Protocols versus practice: unravelling clinical checking variations in community pharmacies in England-a multi-method study.

BACKGROUND: Standardisation, a widely accepted concept for risk management, entails designing and implementing task-specific operating procedures. In community pharmacies, Standardised Operating Procedures (SOPs) are a mandatory requirement and are recognised as essential for upholding safety and quality. AIM: This study aimed to investigate community pharmacists' (CPs) compliance with SOPs when checking prescriptions, and the reasons for variations between standardised protocols and practice. METHOD: Eight sets of SOPs underwent hierarchical task analysis (HTA) to generate a normative description of clinical checking execution as per protocols. Subsequently, twelve CPs were engaged in a simulated clinical checking exercise, verbalising their thoughts while checking virtual prescriptions. Transcribed data underwent content analysis, aligned with a descriptive model to uncover engagement patterns, and disparities between SOPs and CPs' practices. Finally, a focus group discussion took place to contextualise the observed variations. RESULTS: HTA aided in constructing a clinical checking model with six primary subtasks and 28 lower subtasks. CPs often omitted subtasks during checks, diverging from prescribed protocols. These deviations, observed in controlled environment, reveal an ingrained aspect within the professional culture of pharmacists, where there may be a tendency not to strictly adhere to protocols, despite variations in work conditions. Contributing factors to this culture include the exercise of professional judgment, reliance on others, and prioritisation of patient preferences. CONCLUSION: This study highlights ongoing deviations from SOPs during clinical prescription checks in community pharmacies, suggesting a cultural tendency. Future research should delve into risk management strategies for these deviations and address the delicate balance between flexibility and stringent compliance.

Towards understanding and improving medication safety for patients with mental illness in primary care: A multimethod study.

INTRODUCTION: Medication safety incidents have been identified as an important target to improve patient safety in mental healthcare. Despite this, the causes of preventable medication safety incidents affecting patients with mental illness have historically been poorly understood, with research now addressing this knowledge gap through a healthcare professional lens. However, patients and carers can also provide complimentary insight into safety issues, and as key stakeholders in healthcare, it is vital to consider their needs when designing effective interventions. METHODS: A two-stage approach was adopted by (i) conducting three focus groups (FG) comprising 13 patients with mental illness and their carers to develop a holistic picture of medication safety in primary care with extraction of themes guided by the P-MEDS framework; (ii) conducting two separate nominal group consensus workshops with seven patients with mental illness/carers and seven healthcare professionals to identify priority areas for targeted interventions. RESULTS: Seven themes were identified in the FGs: communication; trust, involvement and respect; continuity and support; access; the healthcare professional; the patient and carer; and the organisation. Priority areas identified for intervention by key stakeholders included improving communication within and between clinical services, enhancing patient support with holistic continuity of care, maximising shared decision-making and empowerment, ensuring timely access to medicines and services, strengthening healthcare professional knowledge regarding mental illnesses and associated medications, and increasing patient dignity and respect. CONCLUSION: This study has developed a holistic picture of contributors to medication safety incidents affecting patients with mental illness in primary care. This theory was then used by key stakeholders to inform and generate priority recommendations for targeted interventions. These findings can be used to inform future intervention research, as they consider the needs of those who access or work within primary care services. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: An advisory group consisting of three expert patients with lived experience of mental illness was consulted on the design of both stages of this study. Patients with mental illness and/or their carers were recruited and participated in both stages of this study. Patients/carers aided with data analysis and interpretation during the patient/carer nominal group consensus workshop.

Understanding the informal aspects of medication processes to maintain patient safety in hospitals: a sociotechnical ethnographic study in paediatric units.

Adverse drug events (ADEs) are common in hospitals, affecting one in six child in-patients. Medication processes are complex systems. This study aimed to explore the work-as-done of medication safety in three English paediatric units using direct observation and semi-structured interviews. We found that a combination of the physical environment, traditional work systems and team norms were among the systemic barriers to medicines safety. The layout of wards discouraged teamworking and reinforced professional boundaries. Workspaces were inadequate, and interruptions were uncontrollable. A less experienced workforce undertook prescribing and verification while more experienced nurses undertook administration. Guidelines were inadequate, with actors muddling through together. Formal controls against ADEs included checking (of prescriptions and administration) and barcode administration systems, but these did not integrate into workflows. Families played an important part in the safe administration of medication and provision of information about their children but were isolated from other parts of the system.

