Search

Introduction Around 1 in 20 patients experience avoidable healthcare-associated harm worldwide. Despite longstanding concerns, there is insufficient information available about the safety of healthcare for prisoners. To address this, this study will investigate the scale and nature of avoidable healthcare-associated harm for prisoners in England.Methods We will undertake a large retrospective cross-sectional study involving a case note review of patient healthcare records in 18 prisons in England. Prisons will be purposively sampled for maximum variation of characteristics based on prison category (open, local, training, high security, female), type (publicly and privately run) and prison population size, to sample approximately 15 000 patient records. We will focus on two samples: an enhanced risk sample of prisoners, considered to be at the most risk of healthcare-associated harm, and a random sample of prisoners excluded from the enhanced risk sample, to estimate the incidence of avoidable harm, and express this as ‘per 100 000 patients per year’. Avoidable harms will be characterised by type of incident(s), contributory incident(s), contributory factor(s), outcome(s) and severity of harm, prior to a thematic analysis of the relationships between those variables. Univariable and multivariable analyses will be conducted to identify factors associated with avoidable harm.Ethics and dissemination The decision regarding participation by prisons within the study will be voluntary, and their consent to participate may be withdrawn at any time. We will not seek individual patient consent for the retrospective case note review of their records, but if patients respond to publicity about the project and inform us that they do not wish their records to be included, we will adhere to their wishes. We will produce a report for the Department of Health’s Policy Research Programme and several peer-reviewed publications. The study has been granted a favourable opinion by Wales Research Ethics Committee 3 (reference 19/WA/0291), Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (reference 2019–332) and the Confidentiality Advisory Group (CAG) to access the medical records without individual consent under Section 251 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (reference 19/CAG/0214).

Introduction Dementia is a complex medical condition that poses significant challenges to healthcare systems and support services. People living with dementia (PLWD) and their carers experience complex needs often exacerbated by social isolation and challenges in accessing support. Social prescribing (SP) seeks to enable PLWD and their carers to access community and voluntary sector resources to support them address such needs. Existing research, however, does not describe what SP interventions are currently in place in dementia care. Little is known about the needs these interventions are designed to address, the reasons that lead PLWD and their carers to participate in them, their effectiveness and the extent to which they could increase positive health outcomes if adopted and how.Methods and analysis A complex intervention systematic review of SP for PLWD and/or their carers will be conducted using an iterative logic model approach. Six electronic (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and Cochrane/CENTRAL) and two grey literature databases (EThOS and CORE) were searched for publications between 1 January 2003 and June 2023, supplemented by handsearching of reference lists of included studies. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment, using Gough’s Weight of Evidence Framework, will be independently performed by two reviewers. A narrative approach will be employed to synthesise and report quantitative and qualitative data. Reporting will be informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Complex Interventions extension statement and checklist.Ethics and dissemination No ethical approval is required due to this systematic review operating only with secondary sources. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and meetings with key stakeholders including healthcare professionals, patient and carer groups, community organisations (eg, the Social Prescribing Network and the Evidence Collaborative at the National Academy for Social Prescribing), policymakers and funding bodies.PROSPERO registration number CRD42023428625.

