Meeting user needs in national healthcare systems: lessons from early adopter community pharmacists using the electronic prescriptions service

BACKGROUND: The Electronic Prescription Service release Two (EPS2) is a new national healthcare information and communication technology in England that aims to deliver effective prescription writing, dispensing and reimbursement service to benefit patients. The aim of the study was to explore initial user experiences of Community Pharmacists (CPs) using EPS2. METHODS: We conducted nonparticipant observations and interviews in eight EPS2 early adopter community pharmacies classified as ‘first-of-type’ in midlands and northern regions in England. We interviewed eight pharmacists and two dispensers in addition to 56 hours recorded nonparticipant observations as field notes. Line-by-line coding and thematic analysis was conducted on the interview transcripts and field notes. RESULTS: CPs faced two types of challenge. The first was to do with missing electronic prescriptions. This was sometimes very disrupting to work practice, but pharmacists considered it a temporary issue resolvable with minor modifications to the system and user familiarity. The second was to do with long term design-specific issues. Pharmacists could only overcome these by using the system in ways not intended by the developers. Some felt that these issues would not exist had ‘real’ users been involved in the initial development. The issues were: 1) printing out electronic prescriptions (tokens) to dispense from for safe dispensing practices and to free up monitors for other uses, 2) logging all dispensing activities with one user’s Smartcard for convenience and use all human resources in the pharmacy, and, 3) problematic interface causing issues with endorsing prescriptions and claiming reimbursements. CONCLUSIONS: We question if these unintended uses and barriers would have occurred had a more rigorous user-centric principles been applied at the earlier stages of design and implementation of EPS. We conclude that, since modification can occur at the evaluation stage, there is still scope for some of these barriers to be corrected to address the needs, and enhance the experiences, of CPs using the service, and make recommendations on how current challenges could be resolved

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

Bayesian Cohort and Cross-Sectional Analyses of the PINCER Trial: A Pharmacist-Led Intervention to Reduce Medication Errors in Primary Care

Background Medication errors are an important source of potentially preventable morbidity and mortality. The PINCER study, a cluster randomised controlled trial, is one of the world’s first experimental studies aiming to reduce the risk of such medication related potential for harm in general practice. Bayesian analyses can improve the clinical interpretability of trial findings. Methods Experts were asked to complete a questionnaire to elicit opinions of the likely effectiveness of the intervention for the key outcomes of interest - three important primary care medication errors. These were averaged to generate collective prior distributions, which were then combined with trial data to generate Bayesian posterior distributions. The trial data were analysed in two ways: firstly replicating the trial reported cohort analysis acknowledging pairing of observations, but excluding non-paired observations; and secondly as cross-sectional data, with no exclusions, but without acknowledgement of the pairing. Frequentist and Bayesian analyses were compared. Findings Bayesian evaluations suggest that the intervention is able to reduce the likelihood of one of the medication errors by about 50 (estimated to be between 20% and 70%). However, for the other two main outcomes considered, the evidence that the intervention is able to reduce the likelihood of prescription errors is less conclusive. Conclusions Clinicians are interested in what trial results mean to them, as opposed to what trial results suggest for future experiments. This analysis suggests that the PINCER intervention is strongly effective in reducing the likelihood of one of the important errors; not necessarily effective in reducing the other errors. Depending on the clinical importance of the respective errors, careful consideration should be given before implementation, and refinement targeted at the other errors may be something to consider

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. Frequencieswere 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 h of training over five sessions. In four out of the five sessions, the pharmacists who completed an evaluation form (27 out of 30were completed) stated theywere satisfied or very satisfiedwith 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

Prescribing errors and other problems reported by community pharmacists

INTRODUCTION: Prevention of medication errors is a priority for health services worldwide. Pharmacists routinely screen prescriptions for potential problems, including prescribing errors. This study describes prescribing problems reported by community pharmacists and discusses them from an error prevention perspective. METHOD: For one month, nine community pharmacists documented prescribing problems, interventions made, and the proximal causes of the problems. The results were presented to local GPs and pharmacists at a meeting and feedback was invited. RESULTS: For 32 403 items dispensed, pharmacists reported 196 prescribing problems (0.6%). The reporting rates ranged from 0.2%–1.9% between pharmacists and were inversely correlated to dispensing volume. Prescriptions containing incomplete or incorrect information accounted for two-thirds of the problems. Lack of information on the prescriptions and transcribing/typing errors were the most frequently cited proximal causes. A few pitfalls of computerized prescribing were observed. CONCLUSION: Although rates of prescribing problems reported were relatively low, community pharmacists and patients remain important safeguards. This study identified potential causes of prescribing errors, and illustrated areas which could be improved in the design of computerized prescribing systems, and the communication and sharing of information between GPs and pharmacists