Formal medicines safety processes in paediatric units are disjointed and disconnected. This has led actors in the system (e.g. nursing and medical staff) to develop informal adaptations to increase resilience. There is a need to incorporate these adaptations into a systems-focussed consideration of safety processes, in order to properly inform the development of medication safety interventions.

Medication Safety Gaps in English Pediatric Inpatient Units: An Exploration Using Work Domain Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Medication is a common cause of preventable medical harm in pediatric inpatients. This study aimed to examine the sociotechnical system surrounding pediatric medicines management, to identify potential gaps in this system and how these might contribute to adverse drug events (ADEs). METHODS: An exploratory prospective qualitative study in pediatric wards in three hospitals in the north of England was conducted between October 2020 and May 2022. Analysis included a documentary analysis of 72 policies and procedures and analysis of field notes from 60 hours of participant observation. The cognitive work analysis prompt framework was used to generate a work domain analysis (WDA) and identify potential contributory factors to ADEs. RESULTS: The WDA identified 2 functional purposes, 7 value/priority measures, 6 purpose-related functions, 11 object-related processes and 14 objects. Structured means-ends connections supported identification of 3 potential contributory factors-resource limitations, cognitive demands, and adaptation of processes. The lack of resources (equipment, materials, knowledge, and experience) created an environment where distractions and interruptions were unavoidable. Families helped provide practical support in medicines administration but were largely unacknowledged at an organizational level. There was a lack of teamwork with regards to medication with different professionals responsible for different parts of the system. Mandated safety checks on medicines were frequently omitted because of limited resources and perceived redundancy. Interventions to support adherence to safety policies were also often bypassed because they created more work. CONCLUSIONS: The WDA has provided insights into the complex system of medication safety for children in hospital and has facilitated the identification of potential contributory factors to ADEs. We therefore advocate (in priority order) for processes to involve parents in the care of their children in hospital, development of skill-mix interventions to ensure appropriate expertise is available where it is needed, and modified checking procedures to permit staff to use their skills and judgment effectively and efficiently.

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.

Clinical checking in practice: qualitative perspectives from community pharmacists.

OBJECTIVES: Community pharmacists (CPs) are the last healthcare professional to check the clinical appropriateness of prescribed medicines before being dispensed to patients. This process is known as 'clinical checking' and is intended to ensure the prescribed medications are safe and effective. This study aims to explore how CPs carry out clinical checking in practice, and the main factors affecting their clinical decisions. METHODS: The study was qualitative in nature, and data were collected by means of semi-structured interviews. The interview questions aimed to explore how CPs carry out clinical checking in practice. A purposive sampling strategy was employed to recruit a sample representative of CPs in England. Interview transcripts were subjected to thematic template analysis. KEY FINDINGS: Twelve CPs of various professional backgrounds participated in the interviews. The analysis yielded three overarching themes, namely: pharmacists' perception of the clinical checking process; clinical checking as a naturalistic decision-making process and barriers to effective clinical checking. Interviewees described being faced with a trade-off between examining each prescription thoroughly and maintaining the throughput of prescriptions, due to the highly pressurised environment they work within. A number of factors inform this trade-off: (1) assuming the safety of repeat medicines; (2) lacking access to sufficient clinical information and (3) working under challenging circumstances (such as a lack of resources). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical checking is a complex, variable and experience-driven process which is heavily influenced by the surrounding environment and information accessibility. Further research should investigate the cognitive process involved in clinical checking and explore the practicalities and potential benefits of the recommendations identified in this study.

