Medicines management across the primary-hospital healthcare interface: a study of paediatric patients

A comparison of medicines management documents in use by NHS organisations in the West Midlands confirms that there are important differences between the primary care and hospital sectors in respect to medicines management interface issues. Of these, two aspects important to paediatric patients have been studied. These are the transfer of information as a patient is admitted to hospital, and access to long-term medicines for home-patients. National guidance provided by NICE requires medication reconciliation to be undertaken on admission to hospital for adults. A study of paediatric admissions, reported in this thesis, demonstrates that the clinical importance of this process is at least as important for children as for adults, and challenges current UK guidance. The transfer of essential medication information on hospital admission is central to the medication reconciliation process. Two surveys of PCTs in 2007 and again in 2009 demonstrate that very few PCTs provide guidance to GPs to support this process. Provision of guidance is increasing slowly but remains the exception. The provision of long-term medicines for children at home is hindered by this patient population often needing unlicensed drugs. Further studies demonstrate that primary care processes regularly fail to maintain access to essential drugs and patients and their carers frequently turn to hospitals for help. Surveys of hospital medical staff (single site) and hospital nurses (six UK sites) demonstrates the activity these healthcare workers perform to help children get the medicines they need. A similar survey of why carers turn to a hospital pharmacy department for urgent supplies (usually termed rescue-medicines) adds to the understanding of these problems and supports identifying service changes. A large survey of community pharmacies demonstrates the difficulties they have when dispensing hospital prescriptions and identifies practical solutions. This programme concludes by recommending service changes to support medication management for children.

Support tools for paediatric inpatient prescribers:a review

Prescribing support for paediatrics is diverse and includes both standard texts and electronic tools. Evidence concerning who should be supported and by what method is limited. This review aims to collate the current information available on prescribing support in paediatrics. Many tools designed to support prescribers are technology based. For example, electronic prescribing and smart phone applications. There is a focus on prescriber education both at undergraduate and postgraduate level. In the UK, the majority of inpatient prescribing is done by junior medical staff. It is important to ensure they are competent on qualification and supported in this role. A UK national prescribing assessment is being trialled to test for competence on graduation and there are also tools available to test paediatric prescribing after qualification. No information is available on the tools and resources UK prescribers currently use to support their decision making. One US study reported a decrease in the availability of paediatric prescribing information in a popular reference text. There is limited evidence to show that decisionsupport tools improve patient outcomes, however, there is growing confirmation that electronic prescribing reduces medication errors. There have been reports of new error types, such as selection errors, occurring with the use of electronic prescribing. Another concern with computerised decision-support systems is deciding what alerts should be presented to the prescriber and when/how often in order to avoid alert fatigue. There is little published concerning paediatric alerts perhaps as a consequence of commercial systems often not including paediatric specific support.

Patient experiences of serious adverse drug reactions and their attitudes to medicines:a qualitative study of survivors of Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis in the UK

Background: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) cause significant morbidity and mortality and account for around 6.5% of hospital admissions. Patient experiences of serious ADRs and their long-term impact on patients' lives, including their influence on current attitudes towards medicines, have not been previously explored. Objective: The aim of the study was to explore the experiences, beliefs, and attitudes of survivors of serious ADRs, using drug-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN) as a paradigm. Methods: A retrospective, qualitative study was undertaken using detailed semi-structured interviews. Fourteen adult survivors of SJS and TEN, admitted to two teaching hospitals in the UK, one the location of a tertiary burns centre, were interviewed. Interview transcripts were independently analysed by three different researchers and themes emerging from the text identified. Results: All 14 patients were aware that their condition was drug induced, and all but one knew the specific drug(s) implicated. Several expressed surprise at the perceived lack of awareness of the ADR amongst healthcare professionals, and described how the ADR was mistaken for another condition. Survivors believed that causes of the ADR included (i) being given too high a dose of the drug; (ii) medical staff ignoring existing allergies; and (iii) failure to monitor blood tests. Only two believed that the reaction was unavoidable. Those who believed that the condition could have been avoided had less trust in healthcare professionals. The ADR had a persisting impact on their current lives physically and psychologically. Many now avoided medicines altogether and were fearful of becoming ill enough to need them. © 2011 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Conclusions: Life-threatening ADRs continued to affect patients’ lives long after the event. Patients’ beliefs regarding the cause of the ADR differed, and may have influenced their trust in healthcare professionals and medicines. We propose that clear communication during the acute phase of a serious ADR may therefore be important.

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.

Medical students' personal experience of high-stakes failure:case studies using interpretative phenomenological analysis

Abstract (provisional): Background Failing a high-stakes assessment at medical school is a major event for those who go through the experience. Students who fail at medical school may be more likely to struggle in professional practice, therefore helping individuals overcome problems and respond appropriately is important. There is little understanding about what factors influence how individuals experience failure or make sense of the failing experience in remediation. The aim of this study was to investigate the complexity surrounding the failure experience from the student’s perspective using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). Methods The accounts of 3 medical students who had failed final re-sit exams, were subjected to in-depth analysis using IPA methodology. IPA was used to analyse each transcript case-by-case allowing the researcher to make sense of the participant’s subjective world. The analysis process allowed the complexity surrounding the failure to be highlighted, alongside a narrative describing how students made sense of the experience. Results The circumstances surrounding students as they approached assessment and experienced failure at finals were a complex interaction between academic problems, personal problems (specifically finance and relationships), strained relationships with friends, family or faculty, and various mental health problems. Each student experienced multi-dimensional issues, each with their own individual combination of problems, but experienced remediation as a one-dimensional intervention with focus only on improving performance in written exams. What these students needed to be included was help with clinical skills, plus social and emotional support. Fear of termination of the their course was a barrier to open communication with staff. Conclusions These students’ experience of failure was complex. The experience of remediation is influenced by the way in which students make sense of failing. Generic remediation programmes may fail to meet the needs of students for whom personal, social and mental health issues are a part of the picture.