Causes of preventable drug-related hospital admissions: a qualitative study

Objective: To explore the causes of preventable drug-related admissions (PDRAs) to hospital. Design: Qualitative case studies using semi-structured interviews and medical record review; data analysed using a framework derived from Reason's model of organisational accidents and cascade analysis. Participants: 62 participants, including 18 patients, 8 informal carers, 17 general practitioners, 12 community pharmacists, 3 practice nurses and 4 other members of healthcare staff, involved in events leading up to the patients' hospital admissions. Setting: Nottingham, UK. Results: PDRAs are associated with problems at multiple stages in the medication use process, including prescribing, dispensing, administration, monitoring and help seeking. The main causes of these problems are communication failures ( between patients and healthcare professionals and different groups of healthcare professionals) and knowledge gaps ( about drugs and patients' medical and medication histories). The causes of PDRAs are similar irrespective of whether the hospital admission is associated with a prescribing, monitoring or patient adherence problem. Conclusions: The causes of PDRAs are multifaceted and complex. Technical solutions to PDRAs will need to take account of this complexity and are unlikely to be sufficient on their own. Interventions targeting the human causes of PDRAs are also necessary - for example, improving methods of communication.

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.

Assessing the accuracy of a computerized decision support system for digoxin dosing in primary care: an observational study

Background: This study was carried out as part of a European Union funded project (PharmDIS-e+), to develop and evaluate software aimed at assisting physicians with drug dosing. A drug that causes particular problems with drug dosing in primary care is digoxin because of its narrow therapeutic range and low therapeutic index. Objectives: To determine (i) accuracy of the PharmDIS-e+ software for predicting serum digoxin levels in patients who are taking this drug regularly; (ii) whether there are statistically significant differences between predicted digoxin levels and those measured by a laboratory and (iii) whether there are differences between doses prescribed by general practitioners and those suggested by the program. Methods: We needed 45 patients to have 95% Power to reject the null hypothesis that the mean serum digoxin concentration was within 10% of the mean predicted digoxin concentration. Patients were recruited from two general practices and had been taking digoxin for at least 4 months. Exclusion criteria were dementia, low adherence to digoxin and use of other medications known to interact to a clinically important extent with digoxin. Results: Forty-five patients were recruited. There was a correlation of 0·65 between measured and predicted digoxin concentrations (P < 0·001). The mean difference was 0·12 μg/L (SD 0·26; 95% CI 0·04, 0·19, P = 0·005). Forty-seven per cent of the patients were prescribed the same dose as recommended by the software, 44% were prescribed a higher dose and 9% a lower dose than recommended. Conclusion: PharmDIS-e+ software was able to predict serum digoxin levels with acceptable accuracy in most patients.

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.

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.

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.

Combined use of two genetic fingerprinting methods, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and ribotyping, for characterization of Escherichia coli O157 isolates from food animals, retail meats, and cases of human disease

Two genetic fingerprinting techniques, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) and ribotyping, were used to characterize 207 Escherichia coli O157 isolates from food animals, foods of animal origin, and cases of human disease (206 of the isolates were from the United Kingdom). In addition, 164 of these isolates were also phage typed. The isolates were divided into two general groups: (i) unrelated isolates not known to be epidemiologically linked (n = 154) and originating from food animals, foods and the environment, or humans and (ii) epidemiologically related isolates (n = 53) comprised of four related groups (RGs) originating either from one farm plus the abattoir where cattle from that farm were slaughtered or from one of three different English abattoirs. PFGE was conducted with the restriction endonuclease XbaI. while for ribotyping, two restriction endonucleases (PstI and SphI) were combined to digest genomic DNAs simultaneously. The 207 E. coli O157 isolates produced 97 PFGE profiles and 51 ribotypes. The two genetic fingerprinting methods had similar powers to discriminate the 154 epidemiologically unrelated E. coli O157 isolates in the study (Simpson's index of diversity [D] = 0.98 and 0.94 for PFGE typing and ribotyping, respectively). There was no correlation between the source of an isolate (healthy meat or milk animals, retail meats, or cases of human infection) and either particular PFGE or ribotype profiles or clusters. Combination of the results of both genetic fingerprinting methods produced 146 types, significantly more than when either of the two methods was used individually. Consequently, the superior discriminatory performance of the PFGE-ribotyping combination was proven in two ways: (i) by demonstrating that the majority of the E. coli O157 isolates with unrelated histories were indeed distinguishable types and (ii) by identifying some clonal groups among two of the four RGs of E. coli O157 isolates (comprising PFGE types different by just one or two bands), the relatedness of which would have remained unconfirmed otherwise.