Background: There is a need to identify approaches to reduce medication errors. Interest has converged on ePrescribing systems that incorporate computerised provider order entry and clinical decision support functionality. Objectives: We sought to describe the procurement, implementation and adoption of basic and advanced ePrescribing systems; to estimate their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; and to develop a toolkit for system integration into hospitals incorporating implications for practice from our research. Design: We undertook a theoretically informed, mixed-methods, context-rich, naturalistic evaluation. Setting: We undertook six longitudinal case studies in four hospitals (sites C, E, J and K) that did not have ePrescribing systems at the start of the programme (three of which went live and one that never went live) and two hospitals (sites A and D) with embedded systems. In the three hospitals that implemented systems, we conducted interviews pre implementation, shortly after roll-out and at 1 year post implementation. In the hospitals that had embedded systems, we conducted two rounds of interviews, 18 months apart. We undertook a three-round eDelphi exercise involving 20 experts to identify 80 clinically important prescribing errors, which were developed into the Investigate Medication Prescribing Accuracy for Critical error Types (IMPACT) tool. We elicited the cost of an ePrescribing system at one (non-study) site and compared this with the calculated ‘headroom’ (the upper limit that the decision-maker should pay) for the systems (sites J, K and S) for which effectiveness estimates were available. We organised four national conferences and five expert round-table discussions to contextualise and disseminate our findings. Intervention: The implementation of ePrescribing systems with either computerised provider order entry or clinical decision support functionality. Main outcome measures: Error rates were calculated using the IMPACT tool, with changes over time represented as ratios of error rates (as a proportion of opportunities for errors) using Poisson regression analyses. Results: We conducted 242 interviews and 32.5 hours of observations and collected 55 documents across six case studies. Implementation was difficult, particularly in relation to integration and interfacing between systems. Much of the clinical decision support functionality in embedded sites remained switched off because of concerns about over alerting. Getting systems operational meant that little attention was devoted to system optimisation or secondary uses of data. The prescriptions of 1244 patients were audited pre computerised provider order entry and 1178 post computerised provider order entry implementation of system A at sites J and K, and system B at site S. A total of 21,138 opportunities for error were identified from 28,526 prescriptions. Across the three sites, for those prescriptions for which opportunities for error were identified, the error rate was found to reduce significantly post computerised provider order entry implementation, from 5.0% to 4.0% (p

Abstract Background The NHS has recognised the importance of a high quality patient safety culture in the delivery of primary health care in the rapidly evolving environment of general practice. Two tools, PC-SafeQuest and MapSaf, were developed with the intention of assessing and improving patient safety culture in this setting. Both have been made widely available through their inclusion in the Royal College of General Practitioners’ Patient Safety Toolkit and our work offerss a timely exploration of the tools to inform practice staff as to how each might be usefully applied and in which circumstances. Here we present a comparative analysis of their content, and describe the perspectives of staff on their design, outputs and the feasibility of their sustained use. Methods We have used a content analysis to provide the context for the qualitative study of staff experiences of using the tools at a representative range of practices recruited from across the Midlands (UK). Data was collected through moderated focus groups using an identical topic guide. Results A total of nine practices used the PC-SafeQuest tool and four the MapSaf tool. A total of 159 staff completed the PC-SafeQuest tool 52 of whom took part in the subsequent focus group discussions, and 25 staff completed the MapSaf tool all of whom contributed to the focus group discussions. PC-SafeQuest was perceived as quick and easy to use with direct questions pertinent to the work of GP practices providing useful quantitative insight into important areas of safety culture. Though MaPSaF was more logistically challenging, it created a forum for synchronous cross- practice discussions raising awareness of perceptions of safety culture across the practice team. Conclusions Both tools were able to promote reflective and reflexive practice either in individual staff members or across the broader practice team and the oversight they granted provided useful direction for senior staff looking to improve patient safety. Because PC SafeQuest can be easily disseminated and independently completed it is logistically suited to larger practice organisations, whereas the MapSaf tool lends itself to smaller practices where assembling staff in a single workshop is more readily achieved.

Abstract 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 I 2 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%, I 2 = 99%) and for overall medication harm was 9% (95% CI 7 to 11%, I 2 = 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, I 2 = 96.4%), moderate preventable harm 40% (31 to 49%, n = 22, I 2 = 93.6%) and clinically severe or life-threatening preventable harm 26% (15 to 37%, n = 28, I 2 = 97%). The source of the highest prevalence rates of preventable harm were at the prescribing (58%, 42 to 73%, n = 9, I 2 = 94%) and monitoring (47%, 21 to 73%, n = 8, I 2 = 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.