Understanding medication safety involving patient transfer from intensive care to hospital ward: a qualitative sociotechnical factor study.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the sociotechnical factors affecting medication safety when intensive care patients are transferred to a hospital ward. Consideration of these medication safety factors would provide a theoretical basis, on which future interventions can be developed and evaluated to improve patient care. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews of intensive care and hospital ward-based healthcare professionals. Transcripts were anonymised prior to thematic analysis using the London Protocol and Systems Engineering in Patient Safety V.3.0 model frameworks. SETTING: Four north of England National Health Service hospitals. All hospitals used electronic prescribing in intensive care and hospital ward settings. PARTICIPANTS: Intensive care and hospital ward healthcare professionals (intensive care medical staff, advanced practitioners, pharmacists and outreach team members; ward-based medical staff and clinical pharmacists). RESULTS: Twenty-two healthcare professionals were interviewed. We identified 13 factors within five broad themes, describing the interactions that most strongly influenced the performance of the intensive care to hospital ward system interface. The themes were: Complexity of process performance and interactions; Time pressures and considerations; Communication processes and challenges; Technology and systems and Beliefs about consequences for the patient and organisation. CONCLUSIONS: The complexity of the interactions on the system performance and time dependency was clear. We make several recommendations for policy change and further research based on improving: availability of hospital-wide integrated and functional electronic prescribing systems, patient flow systems, sufficient multiprofessional critical care staffing, knowledge and skills of staff, team performance, communication and collaboration and patient and family engagement.

Predicting dispensing errors in community pharmacies: An application of the Systematic Human Error Reduction and Prediction Approach (SHERPA).

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to use a prospective error analysis method to examine the process of dispensing medication in community pharmacy settings and identify remedial solutions to avoid potential errors, categorising them as strong, intermediate, or weak based on an established patient safety action hierarchy tool. METHOD: Focus group discussions and non-participant observations were undertaken to develop a Hierarchical Task Analysis (HTA), and subsequent focus group discussions applied the Systematic Human Error Reduction and Prediction Approach (SHERPA) focusing on the task of dispensing medication in community pharmacies. Remedial measures identified through the SHERPA analysis were then categorised as strong, intermediate, or weak based on the Veteran Affairs National Centre for Patient Safety action hierarchy. Non-participant observations were conducted at 3 pharmacies, totalling 12 hours, based in England. Additionally, 7 community pharmacists, with experience ranging from 8 to 38 years, participated in a total of 4 focus groups, each lasting between 57 to 85 minutes, with one focus group discussing the HTA and three applying SHERPA. A HTA was produced consisting of 10 sub-tasks, with further levels of sub-tasks within each of them. RESULTS: Overall, 88 potential errors were identified, with a total of 35 remedial solutions proposed to avoid these errors in practice. Sixteen (46%) of these remedial measures were categorised as weak, 14 (40%) as intermediate and 5 (14%) as strong according to the Veteran Affairs National Centre for Patient Safety action hierarchy. Sub-tasks with the most potential errors were identified, which included 'producing medication labels' and 'final checking of medicines'. The most common type of error determined from the SHERPA analysis related to omitting a check during the dispensing process which accounted for 19 potential errors. DISCUSSION: This work applies both HTA and SHERPA for the first time to the task of dispensing medication in community pharmacies, detailing the complexity of the task and highlighting potential errors and remedial measures specific to this task. Future research should examine the effectiveness of the proposed remedial solutions to improve patient safety.

Visual impairment and medication safety: a protocol for a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The number of individuals with a visual impairment in the UK was estimated a few years ago to be around 1.8 million. People can be visually impaired from birth, childhood, early adulthood or later in life. Those with visual impairment are subject to health inequities and increased risk for patient safety incidents in comparison to the general population. They are also known to be at an increased risk of experiencing medication errors compared to those without visual impairment. In view of this, this review aims to understand the issues of medication safety for VI people. METHODS/DESIGN: Four electronic bibliographic databases will be searched: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL. Our search strategy will include search combinations of two key blocks of terms. Studies will not be excluded based on design. Included studies will be empirical studies. They will include studies that relate to both medication safety and visual impairment. Two reviewers (SG and LR) will screen all the titles and abstracts. SG, LR, RM, SCS and PL will perform study selection and data extraction using standard forms. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or third party adjudication. Data to be collected will include study characteristics (year, objective, research method, setting, country), participant characteristics (number, age, gender, diagnoses), medication safety incident type and characteristics. DISCUSSION: The review will summarise the literature relating to medication safety and visual impairment.