Developing consensus on hospital prescribing indicators of potential harms amenable to decision support

Aim: To develop a list of prescribing indicators specific for the hospital setting that would facilitate the prospective collection of high severity and/or high frequency prescribing errors, which are also amenable to electronic clinical decision support (CDS). Method: A three-stage consensus technique (electronic Delphi) was carried out with 20 expert pharmacists and physicians across England. Participants were asked to score prescribing errors using a 5-point Likert scale for their likelihood of occurrence and the severity of the most likely outcome. These were combined to produce risk scores, from which median scores were calculated for each indicator across the participants in the study. The degree of consensus between the participants was defined as the proportion that gave a risk score in the same category as the median. Indicators were included if a consensus of 80% or more was achieved. Results: A total of 80 prescribing errors were identified by consensus as being high or extreme risk. The most common drug classes named within the indicators were antibiotics (n=13), antidepressants (n=8), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (n=6), and opioid analgesics (n=6).The most frequent error type identified as high or extreme risk were those classified as clinical contraindications (n=29/80). Conclusion: 80 high risk prescribing errors in the hospital setting have been identified by an expert panel. These indicators can serve as the basis for a standardised, validated tool for the collection of data in both paperbased and electronic prescribing processes, as well as to assess the impact of electronic decision support implementation or development.

Training pharmacists to deliver a complex information technology intervention (PINCER) using the principles of educational outreach and root cause analysis

Objective: To describe the training undertaken by pharmacists employed in a pharmacist-led information technology-based intervention study to reduce medication errors in primary care (PINCER Trial), evaluate pharmacists’ assessment of the training, and the time implications of undertaking the training. Methods: Six pharmacists received training, which included training on root cause analysis and educational outreach, to enable them to deliver the PINCER Trial intervention. This was evaluated using self-report questionnaires at the end of each training session. The time taken to complete each session was recorded. Data from the evaluation forms were entered onto a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, independently checked and the summary of results further verified. Frequencies were calculated for responses to the three-point Likert scale questions. Free-text comments from the evaluation forms and pharmacists’ diaries were analysed thematically. Key findings: All six pharmacists received 22 hours of training over five sessions. In four out of the five sessions, the pharmacists who completed an evaluation form (27 out of 30 were completed) stated they were satisfied or very satisfied with the various elements of the training package. Analysis of free-text comments and the pharmacists’ diaries showed that the principles of root cause analysis and educational outreach were viewed as useful tools to help pharmacists conduct pharmaceutical interventions in both the study and other pharmacy roles that they undertook. The opportunity to undertake role play was a valuable part of the training received. Conclusions: Findings presented in this paper suggest that providing the PINCER pharmacists with training in root cause analysis and educational outreach contributed to the successful delivery of PINCER interventions and could potentially be utilised by other pharmacists based in general practice to deliver pharmaceutical interventions to improve patient safety.

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.

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.

The causes of prescribing errors in English general practices: a qualitative study

Aim: To examine the causes of prescribing and monitoring errors in English general practices and provide recommendations for how they may be overcome. Design: Qualitative interview and focus group study with purposive sampling and thematic analysis informed by Reason’s accident causation model. Participants: General practice staff participated in a combination of semi-structured interviews (n=34) and six focus groups (n=46). Setting: Fifteen general practices across three primary care trusts in England. Results: We identified seven categories of high-level error-producing conditions: the prescriber, the patient, the team, the task, the working environment, the computer system, and the primary-secondary care interface. Each of these was further broken down to reveal various error-producing conditions. The prescriber’s therapeutic training, drug knowledge and experience, knowledge of the patient, perception of risk, and their physical and emotional health, were all identified as possible causes. The patient’s characteristics and the complexity of the individual clinical case were also found to have contributed to prescribing errors. The importance of feeling comfortable within the practice team was highlighted, as well as the safety of general practitioners (GPs) in signing prescriptions generated by nurses when they had not seen the patient for themselves. The working environment with its high workload, time pressures, and interruptions, and computer related issues associated with mis-selecting drugs from electronic pick-lists and overriding alerts, were all highlighted as possible causes of prescribing errors and often interconnected. Conclusion: This study has highlighted the complex underlying causes of prescribing and monitoring errors in general practices, several of which are amenable to intervention.

Assessing the Implications of Faculty Beliefs and Expectations for Information Literacy Instruction

This presentation was offered as part of the CUNY Library Assessment Conference, Reinventing Libraries: Reinventing Assessment, held at the City University of New York in June 2014.