The impact of a closed-loop electronic prescribing and administration system on prescribing errors, administration errors and staff time: a before-and-after study

Objectives: To assess the impact of a closed-loop electronic prescribing, automated dispensing, barcode patient identification and electronic medication administration record (EMAR) system on prescribing and administration errors, confirmation of patient identity before administration, and staff time. Design, setting and participants: Before-and-after study in a surgical ward of a teaching hospital, involving patients and staff of that ward. Intervention: Closed-loop electronic prescribing, automated dispensing, barcode patient identification and EMAR system. Main outcome measures: Percentage of new medication orders with a prescribing error, percentage of doses with medication administration errors (MAEs) and percentage given without checking patient identity. Time spent prescribing and providing a ward pharmacy service. Nursing time on medication tasks. Results: Prescribing errors were identified in 3.8% of 2450 medication orders pre-intervention and 2.0% of 2353 orders afterwards (p<0.001; χ2 test). MAEs occurred in 7.0% of 1473 non-intravenous doses pre-intervention and 4.3% of 1139 afterwards (p = 0.005; χ2 test). Patient identity was not checked for 82.6% of 1344 doses pre-intervention and 18.9% of 1291 afterwards (p<0.001; χ2 test). Medical staff required 15 s to prescribe a regular inpatient drug pre-intervention and 39 s afterwards (p = 0.03; t test). Time spent providing a ward pharmacy service increased from 68 min to 98 min each weekday (p = 0.001; t test); 22% of drug charts were unavailable pre-intervention. Time per drug administration round decreased from 50 min to 40 min (p = 0.006; t test); nursing time on medication tasks outside of drug rounds increased from 21.1% to 28.7% (p = 0.006; χ2 test). Conclusions: A closed-loop electronic prescribing, dispensing and barcode patient identification system reduced prescribing errors and MAEs, and increased confirmation of patient identity before administration. Time spent on medication-related tasks increased.

Care homes’ use of medicines study: prevalence, causes and potential harm of medication errors in care homes for older people

Introduction: Care home residents are at particular risk from medication errors, and our objective was to determine the prevalence and potential harm of prescribing, monitoring, dispensing and administration errors in UK care homes, and to identify their causes. Methods: A prospective study of a random sample of residents within a purposive sample of homes in three areas. Errors were identified by patient interview, note review, observation of practice and examination of dispensed items. Causes were understood by observation and from theoretically framed interviews with home staff, doctors and pharmacists. Potential harm from errors was assessed by expert judgement. Results: The 256 residents recruited in 55 homes were taking a mean of 8.0 medicines. One hundred and seventy-eight (69.5%) of residents had one or more errors. The mean number per resident was 1.9 errors. The mean potential harm from prescribing, monitoring, administration and dispensing errors was 2.6, 3.7, 2.1 and 2.0 (0 = no harm, 10 = death), respectively. Contributing factors from the 89 interviews included doctors who were not accessible, did not know the residents and lacked information in homes when prescribing; home staff’s high workload, lack of medicines training and drug round interruptions; lack of team work among home, practice and pharmacy; inefficient ordering systems; inaccurate medicine records and prevalence of verbal communication; and difficult to fill (and check) medication administration systems. Conclusions: That two thirds of residents were exposed to one or more medication errors is of concern. The will to improve exists, but there is a lack of overall responsibility. Action is required from all concerned.

PINCER trial: a cluster randomised trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a pharmacist-led IT-based intervention with simple feedback in reducing rates of clinically important errors in medicines management in general practices