Abstract Background In the course of producing a patient safety toolkit for primary care, we identified the need for a concise safe-systems checklist designed to address areas of patient safety which are under-represented in mandatory requirements and existing tools. This paper describes the development of a prototype checklist designed to be used in busy general practice environments to provide an overview of key patient safety related processes and prompt practice wide-discussion. Methods An extensive narrative review and a survey of world-wide general practice organisations were used to identify existing primary care patient safety issues and tools. A RAND panel of international experts rated the results, summarising the findings for importance and relevance. The checklist was created to include areas that are not part of established patient safety tools or mandatory and legal requirements. Four main themes were identified: information flow, practice safety information, prescribing, and use of IT systems from which a 13 item checklist was trialled in 16 practices resulting in a nine item prototype checklist, which was tested in eight practices. Qualitative data on the utility and usability of the prototype was collected through a series of semi-structured interviews. Results In testing the prototype four of nine items on the checklist were achieved by all eight practices. Three items were achieved by seven of eight practices and two items by six of eight practices. Participants welcomed the brevity and ease of use of the prototype, that it might be used within time scales at their discretion and its ability to engage a range of practice staff in relevant discussions on the safety of existing processes. The items relating to prescribing safety were considered particularly useful. Conclusions As a result of this work the concise patient safety checklist tool, specifically designed for general practice, has now been made available as part of an online Patient Safety Toolkit hosted by the Royal College of General Practitioners. Senior practice staff such as practice managers and GP partners should find it a useful tool to understand the safety of less explored yet important safety processes within the practice.

Introduction Medication errors are an important cause of morbidity and mortality. The pharmacist-led IT-based intervention to reduce clinically important medication errors (PINCER) has demonstrated improvements in primary care medication safety, and whilst now the subject of national roll-out its optimal and sustainable use across health contexts has not been fully explored. As part of a qualitative evaluation we aimed to identify factors influencing successful adoption, embedding and sustainable use of PINCER across primary care settings in England, UK. Methods Semi-structured face-to-face or telephone interviews, including follow-up interviews and an online survey were conducted with professionals knowledgeable of PINCER. Interview recruitment targeted four early adopter regions; the survey was distributed nationally. Initial data analysis was inductive, followed by analysis using a coding framework. A deductive matrix approach was taken to map the framework to the Normalisation Process Theory (NPT). Themes were then identified. Results Fifty participants were interviewed, 18 participated in a follow-up interview. Eighty-one general practices and three Clinical Commissioning Groups completed the survey. Four themes were identified and interpreted within the relevant NPT construct: Awareness & Perceptions (Coherence), Receptivity to PINCER (Cognitive Participation), Engagement [Collective Action] and Reflections & Adaptations (Reflexive Monitoring). Variability was identified in how PINCER awareness was raised and how staff worked to operationalise the intervention. Facilitators for use included stakeholder investment, favourable evidence, inclusion in policy, incentives, fit with individual and organisational goals and positive experiences. Barriers included lack of understanding, capacity concerns, operational difficulties and the impact of COVID-19. System changes such as adding alerts on clinical systems were indicative of embedding and continued use. Conclusions The NPT helped understand motives behind engagement and the barriers and facilitators towards sustainable use. Optimising troubleshooting support and encouraging establishments to adopt an inclusive approach to intervention adoption and utilisation could help accelerate uptake and help establish ongoing sustainable use.

IntroductionMedication errors are an important cause of morbidity and mortality. The pharmacist-led IT-based intervention to reduce clinically important medication errors (PINCER) has demonstrated improvements in primary care medication safety, and whilst now the subject of national roll-out its optimal and sustainable use across health contexts has not been fully explored. As part of a qualitative evaluation we aimed to identify factors influencing successful adoption, embedding and sustainable use of PINCER across primary care settings in England, UK.MethodsSemi-structured face-to-face or telephone interviews, including follow-up interviews and an online survey were conducted with professionals knowledgeable of PINCER. Interview recruitment targeted four early adopter regions; the survey was distributed nationally. Initial data analysis was inductive, followed by analysis using a coding framework. A deductive matrix approach was taken to map the framework to the Normalisation Process Theory (NPT). Themes were then identified.ResultsFifty participants were interviewed, 18 participated in a follow-up interview. Eighty-one general practices and three Clinical Commissioning Groups completed the survey. Four themes were identified and interpreted within the relevant NPT construct: Awareness & Perceptions (Coherence), Receptivity to PINCER (Cognitive Participation), Engagement [Collective Action] and Reflections & Adaptations (Reflexive Monitoring). Variability was identified in how PINCER awareness was raised and how staff worked to operationalise the intervention. Facilitators for use included stakeholder investment, favourable evidence, inclusion in policy, incentives, fit with individual and organisational goals and positive experiences. Barriers included lack of understanding, capacity concerns, operational difficulties and the impact of COVID-19. System changes such as adding alerts on clinical systems were indicative of embedding and continued use.ConclusionsThe NPT helped understand motives behind engagement and the barriers and facilitators towards sustainable use. Optimising troubleshooting support and encouraging establishments to adopt an inclusive approach to intervention adoption and utilisation could help accelerate uptake and help establish ongoing sustainable use.

