Accountability, organisational learning and risks to patient safety in England: conflict or compromise?

This article examines the current risk regulation regime, within the English National Health Service (NHS), by investigating the two, sometimes conflicting, approaches to risk embodied within the field of policies towards patient safety. The first approach focuses on promoting accountability and is built on legal principles surrounding negligence and competence. The second approach focuses on promoting learning from previous mistakes and near-misses, and is built on the development of a ‘safety culture’. Previous work has drawn attention to problems associated with risk-based regulation when faced with the dual imperatives of accountability and organisational learning. The article develops this by considering whether the NHS patient safety regime demonstrates the coexistence of two different risk regulation regimes, or merely one regime with contradictory elements. It uses the heuristic device of ‘institutional logics’ to examine the coexistence of and interrelationship between ‘organisational learning’ and ‘accountability’ logics driving risk regulation in health care.

Multiple component patient safety intervention in English hospitals:controlled evaluation of second phase

Objective: To independently evaluate the impact of the second phase of the Health Foundation's Safer Patients Initiative (SPI2) on a range of patient safety measures. Design: A controlled before and after design. Five substudies: survey of staff attitudes; review of case notes from high risk (respiratory) patients in medical wards; review of case notes from surgical patients; indirect evaluation of hand hygiene by measuring hospital use of handwashing materials; measurement of outcomes (adverse events, mortality among high risk patients admitted to medical wards, patients' satisfaction, mortality in intensive care, rates of hospital acquired infection). Setting: NHS hospitals in England. Participants: Nine hospitals participating in SPI2 and nine matched control hospitals. Intervention The SPI2 intervention was similar to the SPI1, with somewhat modified goals, a slightly longer intervention period, and a smaller budget per hospital. Results: One of the scores (organisational climate) showed a significant (P=0.009) difference in rate of change over time, which favoured the control hospitals, though the difference was only 0.07 points on a five point scale. Results of the explicit case note reviews of high risk medical patients showed that certain practices improved over time in both control and SPI2 hospitals (and none deteriorated), but there were no significant differences between control and SPI2 hospitals. Monitoring of vital signs improved across control and SPI2 sites. This temporal effect was significant for monitoring the respiratory rate at both the six hour (adjusted odds ratio 2.1, 99% confidence interval 1.0 to 4.3; P=0.010) and 12 hour (2.4, 1.1 to 5.0; P=0.002) periods after admission. There was no significant effect of SPI for any of the measures of vital signs. Use of a recommended system for scoring the severity of pneumonia improved from 1.9% (1/52) to 21.4% (12/56) of control and from 2.0% (1/50) to 41.7% (25/60) of SPI2 patients. This temporal change was significant (7.3, 1.4 to 37.7; P=0.002), but the difference in difference was not significant (2.1, 0.4 to 11.1; P=0.236). There were no notable or significant changes in the pattern of prescribing errors, either over time or between control and SPI2 hospitals. Two items of medical history taking (exercise tolerance and occupation) showed significant improvement over time, across both control and SPI2 hospitals, but no additional SPI2 effect. The holistic review showed no significant changes in error rates either over time or between control and SPI2 hospitals. The explicit case note review of perioperative care showed that adherence rates for two of the four perioperative standards targeted by SPI2 were already good at baseline, exceeding 94% for antibiotic prophylaxis and 98% for deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis. Intraoperative monitoring of temperature improved over time in both groups, but this was not significant (1.8, 0.4 to 7.6; P=0.279), and there were no additional effects of SPI2. A dramatic rise in consumption of soap and alcohol hand rub was similar in control and SPI2 hospitals (P=0.760 and P=0.889, respectively), as was the corresponding decrease in rates of Clostridium difficile and meticillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection (P=0.652 and P=0.693, respectively). Mortality rates of medical patients included in the case note reviews in control hospitals increased from 17.3% (42/243) to 21.4% (24/112), while in SPI2 hospitals they fell from 10.3% (24/233) to 6.1% (7/114) (P=0.043). Fewer than 8% of deaths were classed as avoidable; changes in proportions could not explain the divergence of overall death rates between control and SPI2 hospitals. There was no significant difference in the rate of change in mortality in intensive care. Patients' satisfaction improved in both control and SPI2 hospitals on all dimensions, but again there were no significant changes between the two groups of hospitals. Conclusions: Many aspects of care are already good or improving across the NHS in England, suggesting considerable improvements in quality across the board. These improvements are probably due to contemporaneous policy activities relating to patient safety, including those with features similar to the SPI, and the emergence of professional consensus on some clinical processes. This phenomenon might have attenuated the incremental effect of the SPI, making it difficult to detect. Alternatively, the full impact of the SPI might be observable only in the longer term. The conclusion of this study could have been different if concurrent controls had not been used.