Background: Medication errors in general practice are an important source of potentially preventable morbidity and mortality. Building on previous descriptive, qualitative and pilot work, we sought to investigate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and likely generalisability of a complex pharm acist-led IT-based intervention aiming to improve prescribing safety in general practice. Objectives: We sought to: • Test the hypothesis that a pharmacist-led IT-based complex intervention using educational outreach and practical support is more effective than simple feedback in reducing the proportion of patients at risk from errors in prescribing and medicines management in general practice. • Conduct an economic evaluation of the cost per error avoided, from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS). • Analyse data recorded by pharmacists, summarising the proportions of patients judged to be at clinical risk, the actions recommended by pharmacists, and actions completed in the practices. • Explore the views and experiences of healthcare professionals and NHS managers concerning the intervention; investigate potential explanations for the observed effects, and inform decisions on the future roll-out of the pharmacist-led intervention • Examine secular trends in the outcome measures of interest allowing for informal comparison between trial practices and practices that did not participate in the trial contributing to the QRESEARCH database. Methods Two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial of 72 English general practices with embedded economic analysis and longitudinal descriptive and qualitative analysis. Informal comparison of the trial findings with a national descriptive study investigating secular trends undertaken using data from practices contributing to the QRESEARCH database. The main outcomes of interest were prescribing errors and medication monitoring errors at six- and 12-months following the intervention. Results: Participants in the pharmacist intervention arm practices were significantly less likely to have been prescribed a non-selective NSAID without a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) if they had a history of peptic ulcer (OR 0.58, 95%CI 0.38, 0.89), to have been prescribed a beta-blocker if they had asthma (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58, 0.91) or (in those aged 75 years and older) to have been prescribed an ACE inhibitor or diuretic without a measurement of urea and electrolytes in the last 15 months (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34, 0.78). The economic analysis suggests that the PINCER pharmacist intervention has 95% probability of being cost effective if the decision-maker’s ceiling willingness to pay reaches £75 (6 months) or £85 (12 months) per error avoided. The intervention addressed an issue that was important to professionals and their teams and was delivered in a way that was acceptable to practices with minimum disruption of normal work processes. Comparison of the trial findings with changes seen in QRESEARCH practices indicated that any reductions achieved in the simple feedback arm were likely, in the main, to have been related to secular trends rather than the intervention. Conclusions Compared with simple feedback, the pharmacist-led intervention resulted in reductions in proportions of patients at risk of prescribing and monitoring errors for the primary outcome measures and the composite secondary outcome measures at six-months and (with the exception of the NSAID/peptic ulcer outcome measure) 12-months post-intervention. The intervention is acceptable to pharmacists and practices, and is likely to be seen as costeffective by decision makers.

Description of a multifaceted strategy for recruiting general practitioners and community pharmacists to talk about medication errors

Objective: To describe the use of a multifaceted strategy for recruiting general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists to talk about medication errors which have resulted in preventable drug-related admissions to hospital. This is a potentially sensitive subject with medicolegal implications. Setting: Four primary care trusts and one teaching hospital in the UK. Method: Letters were mailed to community pharmacists and general practitioners asking for provisional consent to be interviewed and permission to contact them again should a patient be admitted to hospital as a result of a medication error. In addition, GPs were asked for permission to approach their patients should they be admitted to hospital. A multifaceted approach to recruitment was used including gaining support for the study from professional defence agencies and local champions. Key findings: Eighty-five percent (310/385) of GPs and 62% (93/149) of community pharmacists responded to the letters. Eighty-five percent (266/310) of GPs who responded and 81% (75/93) of community pharmacists who responded gave provisional consent to participate in interviews. All GPs (14 out of 14) and community pharmacists (10 out of 10) who were subsequently asked to participate, when patients were admitted to hospital, agreed to be interviewed. Conclusion: The multifaceted approach to recruitment was associated with an impressive response when asking healthcare professionals to be interviewed about medication errors which have resulted in preventable drug-related morbidity.