Introduction Medication errors are an important cause of morbidity and mortality. The pharmacist-led IT-based intervention to reduce clinically important medication errors (PINCER) intervention was shown to reduce medication errors when tested in a cluster randomised controlled trial and when implemented across one region of England. Now that it has been rolled out nationally, and to enhance findings from evaluations with staff and stakeholders, this paper is the first to report patients’ perceived acceptability on the use of PINCER in primary care and proposes suggestions on how delivery of PINCER related care could be delivered in a way that is acceptable and not unnecessarily burdensome. Methods A total of 46 participants living with long-term health conditions who had experience of medication reviews and/or monitoring were recruited through patient participant groups and social media. Semi-structured, qualitative interviews and focus groups were conducted face-to-face or via telephone. A thematic analysis was conducted and findings mapped to the constructs of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). Results Two themes were identified and interpreted within the most relevant TFA construct: Perceptions on the purpose and components of PINCER (Affective Attitude and Intervention Coherence) and Perceived patient implications (Burden and Self-efficacy). Overall perceptions on PINCER were positive with participants showing good understanding of the components. Access to medication reviews, which PINCER related care can involve, was reported to be limited and a lack of consistency in practitioners delivering reviews was considered challenging, as was lack of communication between primary care and other health-care providers. Patients thought it would be helpful if medication reviews and prescription renewal times were synchronised. Remote medication review consultations were more convenient for some but viewed as a barrier to communication by others. It was acknowledged that some patients may be more resistant to change and more willing to accept changes initiated by general practitioners. Conclusions Participants found the concept of PINCER acceptable; however, acceptability could be improved if awareness on the role of primary care pharmacists is raised and patient-pharmacist relationships enhanced. Being transparent with communication and delivering streamlined and consistent but flexible PINCER related care is recommended.

IntroductionMedication errors are an important cause of morbidity and mortality. The pharmacist-led IT-based intervention to reduce clinically important medication errors (PINCER) intervention was shown to reduce medication errors when tested in a cluster randomised controlled trial and when implemented across one region of England. Now that it has been rolled out nationally, and to enhance findings from evaluations with staff and stakeholders, this paper is the first to report patients' perceived acceptability on the use of PINCER in primary care and proposes suggestions on how delivery of PINCER related care could be delivered in a way that is acceptable and not unnecessarily burdensome.MethodsA total of 46 participants living with long-term health conditions who had experience of medication reviews and/or monitoring were recruited through patient participant groups and social media. Semi-structured, qualitative interviews and focus groups were conducted face-to-face or via telephone. A thematic analysis was conducted and findings mapped to the constructs of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA).ResultsTwo themes were identified and interpreted within the most relevant TFA construct: Perceptions on the purpose and components of PINCER (Affective Attitude and Intervention Coherence) and Perceived patient implications (Burden and Self-efficacy). Overall perceptions on PINCER were positive with participants showing good understanding of the components. Access to medication reviews, which PINCER related care can involve, was reported to be limited and a lack of consistency in practitioners delivering reviews was considered challenging, as was lack of communication between primary care and other health-care providers. Patients thought it would be helpful if medication reviews and prescription renewal times were synchronised. Remote medication review consultations were more convenient for some but viewed as a barrier to communication by others. It was acknowledged that some patients may be more resistant to change and more willing to accept changes initiated by general practitioners.ConclusionsParticipants found the concept of PINCER acceptable; however, acceptability could be improved if awareness on the role of primary care pharmacists is raised and patient-pharmacist relationships enhanced. Being transparent with communication and delivering streamlined and consistent but flexible PINCER related care is recommended.