Trading off accuracy and explainability in AI decision-making: findings from 2 citizens' juries.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how the general public trades off explainability versus accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) systems and whether this differs between healthcare and non-healthcare scenarios. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Citizens' juries are a form of deliberative democracy eliciting informed judgment from a representative sample of the general public around policy questions. We organized two 5-day citizens' juries in the UK with 18 jurors each. Jurors considered 3 AI systems with different levels of accuracy and explainability in 2 healthcare and 2 non-healthcare scenarios. Per scenario, jurors voted for their preferred system; votes were analyzed descriptively. Qualitative data on considerations behind their preferences included transcribed audio-recordings of plenary sessions, observational field notes, outputs from small group work and free-text comments accompanying jurors' votes; qualitative data were analyzed thematically by scenario, per and across AI systems. RESULTS: In healthcare scenarios, jurors favored accuracy over explainability, whereas in non-healthcare contexts they either valued explainability equally to, or more than, accuracy. Jurors' considerations in favor of accuracy regarded the impact of decisions on individuals and society, and the potential to increase efficiency of services. Reasons for emphasizing explainability included increased opportunities for individuals and society to learn and improve future prospects and enhanced ability for humans to identify and resolve system biases. CONCLUSION: Citizens may value explainability of AI systems in healthcare less than in non-healthcare domains and less than often assumed by professionals, especially when weighed against system accuracy. The public should therefore be actively consulted when developing policy on AI explainability.

The role of non-technical skills in community pharmacy practice: an exploratory review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Non-technical skills (NTS) are the cognitive and social skills that complement technical skills in safe and efficient practice, and include leadership, teamwork, task management, decision-making and situation awareness. Other areas within healthcare have heavily invested in producing taxonomies to aid training and assessment of NTS within their disciplines, and have found them to be essential for improving patient safety. In pharmacy, no validated taxonomy has been produced, nor has the existing literature been appraised to aid the future development of a validated taxonomy. OBJECTIVE(S): To examine the literature on NTS within a community pharmacy setting and establish the research conducted thus far on each NTS and how they are applied by community pharmacists. METHODS: A literature search of six electronic databases (EMBASE, PsychINFO, Medline, SCOPUS, CINAHL Plus and HMIC) using the generic list of NTS identified in previous studies. Only empirical studies were included. Examples of behaviours or skills were extracted and categorised within each NTS. KEY FINDINGS: Seventeen studies were identified that contained one or more examples of NTS specific to community pharmacy practice. Altogether, 16 elements were extracted. Four elements were identified within leadership and task management. A further three were identified within situation awareness and decision-making, and a final two within teamwork and communication. CONCLUSION: A framework consisting of the skills and how they're applied has been presented which describe the NTS required by community pharmacists from the published literature. This framework can provide a foundation for further investigation into NTS use within pharmacy practice.

Mind the gap: Examining work-as-imagined and work-as-done when dispensing medication in the community pharmacy setting.

Reducing errors within a healthcare setting remains high on the patient safety research agenda. More consistent performance has been sought by increased development of standardised operating procedures, but they are not always adhered to in practice. Previous studies have identified that a difference exists between the way a task is imagined to be completed, based on standardised protocols and procedures, and how the task is actually completed in reality. This study explores one area of healthcare, community pharmacy, and more specifically the task of dispensing medicines from prescriptions, to identify the gap between how dispensing is imagined to be completed through standardised operating procedures, and how it is actually completed in practice, by using Hierarchical Task Analysis as a framework. Document analysis of standardised operating procedures in 3 community pharmacies was used to produce 3 task analyses, which were compared with 3 task analyses produced from data collected through non-participant observations of the same 3 community pharmacies. Deviations between the two forms of task analyses were presented to community pharmacists in focus group discussions and it was found staff may deviate from standardised protocols because of various reasons, including: efficiency; availability of resources; thoroughness; and delegating safeguards. Potential implications for the work system include the benefit of greater collaboration between procedure writers and frontline workers, and the introduction of more flexible procedures, that allow the risks of any adaptions to be clearly realised. Further work must establish whether pharmacists recognise the safety implications of these gaps between work as imagined, and work as done, and initiatives should be established to ensure patient safety is not compromised due to these differences.

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.

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.

Capturing Patients' Perspectives on Medication Safety: The Development of a Patient-Centered Medication Safety Framework.