A pharmacist-led information technology intervention for medication errors (PINCER): a multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background: Medication errors are common in primary care and are associated with considerable risk of patient harm. We tested whether a pharmacist-led, information technology-based intervention was more effective than simple feedback in reducing the number of patients at risk of measures related to hazardous prescribing and inadequate blood-test monitoring of medicines 6 months after the intervention. Methods: In this pragmatic, cluster randomised trial general practices in the UK were stratified by research site and list size, and randomly assigned by a web-based randomisation service in block sizes of two or four to one of two groups. The practices were allocated to either computer-generated simple feedback for at-risk patients (control) or a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER), composed of feedback, educational outreach, and dedicated support. The allocation was masked to general practices, patients, pharmacists, researchers, and statisticians. Primary outcomes were the proportions of patients at 6 months after the intervention who had had any of three clinically important errors: non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) prescribed to those with a history of peptic ulcer without co-prescription of a proton-pump inhibitor; β blockers prescribed to those with a history of asthma; long-term prescription of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or loop diuretics to those 75 years or older without assessment of urea and electrolytes in the preceding 15 months. The cost per error avoided was estimated by incremental cost-eff ectiveness analysis. This study is registered with Controlled-Trials.com, number ISRCTN21785299. Findings: 72 general practices with a combined list size of 480 942 patients were randomised. At 6 months’ follow-up, patients in the PINCER group were significantly less likely to have been prescribed a non-selective NSAID if they had a history of peptic ulcer without gastroprotection (OR 0∙58, 95% CI 0∙38–0∙89); a β blocker if they had asthma (0∙73, 0∙58–0∙91); or an ACE inhibitor or loop diuretic without appropriate monitoring (0∙51, 0∙34–0∙78). PINCER has a 95% probability of being cost eff ective if the decision-maker’s ceiling willingness to pay reaches £75 per error avoided at 6 months. Interpretation: The PINCER intervention is an effective method for reducing a range of medication errors in general practices with computerised clinical records. Funding: Patient Safety Research Portfolio, Department of Health, England.

Description and process evaluation of pharmacists’ interventions in a pharmacist-led information technology-enabled multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial for reducing medication errors in general practice (PINCER trial)

Objective To undertake a process evaluation of pharmacists' recommendations arising in the context of a complex IT-enabled pharmacist-delivered randomised controlled trial (PINCER trial) to reduce the risk of hazardous medicines management in general practices. Methods PINCER pharmacists manually recorded patients’ demographics, details of interventions recommended, actions undertaken by practice staff and time taken to manage individual cases of hazardous medicines management. Data were coded and double entered into SPSS v15, and then summarised using percentages for categorical data (with 95% CI) and, as appropriate, means (SD) or medians (IQR) for continuous data. Key findings Pharmacists spent a median of 20 minutes (IQR 10, 30) reviewing medical records, recommending interventions and completing actions in each case of hazardous medicines management. Pharmacists judged 72% (95%CI 70, 74) (1463/2026) of cases of hazardous medicines management to be clinically relevant. Pharmacists recommended 2105 interventions in 74% (95%CI 73, 76) (1516/2038) of cases and 1685 actions were taken in 61% (95%CI 59, 63) (1246/2038) of cases; 66% (95%CI 64, 68) (1383/2105) of interventions recommended by pharmacists were completed and 5% (95%CI 4, 6) (104/2105) of recommendations were accepted by general practitioners (GPs), but not completed at the end of the pharmacists’ placement; the remaining recommendations were rejected or considered not relevant by GPs. Conclusions The outcome measures were used to target pharmacist activity in general practice towards patients at risk from hazardous medicines management. Recommendations from trained PINCER pharmacists were found to be broadly acceptable to GPs and led to ameliorative action in the majority of cases. It seems likely that the approach used by the PINCER pharmacists could be employed by other practice pharmacists following appropriate training.

Errors associated with the preparation of aseptic products in UK hospital pharmacies: lessons from the national aseptic error reporting scheme

Background Pharmacy aseptic units prepare and supply injectables to minimise risks. The UK National Aseptic Error Reporting Scheme has been collecting data on pharmacy compounding errors, including near-misses, since 2003. Objectives The cumulative reports from January 2004 to December 2007, inclusive, were analysed. Methods The different variables of product types, error types, staff making and detecting errors, stage errors detected, perceived contributory factors, and potential or actual outcomes were presented by cross-tabulation of data. Results A total of 4691 reports were submitted against an estimated 958 532 items made, returning 0.49% as the overall error rate. Most of the errors were detected before reaching patients, with only 24 detected during or after administration. The highest number of reports related to adult cytotoxic preparations (40%) and the most frequently recorded error was a labelling error (34.2%). Errors were mostly detected at first check in assembly area (46.6%). Individual staff error contributed most (78.1%) to overall errors, while errors with paediatric parenteral nutrition appeared to be blamed on low staff levels more than other products were. The majority of errors (68.6%) had no potential patient outcomes attached, while it appeared that paediatric cytotoxic products and paediatric parenteral nutrition were associated with greater levels of perceived patient harm. Conclusions The majority of reports were related to near-misses, and this study highlights scope for examining current arrangements for checking and releasing products, certainly for paediatric cytotoxic and paediatric parenteral nutrition preparations within aseptic units, but in the context of resource and capacity constraints.