Abstract Background Health care-related harm is an internationally recognized threat to public health. The United Kingdom’s national health services demonstrate that upwards of 90% of health care encounters can be delivered in ambulatory settings. Other countries are transitioning to more family practice-based health care systems, and efforts to understand avoidable harm in these settings is needed. Methods We developed 100 scenarios reflecting a range of diseases and informed by the World Health Organization definition of ‘significant harm’. Scenarios included different types of patient safety incidents occurring by commission and omission, demonstrated variation in timeliness of intervention, and conditions where evidence-based guidelines are available or absent. We conducted a two-round RAND / UCLA Appropriateness Method consensus study with a panel of family practitioners in England to define “avoidable harm” within family practice. Panelists rated their perceptions of avoidability for each scenario. We ran a k-means cluster analysis of avoidability ratings. Results Panelists reached consensus for 95 out of 100 scenarios. The panel agreed avoidable harm occurs when a patient safety incident could have been probably, or totally, avoided by the timely intervention of a health care professional in family practice (e.g. investigations, treatment) and / or an administrative process (e.g. referrals, alerts in electronic health records, procedures for following up results) in accordance with accepted evidence-based practice and clinical governance. Fifty-four scenarios were deemed avoidable, whilst 31 scenarios were rated unavoidable and reflected outcomes deemed inevitable regardless of family practice intervention. Scenarios with low avoidability ratings (1 s or 2 s) were not represented by the categories that were used to generate scenarios, whereas scenarios with high avoidability ratings (7 s 8 s or 9 s) were represented by these a priori categories. Discussion The findings from this RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method study define the characteristics and conditions that can be used to standardize measurement of outcomes for primary care patient safety. Conclusion We have developed a definition of avoidable harm that has potential for researchers and practitioners to apply across primary care settings, and bolster international efforts to design interventions to target avoidable patient safety incidents that cause the most significant harm to patients.

Background: More effective ways of managing symptoms of chronic and terminal illness enable patients to be cared for, and to die, at home. This requires patients and family caregivers to manage complex medicines regimens, including powerful painkillers that can have serious side effects. Little is known about how patients and family caregivers manage the physical and emotional work of managing medicines in the home or the support that they receive from health-care professionals and services. Objective: To investigate how patients with serious and terminal illness, their family caregivers and the health-care professionals manage complex medication regimens and routines of care in the domestic setting. Design: A qualitative study involving (1) semistructured interviews and group discussions with 40 health-care professionals and 21 bereaved family caregivers, (2) 20 patient case studies with up to 4 months’ follow-up and (3) two end-of-project stakeholder workshops. Setting: This took place in Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire, UK. Results: As patients’ health deteriorated, family caregivers assumed the role of a care co-ordinator, undertaking the everyday work of organising and collecting prescriptions and storing and administering medicines around other care tasks and daily routines. Participants described the difficulties of navigating a complex and fragmented system and the need to remain vigilant about medicines prescribed, especially when changes were made by different professionals. Access to support, resilience and coping capacity are mediated through the resources available to patients, through the relationships that they have with people in their personal and professional networks, and, beyond that, through the wider connections – or disconnections – that these links have with others. Health-care professionals often lacked understanding of the practical and emotional challenges involved. All participants experienced difficulties in communication and organisation within a health-care system that they felt was complicated and poorly co-ordinated. Having a key health professional to support and guide patients and family caregivers through the system was important to a good experience of care. Limitations: The study achieved diversity in the recruitment of patients, with different characteristics relating to the type of illness and socioeconomic circumstances. However, recruitment of participants from ethnically diverse and disadvantaged or hard-to-reach populations was particularly challenging, and we were unable to include as many participants from these groups as had been originally planned. Conclusions: The study identified two key and inter-related areas in which patient and family caregiver experience of managing medicines at home in end-of-life care could be improved: (1) reducing work and responsibility for medicines management and (2) improving co-ordination and communication in health care. It is important to be mindful of the need for transparency and open discussion about the extent to which patients and family caregivers can and should be co-opted as proto-professionals in the technically and emotionally demanding tasks of managing medicines at the end of life. Future work: Priorities for future research include investigating how allocated key professionals could integrate and co-ordinate care and optimise medicines management; the role of domiciliary home care workers in supporting medicines management in end-of-life care; patient and family perspectives and understanding of anticipatory prescribing and their preferences for involvement in decision-making; the experience of medicines management in terminal illness among minority, disadvantaged and hard-to-reach patient groups; and barriers to and facilitators of increased involvement of community pharmacists in palliative and end-of-life care. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Abstract Evidence suggests that the prescription of bladder anticholinergics is increasing. Recent studies have accentuated concerns about whether certain prescribed medications could increase risk of dementia, including anticholinergic drugs, and specifically anticholinergics used for bladder symptoms. Nevertheless, it can be difficult to draw together the evidence to review the case for possible causation. Recognising this issue in 1965, Bradford‐Hill set out nine criteria to help assess whether evidence of a causal relationship could be inferred between a presumed cause and an observed effect. In this commentary, we explore the extent to which associations between anticholinergics and dementia satisfy the Bradford‐Hill criteria and examine the potential implications. First, we look at studies that have examined the relationship between anticholinergic drugs with urological properties (bladder drugs) and the onset of dementia, and then present those studies which specifically focus on the cognitive effects of bladder drugs that affect muscarinic receptors in the brain versus the bladder on older people along with suggestions for future research. We also discuss the risks and benefits of these drugs for treating overactive bladder. If it can be shown that certain medications carry a specific risk of dementia, it is possible that initiatives to change prescribing could become a key tool in reducing the risk of dementia and may be easier to implement than some lifestyle changes.