Examining variations in prescribing safety in UK general practice: cross sectional study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink

Study question: What is the prevalence of different types of potentially hazardous prescribing in general practice in the United Kingdom, and what is the variation between practices? Methods: A cross sectional study included all adult patients potentially at risk of a prescribing or monitoring error defined by a combination of diagnoses and prescriptions in 526 general practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) up to 1 April 2013. Primary outcomes were the prevalence of potentially hazardous prescriptions of anticoagulants, anti-platelets, NSAIDs, β blockers, glitazones, metformin, digoxin, antipsychotics, combined hormonal contraceptives, and oestrogens and monitoring by blood test less frequently than recommended for patients with repeated prescriptions of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and loop diuretics, amiodarone, methotrexate, lithium, or warfarin. Study answer and limitations: 49 927 of 949 552 patients at risk triggered at least one prescribing indicator (5.26%, 95% confidence interval 5.21% to 5.30%) and 21 501 of 182 721 (11.8%, 11.6% to 11.9%) triggered at least one monitoring indicator. The prevalence of different types of potentially hazardous prescribing ranged from almost zero to 10.2%, and for inadequate monitoring ranged from 10.4% to 41.9%. Older patients and those prescribed multiple repeat medications had significantly higher risks of triggering a prescribing indicator whereas younger patients with fewer repeat prescriptions had significantly higher risk of triggering a monitoring indicator. There was high variation between practices for some indicators. Though prescribing safety indicators describe prescribing patterns that can increase the risk of harm to the patient and should generally be avoided, there will always be exceptions where the indicator is clinically justified. Furthermore there is the possibility that some information is not captured by CPRD for some practices—for example, INR results in patients receiving warfarin. What this study adds: The high prevalence for certain indicators emphasises existing prescribing risks and the need for their appropriate consideration within primary care, particularly for older patients and those taking multiple medications. The high variation between practices indicates potential for improvement through targeted practice level intervention. Funding, competing interests, data sharing: National Institute for Health Research through the Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (grant No GMPSTRC-2012-1). Data from CPRD cannot be shared because of licensing restrictions

Antipsychotic prescribing to patients diagnosed with dementia without a diagnosis of psychosis in the context of national guidance and drug safety warnings: longitudinal study in UK general practice

Introduction: Policy interventions to address inappropriate prescribing of antipsychotic drugs to older people diagnosed with dementia are commonplace. In the UK, warnings were issued by the Medicines Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in 2004, 2009 and 2012 and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance was published in 2006. It is important to evaluate the impact of such interventions. Methods: We analysed routinely collected primary-care data from 111,346 patients attending one of 689 general practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink to describe the temporal changes in the prescribing of antipsychotic drugs to patients aged 65 years or over diagnosed with dementia without a concomitant psychosis diagnosis from 2001 to 2014 using an interrupted time series and a before-and-after design. Logistic regression methods were used to quantify the impact of patient and practice level variables on prescribing prevalence. Results: Prescribing of first-generation antipsychotic drugs reduced from 8.9% in 2001 to 1.4% in 2014 (prevalence ratio 2014/2001 adjusted for age, sex and clustering within practices (0.14, 95% confidence interval 0.12–0.16), whereas there was little change for second-generation antipsychotic drugs (1.01, confidence interval 0.94–1.17). Between 2004 and 2012, several policy interventions coincided with a pattern of ups and downs, whereas the 2006 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance was followed by a gradual longer term reduction. Since 2013, the decreasing trend in second-generation antipsychotic drug prescribing has plateaued largely driven by the increasing prescribing of risperidone. Conclusions: Increased surveillance and evaluation of drug safety warnings and guidance are needed to improve the impact of future interventions