Large scale organisational intervention to improve patient safety in four UK hospitals:mixed method evaluation

Objectives: To conduct an independent evaluation of the first phase of the Health Foundation's Safer Patients Initiative (SPI), and to identify the net additional effect of SPI and any differences in changes in participating and non-participating NHS hospitals. Design: Mixed method evaluation involving five substudies, before and after design. Setting: NHS hospitals in United Kingdom. Participants: Four hospitals (one in each country in the UK) participating in the first phase of the SPI (SPI1); 18 control hospitals. Intervention: The SPI1 was a compound (multicomponent) organisational intervention delivered over 18 months that focused on improving the reliability of specific frontline care processes in designated clinical specialties and promoting organisational and cultural change. Results: Senior staff members were knowledgeable and enthusiastic about SPI1. There was a small (0.08 points on a 5 point scale) but significant (P<0.01) effect in favour of the SPI1 hospitals in one of 11 dimensions of the staff questionnaire (organisational climate). Qualitative evidence showed only modest penetration of SPI1 at medical ward level. Although SPI1 was designed to engage staff from the bottom up, it did not usually feel like this to those working on the wards, and questions about legitimacy of some aspects of SPI1 were raised. Of the five components to identify patients at risk of deterioration - monitoring of vital signs (14 items); routine tests (three items); evidence based standards specific to certain diseases (three items); prescribing errors (multiple items from the British National Formulary); and medical history taking (11 items) - there was little net difference between control and SPI1 hospitals, except in relation to quality of monitoring of acute medical patients, which improved on average over time across all hospitals. Recording of respiratory rate increased to a greater degree in SPI1 than in control hospitals; in the second six hours after admission recording increased from 40% (93) to 69% (165) in control hospitals and from 37% (141) to 78% (296) in SPI1 hospitals (odds ratio for "difference in difference" 2.1, 99% confidence interval 1.0 to 4.3; P=0.008). Use of a formal scoring system for patients with pneumonia also increased over time (from 2% (102) to 23% (111) in control hospitals and from 2% (170) to 9% (189) in SPI1 hospitals), which favoured controls and was not significant (0.3, 0.02 to 3.4; P=0.173). There were no improvements in the proportion of prescription errors and no effects that could be attributed to SPI1 in non-targeted generic areas (such as enhanced safety culture). On some measures, the lack of effect could be because compliance was already high at baseline (such as use of steroids in over 85% of cases where indicated), but even when there was more room for improvement (such as in quality of medical history taking), there was no significant additional net effect of SPI1. There were no changes over time or between control and SPI1 hospitals in errors or rates of adverse events in patients in medical wards. Mortality increased from 11% (27) to 16% (39) among controls and decreased from17%(63) to13%(49) among SPI1 hospitals, but the risk adjusted difference was not significant (0.5, 0.2 to 1.4; P=0.085). Poor care was a contributing factor in four of the 178 deaths identified by review of case notes. The survey of patients showed no significant differences apart from an increase in perception of cleanliness in favour of SPI1 hospitals. Conclusions The introduction of SPI1 was associated with improvements in one of the types of clinical process studied (monitoring of vital signs) and one measure of staff perceptions of organisational climate. There was no additional effect of SPI1 on other targeted issues nor on other measures of generic organisational strengthening.