BackgroundThe quality and safety of prescribing in general practice is important, Clinical decision support (CDS) systems can be used which present alerts to health professionals when prescribing in order to identify patients at risk of potentially hazardous prescribing. It is known that such computerised alerts may improve the safety of prescribing in hospitals but their implementation and sustainable use in general practice is less well understood. We aimed to understand the factors that influenced the successful implementation and sustained use in primary care of a CDS system.MethodsParticipants were purposively recruited from Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) and general practices in the North West and East Midlands regions of England and from the CDS developers. We conducted face-to-face and telephone-based semi-structured qualitative interviews with staff stakeholders. A selection of participants was interviewed longitudinally to explore the further sustainability 1-2 years after implementation of the CDS system. The analysis, informed by Normalisation Process Theory (NPT), was thematic, iterative and conducted alongside data collection.ResultsThirty-nine interviews were conducted either individually or in groups, with 33 stakeholders, including 11 follow-up interviews. Eight themes were interpreted in alignment with the four NPT constructs: Coherence (The purpose of the CDS: Enhancing medication safety and improving cost effectiveness; Relationship of users to the technology; Engagement and communication between different stakeholders); Cognitive Participation (Management of the profile of alerts); Collective Action (Prescribing in general practice, patient and population characteristics and engagement with patients; Knowledge);and Reflexive Monitoring (Sustaining the use of the CDS through maintenance and customisation; Learning and behaviour change. Participants saw that the CDS could have a role in enhancing medication safety and in the quality of care. Engagement through communication and support for local primary care providers and management leaders was considered important for successful implementation. Management of prescribing alert profiles for general practices was a dynamic process evolving over time. At regional management levels, work was required to adapt, and modify the system to optimise its use in practice and fulfil local priorities. Contextual factors, including patient and population characteristics, could impact upon the decision-making processes of prescribers influencing the response to alerts. The CDS could operate as a knowledge base allowing prescribers access to evidence-based information that they otherwise would not have.ConclusionsThis qualitative evaluation utilised NPT to understand the implementation, use and sustainability of a widely deployed CDS system offering prescribing alerts in general practice. The system was understood as having a role in medication safety in providing relevant patient specific information to prescribers in a timely manner. Engagement between stakeholders was considered important for the intervention in ensuring prescribers continued to utilise its functionality. Sustained implementation might be enhanced by careful profile management of the suite of alerts in the system. Our findings suggest that the use and sustainability of the CDS was related to prescribers' perceptions of the relevance of alerts. Shared understanding of the purpose of the CDS between CCGS and general practices particularly in balancing cost saving and safety messages could be beneficial.

