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.

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.

Medication error in mental health:implications for primary care

Medication errors are associated with significant morbidity and people with mental health problems may be particularly susceptible to medication errors due to various factors. Primary care has a key role in improving medication safety in this vulnerable population. The complexity of services, involving primary and secondary care and social services, and potential training issues may increase error rates, with physical medicines representing a particular risk. Service users may be cognitively impaired and fail to identify an error placing additional responsibilities on clinicians. The potential role of carers in error prevention and medication safety requires further elaboration. A potential lack of trust between service users and clinicians may impair honest communication about medication issues leading to errors. There is a need for detailed research within this field.

Error, Bias, and Long-Branch Attraction in Data for Two Chloroplast Photosystem Genes in Seed Plants

Sequences of two chloroplast photosystem genes, psaA and psbB, together comprising about 3,500 bp, were obtained for all five major groups of extant seed plants and several outgroups among other vascular plants. Strongly supported, but significantly conflicting, phylogenetic signals were obtained in parsimony analyses from partitions of the data into first and second codon positions versus third positions. In the former, both genes agreed on a monophyletic gymnosperms, with Gnetales closely related to certain conifers. In the latter, Gnetales are inferred to be the sister group of all other seed plants, with gymnosperms paraphyletic. None of the data supported the modern ‘‘anthophyte hypothesis,’’ which places Gnetales as the sister group of flowering plants. A series of simulation studies were undertaken to examine the error rate for parsimony inference. Three kinds of errors were examined: random error, systematic bias (both properties of finite data sets), and statistical inconsistency owing to long-branch attraction (an asymptotic property). Parsimony reconstructions were extremely biased for third-position data for psbB. Regardless of the true underlying tree, a tree in which Gnetales are sister to all other seed plants was likely to be reconstructed for these data. None of the combinations of genes or partitions permits the anthophyte tree to be reconstructed with high probability. Simulations of progressively larger data sets indicate the existence of long-branch attraction (statistical inconsistency) for third-position psbB data if either the anthophyte tree or the gymnosperm tree is correct. This is also true for the anthophyte tree using either psaA third positions or psbB first and second positions. A factor contributing to bias and inconsistency is extremely short branches at the base of the seed plant radiation, coupled with extremely high rates in Gnetales and nonseed plant outgroups. M. J. Sanderson,* M. F. Wojciechowski,*† J.-M. Hu,* T. Sher Khan,* and S. G. Brady

Intentions and willingness to use complementary and alternative medicines : what potential patients believe about CAMs

This paper explores the intentions and willingness of a sample of Australian consumers (N = 356) to use Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM). Participants considered using CAMs at least once in the next two months and rated the likelihood of certain consequences of CAM use, whether important others would approve, and if barriers would prevent them from using CAMs. People intending to use CAMs (high intenders) were more likely than those low on intention (low intenders) to endorse positive outcomes of CAM use and believe that important others would support their CAM use. High intenders were less likely than low intenders to believe that barriers would prevent use. Low intenders (n = 200) were also asked to consider their response to a free CAM trial. Those willing to accept a trial were more likely than those unwilling to believe that CAMs could improve health and less likely to believe that laziness would prevent use. These results identify important beliefs which may influence people’s decisions to use CAMs.