Undermining patient and public engagement and limiting its impact:the consequences of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 on collective patient and public involvement

Patient and public involvement has been at the heart of UK health policy for more than two decades. This commitment to putting patients at the heart of the British National Health Service (NHS) has become a central principle helping to ensure equity, patient safety and effectiveness in the health system. The recent Health and Social Care Act 2012 is the most significant reform of the NHS since its foundation in 1948. More radically, this legislation undermines the principle of patient and public involvement, public accountability and returns the power for prioritisation of health services to an unaccountable medical elite. This legislation marks a sea-change in the approach to patient and public involvement in the UK and signals a shift in the commitment of the UK government to patient-centred care. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

A KM perspective on implementing an electronic patient record within an NHS hospital

The Electronic Patient Record (EPR) is being developed by many hospitals in the UK and across the globe. We class an EPR system as a type of Knowledge Management System (KMS), in that it is a technological tool developed to support the process of knowledge management (KM). Healthcare organisations aim to use these systems to provide a vehicle for more informed and improved clinical decision making thereby delivering reduced errors and risks, enhanced quality and consequently offering enhanced patient safety. Finding an effective way for a healthcare organisation to practically implement these systems is essential. In this study we use the concept of the business process approach to KM as a theoretical lens to analyse and explore how a large NHS teaching hospital developed, executed and practically implemented an EPR system. This theory advocates the importance of taking into account all organizational activities - the business processes - in considering any KM initiatives. Approaching KM through business processes allows for a more holistic view of the requirements across a process: emphasis is placed on how particular activities are performed, how they are structured and what knowledge demanded and not just supplied across each process. This falls in line with the increased emphasis in healthcare on patient-centred approaches to care delivery. We have found in previous research that hospitals are happy with the delivery of patient care being referred to as their 'business'. A qualitative study was conducted over a two and half year period with data collected from semi-structured interviews with eight members of the strategic management team, 12 clinical users and 20 patients in addition to non- participant observation of meetings and documentary data. We believe that the inclusion of patients within the study may well be the first time this has been done in examining the implementation of a KMS. The theoretical propositions strategy was used as the overarching approach for data analysis. Here Initial theoretical research themes and propositions were used to help shape and organise the case study analysis. This paper will present preliminary findings about the hospital's business strategy and its links to the KMS strategy and process.

Patient/carers' recollection of medicines related information from an out-patient clinic appointment

AIM: To identify what medicines related information children/young people or their parents/carers are able to recall following an out-patient clinic appointment. METHOD: A convenience sample of patients' prescribed at least one new long-term (>6 weeks) medicine were recruited from a single UK paediatric hospital out-patient pharmacy. A face-to-face semi-structured questionnaire was administered to participants when they presented with their prescription. The questionnaire included the following themes: names of the medicines, therapeutic indication, dose regimen, duration of treatment and adverse effects.The results were analysed using Microsoft Excel 2013. RESULTS: One hundred participants consented and were included in the study. One hundred and forty-five medicines were prescribed in total. Participants were able to recall the names of 96 (66%) medicines and were aware of the therapeutic indication for 142 (97.9%) medicines. The dose regimen was accurately described for 120 (82.8%) medicines with the duration of treatment known for 132 (91%). Participants mentioned that they had been advised about side effects for 44 (30.3%) medicines. Specific counselling points recommended by the BNFc1, were either omitted or not recalled by participants for the following systemic treatments: cetirizine (1), chlorphenamine (1), desmopressin (2), hydroxyzine (2), itraconazole (1), piroxicam (2), methotrexate (1), stiripentol (1) and topiramate (1). CONCLUSION: Following an out-patient consultation, where a new medicine is prescribed, children and their parents/carers are usually able to recall the indication, dose regimen and duration of treatment. Few were able to recall, or were told about, possible adverse effects. This may include some important drug specific effects that require vigilance during treatment.Patients, along with families and carers, should be involved in the decision to prescribe a medicine.2 This includes a discussion about the benefits of the medicine on the patient's condition and possible adverse effects.2 Treatment side effects have been shown to be a factor in treatment non-adherence in paediatric long-term medical conditions.3 Practitioners should explain to patients, and their family members or carers where appropriate, how to identify and report medicines-related patient safety incidents.4 However, this study suggests that medical staff may not be comfortable discussing the adverse effects of medicines with patients or their parents/carers.Further research in to the shared decision making process in the paediatric out-patient clinic when a new long-term medicine is prescribed is required to further support medicines adherence and the patient safety agenda.