Background: To reduce expenditure on, and wastage of, drugs, some commissioners have encouraged general practitioners to issue shorter prescriptions, typically 28 days in length; however, the evidence base for this recommendation is uncertain. Objective: To evaluate the evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of shorter versus longer prescriptions for people with stable chronic conditions treated in primary care. Design/data sources: The design of the study comprised three elements. First, a systematic review comparing 28-day prescriptions with longer prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions treated in primary care, evaluating any relevant clinical outcomes, adherence to treatment, costs and cost-effectiveness. Databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Searches were from database inception to October 2015 (updated search to June 2016 in PubMed). Second, a cost analysis of medication wastage associated with

BackgroundThe UK performs poorly relative to other economically developed countries on numerous indicators of care quality for children. The contribution of iatrogenic harm to these outcomes is unclear. As primary care is the first point of healthcare contact for most children, we sought to investigate the safety of care provided to children in this setting.Methods and findingsWe undertook a mixed methods investigation of reports of primary care patient safety incidents involving sick children from England and Wales' National Reporting and Learning System between 1 January 2005 and 1 December 2013. Two reviewers independently selected relevant incident reports meeting prespecified criteria, and then descriptively analyzed these reports to identify the most frequent and harmful incident types. This was followed by an in-depth thematic analysis of a purposive sample of reports to understand the reasons underpinning incidents. Key candidate areas for strengthening primary care provision and reducing the risks of systems failures were then identified through multidisciplinary discussions. Of 2,191 safety incidents identified from 2,178 reports, 30% (n = 658) were harmful, including 12 deaths and 41 cases of severe harm. The children involved in these incidents had respiratory conditions (n = 387; 18%), injuries (n = 289; 13%), nonspecific signs and symptoms, e.g., fever (n = 281; 13%), and gastrointestinal or genitourinary conditions (n = 268; 12%), among others. Priority areas for improvement included safer systems for medication provision in community pharmacies; triage processes to enable effective and timely assessment, diagnosis, and referral of acutely sick children attending out-of-hours services; and enhanced communication for robust safety netting between professionals and parents. The main limitations of this study result from underreporting of safety incidents and variable data quality. Our findings therefore require further exploration in longitudinal studies utilizing case review methods.ConclusionsThis study highlights opportunities to reduce iatrogenic harm and avoidable child deaths. Globally, healthcare systems with primary-care-led models of delivery must now examine their existing practices to determine the prevalence and burden of these priority safety issues, and utilize improvement methods to achieve sustainable improvements in care quality.