Errors associated with preparation of adult and paediatric parenteral nutrition in UK hospital pharmacies

Rationale: In UK hospitals, the preparation of all total parenteral nutrition (TPN) products must be made in the pharmacy as TPNs are categorised as high-risk injectables (NPSA/2007/20). The National Aseptic Error Reporting Scheme has been collecting data on pharmacy compounding errors in the UK since August 2003. This study reports on types of error associated with the preparation of TPNs, including the stage at which these were identified and potential and actual patient outcomes. Methods: Reports of compounding errors for the period 1/2004 - 3/2007 were analysed on an Excel spreadsheet. Results: Of a total of 3691 compounding error reports, 674 (18%) related to TPN products; 548 adult vs. 126 paediatric. A significantly higher proportion of adult TPNs (28% vs. 13% paediatric) were associated with labelling errors and a significantly higher proportion of paediatric TPNs (25% vs. 15% adult) were associated with incorrect transcriptions (Chi-Square Test; p<0.005). Labelling errors were identified equally by pharmacists (42%) and technicians (48%) with technicians detecting mainly at first check and pharmacists at final check. Transcription errors were identified mainly by technicians (65% vs. 27% pharmacist) at first check. Incorrect drug selection (13%) and calculation errors (9%) were associated with adult and paediatric TPN preparations in the same ratio. One paediatric TPN error detected at first check was considered potentially catastrophic; 31 (5%) errors were considered of major and 38 (6%) of moderate potential consequence. Five errors (2 moderate, 1 minor) were identified during or after administration. Conclusions: While recent UK patient safety initiatives are aimed at improving the safety of injectable medicines in clinical areas, the current study highlights safety problems that exist within pharmacy production units. This could be used in the creation of an error management tool for TPN compounding processes within hospital pharmacies.

Protocol for the PINCER trial: a cluster randomised trial comparing the effectiveness of a pharmacist-led IT-based intervention with simple feedback in reducing rates of clinically important errors in medicines management in general practices

Background: Medication errors are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in primary care. The aims of this study are to determine the effectiveness, cost effectiveness and acceptability of a pharmacist-led information-technology-based complex intervention compared with simple feedback in reducing proportions of patients at risk from potentially hazardous prescribing and medicines management in general (family) practice. Methods: Research subject group: "At-risk" patients registered with computerised general practices in two geographical regions in England. Design: Parallel group pragmatic cluster randomised trial. Interventions: Practices will be randomised to either: (i) Computer-generated feedback; or (ii) Pharmacist-led intervention comprising of computer-generated feedback, educational outreach and dedicated support. Primary outcome measures: The proportion of patients in each practice at six and 12 months post intervention: - with a computer-recorded history of peptic ulcer being prescribed non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs - with a computer-recorded diagnosis of asthma being prescribed beta-blockers - aged 75 years and older receiving long-term prescriptions for angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or loop diuretics without a recorded assessment of renal function and electrolytes in the preceding 15 months. Secondary outcome measures; These relate to a number of other examples of potentially hazardous prescribing and medicines management. Economic analysis: An economic evaluation will be done of the cost per error avoided, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS), comparing the pharmacist-led intervention with simple feedback. Qualitative analysis: A qualitative study will be conducted to explore the views and experiences of health care professionals and NHS managers concerning the interventions, and investigate possible reasons why the interventions prove effective, or conversely prove ineffective. Sample size: 34 practices in each of the two treatment arms would provide at least 80% power (two-tailed alpha of 0.05) to demonstrate a 50% reduction in error rates for each of the three primary outcome measures in the pharmacist-led intervention arm compared with a 11% reduction in the simple feedback arm. Discussion: At the time of submission of this article, 72 general practices have been recruited (36 in each arm of the trial) and the interventions have been delivered. Analysis has not yet been undertaken.