Tailoring treatment to the individual in type 2 diabetes practical guidance from the Global Partnership for Effective Diabetes Management

Good glycaemic control continues to be the most effective therapeutic manoeuvre to reduce the risk of development and/or progression of microvascular disease, and therefore remains the cornerstone of diabetes management despite recent scepticism about tight glucose control strategies. The impact on macrovascular complications is still a matter of debate, and so glycaemic control strategies should be placed in the context of multifactorial intervention to address all cardiovascular risk factors. Approaches to achieve glycaemic targets should always ensure patient safety, and results from recent landmark outcome studies support the need for appropriate individualisation of glycaemic targets and of the means to achieve these targets, with the ultimate aim to optimise outcomes and minimise adverse events, such as hypoglycaemia and marked weight gain. The primary goal of the Global Partnership for Effective Diabetes Management is the provision of practical guidance to improve patient outcomes and, in this article, we aim to support healthcare professionals in appropriately tailoring type 2 diabetes treatment to the individual. Patient groups requiring special consideration are identified, including newly diagnosed individuals with type 2 diabetes but no complications, individuals with a history of inadequate glycaemic control, those with a history of cardiovascular disease, children and individuals at risk of hypoglycaemia. Practical guidance specific to each group is provided.

Medication discrepancies at transitions in pediatrics:a review of the literature

Medication reconciliation is an important process in reducing medication errors in many countries. Canada, the USA, and UK have incorporated medication reconciliation as a priority area for national patient safety initiatives and goals. The UK national guidance excludes the pediatric population. The aim of this review was to explore the occurrence of medication discrepancies in the pediatric population. The primary objective was to identify studies reporting the rate and clinical significance of the discrepancies and the secondary objective was to ascertain whether any specific interventions have been used for medication reconciliation in pediatric settings. The following electronic bibliographic databases were used to identify studies: PubMed, OVID EMBASE (1980 to 2012 week 1), ISI Web of Science, ISI Biosis, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and OVID International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970 to January 2012). Primary studies were identified that observed medication discrepancies in children under 18 years of age upon hospital admission, transfer and discharge, or had reported medication reconciliation interventions. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts for relevant articles and extracted data using pre-defined data fields, including risk of bias assessment. Ten studies were identified with variances in reportage of stage and rate of discrepancies. Studies were heterogeneous in definitions, methods, and patient populations. Most studies related to admissions and reported consistently high rates of discrepancies ranging from 22 to 72.3 % of patients (sample size ranging from 23 to 272). Seven of the studies were low-quality observational studies and three studies were 'grey literature' non-peer reviewed conference abstracts. Studies involving small numbers of patients have shown that medication discrepancies occur at all transitions of care in children. Further research is required to investigate and demonstrate how implementing medication reconciliation can reduce discrepancies and potential patient harm. © 2013 Springer International Publishing Switzerland.

A Conceptual Foresight Model to Investigate the Adoption of Radio Frequency Identification Technology in the English National Health Service

Radio Frequency Identification Technology (RFID) adoption in healthcare settings has the potential to reduce errors, improve patient safety, streamline operational processes and enable the sharing of information throughout supply chains. RFID adoption in the English NHS is limited to isolated pilot studies. Firstly, this study investigates the drivers and inhibitors to RFID adoption in the English NHS from the perspective of the GS1 Healthcare User Group (HUG) tasked with coordinating adoption across private and public sectors. Secondly a conceptual model has been developed and deployed, combining two of foresight’s most popular methods; scenario planning and technology roadmapping. The model addresses the weaknesses of each foresight technique as well as capitalizing on their individual, inherent strengths. Semi structured interviews, scenario planning workshops and a technology roadmapping exercise were conducted with the members of the HUG over an 18-month period. An action research mode of enquiry was utilized with a thematic analysis approach for the identification and discussion of the drivers and inhibitors of RFID adoption. The results of the conceptual model are analysed in comparison to other similar models. There are implications for managers responsible for RFID adoption in both the NHS and its commercial partners, and for foresight practitioners. Managers can leverage the insights gained from identifying the drivers and inhibitors to RFID adoption by making efforts to influence the removal of inhibitors and supporting the continuation of the drivers. The academic contribution of this aspect of the thesis is in the field of RFID adoption in healthcare settings. Drivers and inhibitors to RFID adoption in the English NHS are compared to those found in other settings. The implication for technology foresight practitioners is a proof of concept of a model combining scenario planning and technology roadmapping using a novel process. The academic contribution to the field of technology foresight is the conceptual development of foresight model that combines two popular techniques and then a deployment of the conceptual foresight model in a healthcare setting exploring the future of RFID technology.