OBJECTIVES: Medication safety incidents are common in primary care and contributory factors frameworks can assist in our understanding of their causes. A framework that is positioned from the perspective of patients would be advantageous in practice when seeking patient insights into medication safety. The aim of this study was to develop a patient-centered contributory factors framework for examining medication safety incidents. METHODS: A purposive sample of 106 members of the public, patients, and carers were recruited to take part in focus groups (n = 18). Focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a thematic framework. A patient and public involvement group was set up to undertake multiple roles in the research process, including the development of the focus group schedule, analysis of the data, and the construction of a patient-centered framework of contributory factors (patient-centered medication safety) and implementation checklist. RESULTS: The findings highlighted the importance of communication, supplies of medication and appliances, patient- and carer-related factors, healthcare professional factors, and computer systems and programs in the safe use of medicines. Some contributory factors were unique to primary care patients such as access to services and continuity of care. In conjunction with a patient and public involvement group, a framework of factors that patients believe contribute to medication safety incidents in primary care was developed that could be used by patients and healthcare professionals. CONCLUSIONS: The patient-centered medication safety framework and implementation checklist provides a novel tool to examine contributory factors that can lead to medication safety incidents from patients' perspective.

Mapping the prevalence and nature of drug related problems among hospitalised children in the United Kingdom: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Problems arising from medicines usage are recognised as a key patient safety issue. Children are a particular concern, given that they are more likely than adults to experience medication-related harm. While previous reviews have provided an estimate of prevalence in this population, these predate recent developments in the delivery of paediatric care. Hence, there is a need for an updated, focussed and critical review of the prevalence and nature of drug-related problems in hospitalised children in the UK, in order to support the development and targeting of interventions to improve medication safety. METHODS: Nine electronic databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsychInfo, IPA, Scopus, HMIC, BNI, The Cochrane library and clinical trial databases) were searched from January 1999 to April 2019. Studies were included if they were based in the UK, reported on the frequency of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), adverse drug events (ADEs) or medication errors (MEs) affecting hospitalised children. Quality appraisal of the studies was also conducted. RESULTS: In all, 26 studies were included. There were no studies which specifically reported prevalence of adverse drug events. Two adverse drug reaction studies reported a median prevalence of 25.6% of patients (IQR 21.8-29.9); 79.2% of reactions warranted withdrawal of medication. Sixteen studies reported on prescribing errors (median prevalence 6.5%; IQR 4.7-13.3); of which, the median rate of dose prescribing errors was 11.1% (IQR 2.9-13). Ten studies reported on administration errors with a median prevalence of 16.3% (IQR 6.4-23). Administration technique errors represented 53% (IQR 52.7-67.4) of these errors. Errors detected during medicines reconciliation at hospital admission affected 43% of patients, 23% (Range 20.1-46) of prescribed medication; 70.3% (Range 50-78) were classified as potentially harmful. Medication errors detected during reconciliation on discharge from hospital affected 33% of patients and 19.7% of medicines, with 22% considered potentially harmful. No studies examined the prevalence of monitoring or dispensing errors. CONCLUSIONS: Children are commonly affected by drug-related problems throughout their hospital journey. Given the high prevalence and risk of patient harm,, there is a need for a deeper theoretical understanding of paediatric medication systems to enable more effective interventions to be developed to improve patient safety.

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.

Mapping the territory of renal care: a formative analysis of the cognitive work involved in managing acute kidney injury.

The design and evaluation of healthcare work systems requires an understanding of the cognitive work involved in healthcare tasks. Previous studies suggest that a formative approach would be particularly useful to examine healthcare activities for this purpose. In the present study, methods from cognitive work analysis and cognitive task analysis are combined in a formative examination of managing acute kidney injury, an activity that occurs across primary and secondary healthcare settings. The analyses are informed by interviews with healthcare practitioners and a review of practice guidelines. The findings highlight ways in which the task setting influenced practitioners' activity, and ways in which practitioners approached the activity (for example, how they used data to make decisions). The approach taken provided a rich understanding of the cognitive work involved, as well as generating suggestions for the design of work systems to support the clinical task. Practitioner summary: Healthcare tasks often require decision-making in complex and dynamic circumstances, potentially involving collaboration across different practitioner roles and locations. We demonstrate the use of a formative analysis to understand the cognitive work in managing a clinical syndrome across primary and secondary care settings, and consider the implications for work design.