Investigating the prevalence and causes of prescribing errors in general practice: the PRACtICe Study

Aim: To determine the prevalence and nature of prescribing errors in general practice; to explore the causes, and to identify defences against error. Methods: 1) Systematic reviews; 2) Retrospective review of unique medication items prescribed over a 12 month period to a 2% sample of patients from 15 general practices in England; 3) Interviews with 34 prescribers regarding 70 potential errors; 15 root cause analyses, and six focus groups involving 46 primary health care team members Results: The study involved examination of 6,048 unique prescription items for 1,777 patients. Prescribing or monitoring errors were detected for one in eight patients, involving around one in 20 of all prescription items. The vast majority of the errors were of mild to moderate severity, with one in 550 items being associated with a severe error. The following factors were associated with increased risk of prescribing or monitoring errors: male gender, age less than 15 years or greater than 64 years, number of unique medication items prescribed, and being prescribed preparations in the following therapeutic areas: cardiovascular, infections, malignant disease and immunosuppression, musculoskeletal, eye, ENT and skin. Prescribing or monitoring errors were not associated with the grade of GP or whether prescriptions were issued as acute or repeat items. A wide range of underlying causes of error were identified relating to the prescriber, patient, the team, the working environment, the task, the computer system and the primary/secondary care interface. Many defences against error were also identified, including strategies employed by individual prescribers and primary care teams, and making best use of health information technology. Conclusion: Prescribing errors in general practices are common, although severe errors are unusual. Many factors increase the risk of error. Strategies for reducing the prevalence of error should focus on GP training, continuing professional development for GPs, clinical governance, effective use of clinical computer systems, and improving safety systems within general practices and at the interface with secondary care.

The prevalence and nature of prescribing and monitoring errors in English general practice – a retrospective case note review

Objective To determine the prevalence and nature of prescribing and monitoring errors in general practices in England. Design Retrospective case note review of unique medication items prescribed over a 12 month period to a 2% random sample of patients. Mixed effects logistic regression was used to analyse the data. Setting Fifteen general practices across three primary care trusts in England. Data sources Examination of 6048 unique prescription items prescribed over the previous 12 months for 1777 patients. Main outcome measures Prevalence of prescribing and monitoring errors, and severity of errors, using validated definitions. Results Prescribing and/or monitoring errors were detected in 4.9% (296/6048) of all prescription items (95% confidence interval 4.4 - 5.5%). The vast majority of errors were of mild to moderate severity, with 0.2% (11/6048) of items having a severe error. After adjusting for covariates, patient-related factors associated with an increased risk of prescribing and/or monitoring errors were: age less than 15 (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.87, 1.19 to 2.94, p=0.006) or greater than 64 years (OR 1.68, 1.04 to 2.73, p=0.035), and higher numbers of unique medication items prescribed (OR 1.16, 1.12 to 1.19, p<0.001). Conclusion Prescribing and monitoring errors are common in English general practice, although severe errors are unusual. Many factors increase the risk of error. Having identified the most common and important errors, and the factors associated with these, strategies to prevent future errors should be developed based on the study findings.

Work Domain Analysis for understanding medication safety in care homes in England: an exploratory study

Medication safety and errors are a major concern in care homes. In addition to the identification of incidents, there is a need for a comprehensive system description to avoid the danger of introducing interventions that have unintended consequences and are therefore unsustainable. The aim of the study was to explore the impact and uniqueness of Work Domain Analysis (WDA) to facilitate an in-depth understanding of medication safety problems within the care home system and identify the potential benefits of WDA to design safety interventions to improve medication safety. A comprehensive, systematic and contextual overview of the care home medication system was developed for the first time. The novel use of the Abstraction Hierarchy (AH) to analyse medication errors revealed the value of the AH to guide a comprehensive analysis of errors and generate system improvement recommendations that took into account the contextual information of the wider system.