Carers' medication administration errors in the domiciliary setting: a systematic review

Purpose Medications are mostly taken in patients’ own homes, increasingly administered by carers, yet studies of medication safety have been largely conducted in the hospital setting. We aimed to review studies of how carers cause and/or prevent medication administration errors (MAEs) within the patient’s home; to identify types, prevalence and causes of these MAEs and any interventions to prevent them. Methods A narrative systematic review of literature published between 1 Jan 1946 and 23 Sep 2013 was carried out across the databases EMBASE, MEDLINE, PSYCHINFO, COCHRANE and CINAHL. Empirical studies were included where carers were responsible for preventing/causing MAEs in the home and standardised tools used for data extraction and quality assessment. Results Thirty-six papers met the criteria for narrative review, 33 of which included parents caring for children, two predominantly comprised adult children and spouses caring for older parents/partners, and one focused on paid carers mostly looking after older adults. The carer administration error rate ranged from 1.9 to 33% of medications administered and from 12 to 92.7% of carers administering medication. These included dosage errors, omitted administration, wrong medication and wrong time or route of administration. Contributory factors included individual carer factors (e.g. carer age), environmental factors (e.g. storage), medication factors (e.g. number of medicines), prescription communication factors (e.g. comprehensibility of instructions), psychosocial factors (e.g. carer-to-carer communication), and care-recipient factors (e.g. recipient age). The few interventions effective in preventing MAEs involved carer training and tailored equipment. Conclusion This review shows that home medication administration errors made by carers are a potentially serious patient safety issue. Carers made similar errors to those made by professionals in other contexts and a wide variety of contributory factors were identified. The home care setting should be a priority for the development of patient safety interventions

A national survey of inpatient medication systems in English NHS hospitals

Systems and processes for prescribing, supplying and administering inpatient medications can have substantial impact on medication administration errors (MAEs). However, little is known about the medication systems and processes currently used within the English National Health Service (NHS). This presents a challenge for developing NHS-wide interventions to increase medication safety. We therefore conducted a cross-sectional postal census of medication systems and processes in English NHS hospitals to address this knowledge gap

Dataset for "User testing to improve retrieval and comprehension of information in guidelines to improve medicines safety"

This dataset describes a series of user tests designed to improve the retrieval and comprehension of information by nurses from the NHS Injectable Medicines Guide. It includes the research protocol, data collection tools, interview transcriptions and thematic analysis, participant demographics and numerical outcome data.Nvivo version 11 used for thematic analysis

Indication documentation and indication-based prescribing within electronic prescribing systems: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND: Despite recommendations, documentation of indication on prescriptions and inpatient medication orders is not routinely practised. There has been a recent systematic review of indication documentation for antimicrobials, but not for interventions relating to indication documentation for medication more broadly. Our aims were to 1) identify, describe and synthesise the literature relating to effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving indication documentation and/or indication-based prescribing in both primary and secondary healthcare; 2) synthesise participant perspectives to identify barriers and facilitators to these interventions; and 3) make recommendations for both practice and research. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, Embase and CINAHL using two search concepts: electronic prescribing systems, and indication documentation and/or indication-based prescribing. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods studies were included; outcome measures and results were extracted to produce a narrative synthesis. Quality appraisal by two independent reviewers was undertaken using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. RESULTS: We identified 21 studies evaluating interventions to aid indication documentation. Indication documentation was either via free-text, selection from a list, or by use of pre-defined indication-based order sentences for individual medications. For a number of outcomes, there was a mostly positive impact, including appropriateness of the medication order (6 of 8 studies), rates of prescribing error (2/2) and some less commonly reported clinical (2/4) and workflow-related outcomes (2/3). There was a less favourable impact on accuracy of indication documentation and rates of medication use, highlighting some unintended consequences that may occur when implementing new interventions. Participant insights from prescribers and other healthcare professionals complemented quantitative study results, highlighting both facilitators and barriers to indication documentation and the associated interventions. For example, barriers included long drop-down lists and the need to use workarounds to navigate approval systems due to time or knowledge constraints. Facilitating factors included the perceived benefits of indication documentation on communication among the healthcare team and with the patient. CONCLUSION: Indication documentation has the potential to improve appropriate prescribing and reduce prescribing errors. However, further benefits to the prescriber, multidisciplinary team and patient may only be realised by developing methods of indication documentation that integrate more efficiently with prescriber workflows. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021278495

Exploring the theory, barriers and enablers for patient and public involvement across health, social care and patient safety:a systematic review of reviews

