% compliance with the new policy. METHODS: Patients under the care of the medical admissions teams who had been prescribed one or more systemic anti-infectives between January and November 2008 were included in the study. Study pharmacists collected data daily on all patients, including the anti-infective(s) prescribed and indication(s) documented on either the patient's drug prescription chart or health records. A definition of compliance was developed, which required documented indication(s) and associated anti-infectives to match the anti-infective policy. A baseline compliance level was established; we then implemented a series of interventions using the plan-do-study-act ('PDSA') approach to monitor and improve compliance. Three overlapping intervention phases were retrospectively identified: raising awareness; education; and weekly feedback of results in the form of run charts distributed to medical teams. RESULTS: Over the 11 month study period, compliance with the policy increased from 30% to 71%. Since 2008, we have seen the average compliance increase year-on-year to over 90% in 2010 using a sustainable once weekly data collection model. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that it is possible to use quality improvement methodology to support antimicrobial stewardship within existing resources and suggests that an improvement in policy compliance can be both achieved and sustained.

Using discrete event simulation to design a more efficient hospital pharmacy for outpatients.

We present the findings of a discrete event simulation study of the hospital pharmacy outpatient dispensing systems at two London hospitals. Having created a model and established its face validity, we tested scenarios to estimate the likely impact of changes in prescription workload, staffing levels and skill-mix, and utilisation of the dispensaries' automatic dispensing robots. The scenarios were compared in terms of mean prescription turnaround times and percentage of prescriptions completed within 45 min. The findings are being used to support business cases for changes in staffing levels and skill-mix in response to changes in workload.

Learning lessons from electronic prescribing implementations in secondary care.

This paper reports a study undertaken in the UK to gather lessons learned from hospital sites that have implemented electronic prescribing systems. The work was commissioned by NHS Connecting for Health, the UK Department of Health agency responsible for the implementation of the National Programme for Information Technology. The aim was to capture front-line experience of the project and systems implementation, and to share it with staff who will in the future participate in other implementations. Data were drawn from detailed interviews with staff and a survey in 13 hospitals in England, as well as a review of published studies of implementations. The study output is a report and six user-facing briefing documents targeted at key stakeholder groups; nurses, pharmacist, doctors, senior executives, implementation team members and IM&T staff.

Implementation and adoption of nationwide electronic health records in secondary care in England: qualitative analysis of interim results from a prospective national evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and evaluate the implementation and adoption of detailed electronic health records in secondary care in England and thereby provide early feedback for the ongoing local and national rollout of the NHS Care Records Service. DESIGN: A mixed methods, longitudinal, multisite, socio-technical case study. SETTING: Five NHS acute hospital and mental health trusts that have been the focus of early implementation efforts and at which interim data collection and analysis are complete. Data sources and analysis Dataset for the evaluation consists of semi-structured interviews, documents and field notes, observations, and quantitative data. Qualitative data were analysed thematically with a socio-technical coding matrix, combined with additional themes that emerged from the data. Main results Hospital electronic health record applications are being developed and implemented far more slowly than was originally envisioned; the top-down, standardised approach has needed to evolve to admit more variation and greater local choice, which hospital trusts want in order to support local activity. Despite considerable delays and frustrations, support for electronic health records remains strong, including from NHS clinicians. Political and financial factors are now perceived to threaten nationwide implementation of electronic health records. Interviewees identified a range of consequences of long term, centrally negotiated contracts to deliver the NHS Care Records Service in secondary care, particularly as NHS trusts themselves are not party to these contracts. These include convoluted communication channels between different stakeholders, unrealistic deployment timelines, delays, and applications that could not quickly respond to changing national and local NHS priorities. Our data suggest support for a "middle-out" approach to implementing hospital electronic health records, combining government direction with increased local autonomy, and for restricting detailed electronic health record sharing to local health communities. CONCLUSIONS: Experiences from the early implementation sites, which have received considerable attention, financial investment and support, indicate that delivering improved healthcare through nationwide electronic health records will be a long, complex, and iterative process requiring flexibility and local adaptability both with respect to the systems and the implementation strategy. The more tailored, responsive approach that is emerging is becoming better aligned with NHS organisations' perceived needs and is, if pursued, likely to deliver clinically useful electronic health record systems.

Methodological variability in detecting prescribing errors and consequences for the evaluation of interventions.

PURPOSE: To compare four methods of detecting prescribing errors (PE) in the same patient cohorts before and after an intervention (computerised physician order entry; CPOE) and to determine whether the impact of CPOE is identified consistently by all methods. METHODS: PEs were identified using (1) prospective detection by ward pharmacist; (2) retrospective health record review; (3) retrospective use of a trigger tool and (4) spontaneous reporting over two separate 4-week periods on one surgical ward in a UK teaching hospital. RESULTS: We reviewed 93 patients pre- and 114 post-CPOE. Using all four methods, we identified 135 PE (10.7% of all medication orders) pre-CPOE, and 127 (7.9%) post-CPOE. There was little overlap in PE detected by the different methods: prospective detection identified 48 (36% of all PE) pre- and 30 (24%) post-CPOE; retrospective review (RR) revealed 93 (69%) pre- and 105 (83%) post-CPOE, trigger tool 0 pre- and 2 (2%) post-CPOE and spontaneous reporting 1 (1%) pre- and 1 (1%) post-CPOE. The calculated relative reduction in risk of PE was 50% using prospective data, 12% with RR and 26% using data from all four methods. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, each method predominantly identified different PE. A combination of methods may be required to understand the true effectiveness of different interventions.