Clinical significance of medication reconciliation in children admitted to a UK pediatric hospital:observational study of neurosurgical patients

Background: In December 2007, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and the National Patient Safety Agency in the UK (NICE-NPSA) published guidance that recommends all adults admitted to hospital receive medication reconciliation, usually by pharmacy staff. A costing and report tool was provided indicating a resource requirement of d12.9 million for England per year. Pediatric patients are excluded from this guidance. Objective: To determine the clinical significance of medication reconciliation in children on admission to hospital. Methods: A prospective observational study included pediatric patients admitted to a neurosurgical ward at Birmingham Childrens Hospital, Birmingham, England, between September 2006 and March 2007. Medication reconciliation was conducted by a pharmacist after the admission of each of 100 consecutive eligible patients aged 4 months to 16 years. The clinical significance of prescribing disparities between pre-admission medications and initial admission medication orders was determined by an expert multidisciplinary panel and quantified using an analog scale. The main outcome measure was the clinical signficance of unintentional variations between hospital admission medication orders and physician-prescribed pre-admission medication for repeat (continuing) medications. Results: Initial admission medication orders for children differed from prescribed pre-admission medication in 39%of cases. Half of all resulting prescribing variations in this setting had the potential to cause moderate or severe discomfort or clinical deterioration. These results mirror findings for adults. Conclusions: The introduction of medication reconciliation in children on admission to hospital has the potential to reduce discomfort or clinical deterioration by reducing unintentional changes to repeat prescribed medication. Consequently, there is no justification for the omission of children from the NICENPSA guidance concerning medication reconciliation in hospitals, and costing tools should include pediatric patients. © 2010 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.

What is the current practice of medicines reconciliation in children nationally in the UK?

INTRODUCTION: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence/National Patient Safety Agency (NICE/NPSA) guidelines for medicines reconciliation (MR) on admission to hospital in adult inpatients were introduced in 2007, but they excluded children less than 16 years of age. METHOD: We conducted a survey of 98 paediatric pharmacists (each from a different hospital) to find out what the current practice of MR in children is in the UK. KEY FINDINGS: Responses showed that 67% (43/64) of pharmacists surveyed carried out MR in all children at admission and only a third 34% (22/64) had policies for MR in children. Of the respondents who did not carry out MR in all children, 80% (4/5) responded that they did so in selected children. Pharmacists considered themselves the most appropriate profession for carrying out MR. When asked whether the NICE guidance should be expanded to include children, 98% (54/55) of the respondents answered 'yes'. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the findings suggest that MR is being conducted inconsistently in children and most paediatric pharmacists would like national guidance to be expanded to include children.

The clinical significance of medicines reconciliation in children admitted to hospital

Aims and Objectives: The NICE/NPSA guidance on Medicines Reconciliation in adults upon hospital admission excludes children under the age of 16.1 Hence the primary aim and objective of this study was to use medicines reconciliation to primarily identify if discrepancies occur upon hospital admission. Secondary objectives were to clinically assess for harm discrepancies that were identified in paediatric patients on long term medications at four hospitals across the UK. Method: Medicines reconciliation is a procedure where the current medication history of a patient prior to hospital admission would be taken and verifying the medication orders made at hospital admission against this history, addressing any discrepancies identified. Medicines reconciliation was carried out prospectively for 244 paediatric patients on chronic medication across four UK hospitals (Birmingham, London, Leeds and North Staffordshire) between January – May 2011. Medicines reconciliation was conducted by a clinical pharmacist using the following sources of information: 1) the patient's Pre-Admission Medication (PAM) from the patient's general practitioner 2) examination of the Patient's Own Medications brought into hospital, 3) a semi-structured interview with the parent-carers and 4) identification of admission medication orders written on the drug chart prior to clinical pharmacy input (Drug Chart). Discrepancies between the PAM and Drug Chart were documented and classified as intentional or unintentional. Intentional discrepancies were defined as changes that were made knowingly by the prescriber and confirmed. Unintentional discrepancies were assessed for clinical significance by an expert panel and assigned a significance score based on the likelihood of causing potential discomfort or clinical deterioration: class 1 unlikely, class 2 moderate and class 3 severe.2 Results: 1004 medication regimens were included from the 244 patients across the four sites. 588 of the 1004 (59%) medicines, had discrepancies between the PAM and Drug Chart; of these 36% (n = 209) were unintentional and included for clinically assessment. 189 drug discrepancies 30% were classified as class 1, 47% were class 2 and 23% were class 3 discrepancies. The remaining 20 discrepancies were cases where deviating from the PAM would have been the right thing to do, which might suggest that an intentional but undocumented discrepancy by the prescriber writing up the admission order may have occurred. Conclusion: The results suggest that medication discrepancies in paediatric patients do occur upon hospital admission, which do have a potential to cause harm and that medicines reconciliation is a potential solution to preventing such discrepancies. References: 1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. National Patient Safety Agency. PSG001. Technical patient safety solutions for medicines reconciliation on admission of adults to hospital. London: NICE; 2007. 2. Cornish, P. L., Knowles, S. R., Marchesano, et al. Unintended Medication Discrepancies at the Time of Hospital Admission. Archives of Internal Medicine 2005; 165:424–429

