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.

Comparing nurses’ and doctors’ views of nurse prescribing: a questionnaire survey

Nurses have successfully adopted the role of prescriber in numerous health care settings in the UK. Existing research has not addressed how Nurse Independent and Nurse Supplementary Prescribers compare with doctors in terms of the perceived advantages and disadvantages of nurse prescribing, nor has the perceived importance of nurses providing patients with an explanation about their medicines been established. The current study utilized a random sample of 31 qualified Nurse Independent and Nurse Supplementary Prescribers and 30 general practitioners who self-completed a written questionnaire in an independent groups design. The study establishes nurses’ and doctors’ perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of independent and supplementary nurse prescribing and provides some indication of the importance that nurses and doctors place on nurses providing an explanation about medicines, and the categories of information perceived to be important.

Patients' attitudes towards, and information needs in relation to, nurse prescribing in rheumatology

Aims and objectives: To assess the level of confidence that rheumatology patients would have in nurse prescribing, the effects on likely adherence and particular concerns that these patients have. In addition, given that information provision has been cited as a potential benefit of nurse prescribing, the present study assessed the extent to which these patients would want an explanation for the selected medicine, as well as which types of information should be included in such an explanation. Background: Nurse prescribing has been successfully implemented in the UK in several healthcare settings. Existing research has not addressed the effects on patients' confidence and likely adherence, nor have patients' information needs been established. However, we know that inadequate medicines information provision by health professionals is one of the largest causes of patient dissatisfaction. Methods: Fifty-four patients taking disease-modifying drugs for inflammatory joint disease attending a specialist rheumatology clinic self-completed a written questionnaire. Results: Patients indicated a relatively high level of confidence in nurse prescribing and stated that they would be very likely to take the selected medication. The level of concern was relatively low and the majority of concerns raised did not relate to the nurse's status. Strong support was expressed for the nurse providing an explanation for medicine choice. Conclusion: This research provides support for the prescription of medicines by nurses working in the area of rheumatology, the importance of nurses providing a full explanation about the selected medicines they prescribe for these patients and some indication as to which categories of information should be included. Relevance to clinical practice: Rheumatology patients who have not yet experienced nurse prescribing are, in general, positive about nurses adopting this role. It is important that nurses provide appropriate information about the prescribed medicines, in a form that can be understood.

Achieving whole-life value: The challenges of service-led construction

Major construction clients are increasingly looking to procure built facilities on the basis of added value, rather than capital cost. Recent advances in the procurement of construction projects have emphasised a whole-life value approach to meeting the client’s objectives, with strategies put in place to encourage long-term commitment and through-life service provision. Construction firms are therefore increasingly required to take on responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the construction project on the client’s behalf - with the emphasis on value and service. This inevitably throws up a host of challenges, not the least of which is the need for construction firms to manage and accommodate the new emphasis on service. Indeed, these ‘service-led’ projects represent a new realm of construction projects where the rationale for the project is driven by client’s objectives with some aspect of service provision. This vision of downstream service delivery increases the number of stakeholders, adds to project complexity and challenges deeply-ingrained working practices. Ultimately it presents a major challenge for the construction sector. This paper sets out to unravel some of the many implications that this change brings with it. It draws upon ongoing research investigating how construction firms can adapt to a more service-orientated built environment and add value in project-based environments. The conclusions lay bare the challenges that firms face when trying to compete on the basis of added-value and service delivery. In particular, how it affects deeply-ingrained working practices and established relationships in the sector.

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.