Background: There is an emerging interest in the inadvertent harm caused to patients by the provision of primary health-care services. To date (up to 2015), there has been limited research interest and few policy directives focused on patient safety in primary care. In 2003, a major investment was made in the National Reporting and Learning System to better understand patient safety incidents occurring in England and Wales. This is now the largest repository of patient safety incidents in the world. Over 40,000 safety incident reports have arisen from general practice. These have never been systematically analysed, and a key challenge to exploiting these data has been the largely unstructured, free-text data. Aims: To characterise the nature and range of incidents reported from general practice in England and Wales (2005–13) in order to identify the most frequent and most harmful patient safety incidents, and relevant contributory issues, to inform recommendations for improving the safety of primary care provision in key strategic areas. Methods: We undertook a cross-sectional mixed-methods evaluation of general practice patient safety incident reports. We developed our own classification (coding) system using an iterative approach to describe the incident, contributory factors and incident outcomes. Exploratory data analysis methods with subsequent thematic analysis was undertaken to identify the most harmful and most frequent incident types, and the underlying contributory themes. The study team discussed quantitative and qualitative analyses, and vignette examples, to propose recommendations for practice. Main findings: We have identified considerable variation in reporting culture across England and Wales between organisations. Two-thirds of all reports did not describe explicit reasons about why an incident occurred. Diagnosis- and assessment-related incidents described the highest proportion of harm to patients; over three-quarters of these reports (79%) described a harmful outcome, and half of the total reports described serious harm or death (n = 366, 50%). Nine hundred and ninety-six reports described serious harm or death of a patient. Four main contributory themes underpinned serious harm- and death-related incidents: (1) communication errors in the referral and discharge of patients; (2) physician decision-making; (3) unfamiliar symptom presentation and inadequate administration delaying cancer diagnoses; and (4) delayed management or mismanagement following failures to recognise signs of clinical (medical, surgical and mental health) deterioration. Conclusions: Although there are recognised limitations of safety-reporting system data, this study has generated hypotheses, through an inductive process, that now require development and testing through future research and improvement efforts in clinical practice. Cross-cutting priority recommendations include maximising opportunities to learn from patient safety incidents; building information technology infrastructure to enable details of all health-care encounters to be recorded in one system; developing and testing methods to identify and manage vulnerable patients at risk of deterioration, unscheduled hospital admission or readmission following discharge from hospital; and identifying ways patients, parents and carers can help prevent safety incidents. Further work must now involve a wider characterisation of reports contributed by the rest of the primary care disciplines (pharmacy, midwifery, health visiting, nursing and dentistry), include scoping reviews to identify interventions and improvement initiatives that address priority recommendations, and continue to advance the methods used to generate learning from safety reports. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Our objective was to identify and establish consensus on the most important safety features of GP computer systems, with a particular emphasis on medicines management.Weused a two-round electronic Delphi survey, completed by a 21-member multidisciplinary expert panel, all from the UK. The main outcome measure was percentage agreement of the panel members on the importance of the presence of a number of different safety features (presented as clinical statements) onGP computer systems.We found 90% or greater agreement on the importance of 32 (58%) statements. These statements, indicating issues considered to be of considerable importance (rated as important or very important), related to: computerised alerts; the need to avoid spurious alerts; making it difficult to override critical alerts; having audit trails of such overrides; support for safe repeat prescribing; effective computer_user interface; importance of call and recall management; and the need to be able to run safety reports. The high level of agreement among the expert panel members indicates clear themes and priorities that need to be addressed in any further improvement of safety features in primary care computing systems.

General practice computer systems already have a number of important safety features. However, there are problems in that general practitioners (GPs) have come to rely on hazard alerts when they are not foolproof. Furthermore, GPs do not know how to make best use of safety features on their systems. There are a number of solutions that could help to improve the safety features of general practice computer systems and also help to improve the abilities of healthcare professionals to use these safety features.

Medication errors are an important source of potentially preventable morbidity and mortality. The PINCER study, a cluster randomised controlled trial, is one of the world's first experimental studies aiming to reduce the risk of such medication related potential for harm in general practice. Bayesian analyses can improve the clinical interpretability of trial findings.Experts were asked to complete a questionnaire to elicit opinions of the likely effectiveness of the intervention for the key outcomes of interest--three important primary care medication errors. These were averaged to generate collective prior distributions, which were then combined with trial data to generate bayesian posterior distributions. The trial data were analysed in two ways: firstly replicating the trial reported cohort analysis acknowledging pairing of observations, but excluding non-paired observations; and secondly as cross-sectional data, with no exclusions, but without acknowledgement of the pairing. Frequentist and bayesian analyses were compared.Bayesian evaluations suggest that the intervention is able to reduce the likelihood of one of the medication errors by about 50 (estimated to be between 20% and 70%). However, for the other two main outcomes considered, the evidence that the intervention is able to reduce the likelihood of prescription errors is less conclusive.Clinicians are interested in what trial results mean to them, as opposed to what trial results suggest for future experiments. This analysis suggests that the PINCER intervention is strongly effective in reducing the likelihood of one of the important errors; not necessarily effective in reducing the other errors. Depending on the clinical importance of the respective errors, careful consideration should be given before implementation, and refinement targeted at the other errors may be something to consider.