The SECURE study:long-term safety of Ranibizumab 0.5 mg in neovascular age-related macular degeneration

Objective - To evaluate long-term safety of intravitreal ranibizumab 0.5-mg injections in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Design - Twenty-four–month, open-label, multicenter, phase IV extension study. Participants - Two hundred thirty-four patients previously treated with ranibizumab for 12 months in the EXCITE/SUSTAIN study. Methods - Ranibizumab 0.5 mg administered at the investigator's discretion as per the European summary of product characteristics 2007 (SmPC, i.e., ranibizumab was administered if a patient experienced a best-corrected visual acuity [BCVA] loss of >5 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters measured against the highest visual acuity [VA] value obtained in SECURE or previous studies [EXCITE and SUSTAIN], attributable to the presence or progression of active nAMD in the investigator's opinion). Main Outcome Measures - Incidence of ocular or nonocular adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs, mean change in BCVA from baseline over time, and the number of injections. Results - Of 234 enrolled patients, 210 (89.7%) completed the study. Patients received 6.1 (mean) ranibizumab injections over 24 months. Approximately 42% of patients had 7 or more visits at which ranibizumab was not administered, although they had experienced a VA loss of more than 5 letters, indicating either an undertreatment or that factors other than VA loss were considered for retreatment decision by the investigator. The most frequent ocular AEs (study eye) were retinal hemorrhage (12.8%; 1 event related to study drug), cataract (11.5%; 1 event related to treatment procedure), and increased intraocular pressure (6.4%; 1 event related to study drug). Cataract reported as serious due to hospitalization for cataract surgery occurred in 2.6% of patients; none was suspected to be related to study drug or procedure. Main nonocular AEs were hypertension and nasopharyngitis (9.0% each). Arterial thromboembolic events were reported in 5.6% of the patients. Five (2.1%) deaths occurred during the study, none related to the study drug or procedure. At month 24, mean BCVA declined by 4.3 letters from the SECURE baseline. Conclusions - The SECURE study showed that ranibizumab administered as per a VA-guided flexible dosing regimen recommended in the European ranibizumab SmPC at the investigator's discretion was well tolerated over 2 years. No new safety signals were identified in patients who received ranibizumab for a total of 3 years. On average, patients lost BCVA from the SECURE study baseline, which may be the result of disease progression or possible undertreatment.

Patient adherence to medication requirements for therapy of type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is a complex, progressive endocrine and metabolical disease that typically requires substantial lifestyle changes and multiple medications to lower blood glucose, reduce cardiovascular risk and address comorbidities. Despite an extensive range of available and effective treatments, <50% of patients achieve a glycaemical target of HbA <7.0% and about two-thirds die of premature cardiovascular disease. Adherence to prescribed therapies is an important factor in the management of type 2 diabetes that is often overlooked. Inadequate adherence to oral antidiabetes agents, defined as collecting <80% of prescribed medication, is variously estimated to apply to between 36% and 93% of patients. All studies affirm that a significant proportion of type 2 diabetes patients exhibit poor adherence that will contribute to less than desired control. Identified factors that impede adherence include complex dosing regimens, clinical inertia, safety concerns, socioeconomic issues, ethnicity, patient education and beliefs, social support and polypharmacy. This review explores these factors and potential strategies to improve adherence in patients with type 2 diabetes. © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.