Search

Abstract Background Error management plays a key role in patient safety. It is a systematic approach aimed at identifying and learning from critical incidents by reporting, documenting and analyzing them. Almost nothing is known about the incidents physicians in outpatient care consider to be critical and how they deal with them. We carried out an interview study to explore outpatient physicians’ views on error management, discover what they regard as critical incidents, and find out how error management is put into practice in ambulatory care. Methods We conducted 72 semi-structured interviews with physicians from ambulatory practices. We asked participants what they considered to be a critical incident, how they reacted following an incident, how they discussed incidents with their coworkers, and whether they used critical incident reporting systems. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Results Interviewed physicians defined the term “critical incident” differently. Most participants reported that they recorded information on incidents and discussed them in their teams. Several physicians reported taking a ‘pay better attention next time-approach’ to the analysis of incidents. Systematic error management involving incident documentation, analysis, preventive measure development, and follow-up, was the exception. Conclusions To promote error management, medical training should include teaching on the topic, so that medical professionals can learn about critical incidents and how to deal with them in an open and structured manner. This would help establish the culture of safety that has long been called for internationally.

Abstract Background The adoption of digital health technologies can improve the quality of care for polypharmacy patients, if the underlying complex implementation mechanisms are better understood. Context effects play a critical role in relation to implementation mechanisms. In primary care research, evidence on the effects of context in the adoption of digital innovation for polypharmacy management is lacking. Study aim This study aims to identify contextual factors relevant to physician behavior and how they might mediate the adoption process. Methods The physicians who participated in this formative evaluation study (n = 218) were part of the intervention group in a cluster-randomized controlled trial (AdAM). The intervention group implemented a digital innovation for clinical decision making in polypharmacy. A three-step methodological approach was used: (1) a realist inquiry approach, which involves the description of a context-mechanism-outcome configuration for the primary care setting; (2) a belief elicitation approach, which involves qualitative content analysis and the development of a quantitative latent contextualized scale; and (3) a mediation analysis using structural equation modeling (SEM) based on quantitative survey data from physicians to assess the mediating role of the contextualized scale (n = 179). Results The key dimensions of a (1) context-mechanism-outcome model were mapped and refined. A (2) latent construct of the physicians’ innovation beliefs related to the effectiveness of polypharmacy management practices was identified. Innovation beliefs play a (3) mediating role between the organizational readiness to implement change (p

Abstract Objective Formative evaluation of the implementation process for a digitally supported intervention in polypharmacy in Germany. Qualitative research was conducted within a cluster randomized controlled trial (C-RCT). It focused on understanding how the intervention influences behavior-related outcomes in the prescription and medication review process. Methods/setting Twenty-seven general practitioners (GPs) were included in the study in the two groups of the C-RCT, the intervention, and the wait list control group. Behavior-related outcomes were investigated using three-step data analysis (content analytic approach, documentary method, and design of a model of implementation pathways). Results Content analysis showed that physicians were more intensely aware of polypharmacy-related risks, described positive learning effects of the digital technology on their prescribing behavior, and perceived a change in communication with patients and pharmacists. Conversely, they felt uncertain about their own responsibility when prescribing. Three main dimensions were discovered which influenced adoption behavior: (1) the physicians’ interpretation of the relevance of pharmaceutical knowledge provided by the intervention in changing decision-making situations in polypharmacy; (2) their medical code of ethics for clinical decision making in the context of progressing digitalization; and (3) their concepts of evidence-based medicine on the basis of professional experiences with polypharmacy in primary care settings. In our sample, both simple and complex pathways from sensitization to adoption were observed. The resulting model on adoption behavior includes a paradigmatic description of different pathways and a visualization of different observed levels and applied methodological approaches. We assumed that the GP habitus can weaken or strengthen interventional effects towards intervention uptake. This formative evaluation strategy is beneficial for the identification of behavior-related implementation barriers and facilitators. Conclusion Our analyses of the adoption behavior of a digitally supported intervention in polypharmacy revealed both simple and complex pathways from awareness to adoption, which may impact the implementation of the intervention and therefore, its effectiveness. Future consideration of adoption behavior in the planning and evaluation of digitally supported interventions may enhance uptake and support the interpretation of effects. Trial registration NCT03430336 , 12 February 2018.

Abstract Background Although polypharmacy can cause adverse health outcomes, patients often know little about their medication. A regularly conducted medication review (MR) can help provide an overview of a patient’s medication, and benefit patients by enhancing their knowledge of their drugs. As little is known about patient attitudes towards MRs in primary care, the objective of this study was to gain insight into patient-perceived barriers and facilitators to the implementation of an MR. Methods We conducted a qualitative study with a convenience sample of 31 patients (age ≥ 60 years, ≥3 chronic diseases, taking ≥5 drugs/d); in Hesse, Germany, in February 2016. We conducted two focus groups and, in order to ensure the participation of elderly patients with reduced mobility, 16 telephone interviews. Both relied on a semi-structured interview guide dealing with the following subjects: patients’ experience of polypharmacy, general design of MRs, potential barriers and facilitators to implementation etc. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed by two researchers using thematic analysis. Results Patients’ average age was 74 years (range 62–88 years). We identified barriers and facilitators for four main topics regarding the implementation of MRs in primary care: patient participation, GP-led MRs, pharmacist-led MRs, and the involvement of healthcare assistants in MRs. Barriers to patient participation concerned patient autonomy, while facilitators involved patient awareness of medication-related problems. Barriers to GP-led MRs concerned GP’s lack of resources while facilitators related to the trusting relationship between patient and GP. Pharmacist-led MRs might be hindered by a lack of patients’ confidence in pharmacists’ expertise, but facilitated by pharmacies’ digital records of the patients’ medications. Regarding the involvement of healthcare assistants in MRs, a potential barrier was patients’ uncertainty regarding the extent of their training. Patients could, however, imagine GPs delegating some aspects of MRs to them. Conclusions Our study suggests that patients regard MRs as beneficial and expect indications for their medicines to be checked, and possible interactions to be identified. To foster the implementation of MRs in primary care, it is important to consider barriers and facilitators to the four identified topics.

Background Critical incident reporting systems (CIRS) can be an important tool for the identification of organisational safety needs and thus to improve patient safety. In German primary care, CIRS use is obligatory but remains rare. Studies on CIRS implementation in primary care are lacking, but those from secondary care recommend involving management personnel.Objective This project aimed to increase CIRS use in 69 practices belonging to a local practice network.Methods The intervention consisted of the provision of a web-based CIRS, accompanying measures to train practice teams in error management and CIRS, and the involvement of the network’s management. Three measurements were used: (1) number of incident reports and user access rates to the web-based CIRS were recorded, (2) staff were given a questionnaire addressing incident reporting, error management and safety climate and (3) qualitative reflection conferences were held with network management.Results Over 20 months, 17 critical incidents were reported to the web-based CIRS. The number of staff intending to report the next incident online decreased from 42% to 20% of participants. In contrast, the number of practices using an offline CIRS (eg, incident book) increased from 23% to 49% of practices. Practices also began proactively approaching network management for help with incidents. After project completion, participants scored higher in the patient safety climate factor ‘perception of causes of errors’. For many practices, the project provided the first contact with structured error management.Conclusion Specific measures to improve the use of CIRS in primary care should focus on network management and practice owners. Practices need basic training on safety culture and error management. Continuing, practices should implement an offline CIRS, before they can profit from the exchange of reports via web-based CIRS. It is crucial that practices receive feedback on incidents, and trained network management personnel can provide such support.