BACKGROUND: The emergence of patient and public involvement (PPI) in healthcare in the UK can be traced as far back as the 1970s. More recently, campaigns by harmed patients have led to a renewed focus on strengthening PPI. There is a growing awareness of the benefits of PPI in research as well as a need to address power inequities and a lack of diversity and inclusion. This review was undertaken to look at evidence for theories, barriers and enablers in PPI across health, social care and patient safety that could be used to strengthen PPI and address a perceived knowledge and theory gap with PPI in patient safety. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from inception to August 2018, using both MeSH and free-text terms to identify published empirical literature. Protocols in PROSPERO were also searched to identify any systematic reviews in progress. The extracted information was analysed using a narrative approach, which synthesises data using a descriptive method. RESULTS: Forty-two reviews were identified and grouped by key outcomes. Twenty-two papers mentioned theory in some form, 31 mentioned equality and diversity (although with no theory mentioned in this area), and only 19 cited equality and diversity as a barrier or enabler. Thirty-four reviews identified barriers and enablers at different organisational levels: personal/individual; attitudes; health professional; roles and expectations; knowledge, information and communication; financing and resourcing; training; general support; recruitment and representation, PPI methods and working with communities and addressing power dynamics. CONCLUSIONS: The review findings suggest that a commitment to PPI and partnership working is dependent on taking a whole system approach. This needs to consider the complex individual and organisational enablers and constraints to this process and address imbalances of power experienced by different groups. Addressing equality and diversity and use of a theory-driven approach to guide PPI are neglected areas. The long tradition of involvement across health and social care can provide considerable expertise in thinking about ways to strengthen approaches to PPI. This is especially important in patient safety, with a much newer tradition of developing PPI than other areas of healthcare

Identifying systems failures in the pathway to a catastrophic event: an analysis of national incident report data relating to vinca alkaloids.

BACKGROUND: Catastrophic errors in healthcare are rare, yet the consequences are so serious that where possible, special procedures are put in place to prevent them. As systems become safer, it becomes progressively more difficult to detect the remaining vulnerabilities. Using inadvertent intrathecal administration of vinca alkaloids as an example, we investigated whether analysis of incident report data describing low-harm events could bridge this gap. METHODS: We studied nine million patient safety incidents reported from England and Wales between November 2003 and May 2013. We searched for reports relating to administration of vinca alkaloids in patients also receiving intrathecal medication, and classified the failures identified against steps in the relevant national protocol. RESULTS: Of 38 reports that met our inclusion criteria, none resulted in actual harm. The stage of the medication process most commonly involved was 'supply, transport and storage' (15 cases). Seven cases related to dispensing, six to documentation, and four each to prescribing and administration. Defences most commonly breached related to separation of intravenous vinca alkaloids and intrathecal medication in timing (n=16) and location (n=8); potential for confusion due to inadequate separation of these drugs therefore remains. Problems involved in six cases did not align with the procedural defences in place, some of which represented major hazards. CONCLUSIONS: We identified areas of concern even within the context of a highly controlled standardised national process. If incident reporting systems include and encourage reports of no-harm incidents in addition to actual patient harm, they can facilitate monitoring the resilience of healthcare processes. Patient safety incidents that produce the most serious harm are often rare, and it is difficult to know whether patients are adequately protected. Our approach provides a potential solution

Learning from electronic prescribing errors: a mixed methods study of junior doctors' perceptions of training and individualised feedback data

OBJECTIVES: To explore the views of junior doctors towards (1) electronic prescribing (EP) training and feedback, (2) readiness for receiving individualised feedback data about EP errors and (3) preferences for receiving and learning from EP feedback. DESIGN: Explanatory sequential mixed methods study comprising quantitative survey (phase 1), followed by interviews and focus group discussions (phase 2). SETTING: Three acute hospitals of a large English National Health Service organisation. PARTICIPANTS: 25 of 89 foundation year 1 and 2 doctors completed the phase 1 survey; 5 participated in semi-structured interviews and 7 in a focus group in phase 2. RESULTS: Foundation doctors in this mixed methods study reported that current feedback provision on EP errors was lacking or informal, and that existing EP training and resources were underused. They believed feedback about prescribing errors to be important and were keen to receive real-time, individualised EP feedback data. Feedback needed to be in manageable amounts, motivational and clearly signposting how to learn or improve. Participants wanted feedback and better training on the EP system to prevent repeating errors. In addition to individualised EP error data, they were positive about learning from general prescribing errors and aggregated EP data. However, there was a lack of consensus about how best to learn from statistical data. Potential limitations identified by participants included concern about how the data would be collected and whether it would be truly reflective of their performance. CONCLUSIONS: Junior doctors would value feedback on their prescribing, and are keen to learn from EP errors, develop their clinical prescribing skills and use the EP interface effectively. We identified preferences for EP technology to enable provision of real-time data in combination with feedback to support learning and potentially reduce prescribing errors

Understanding the facilitators and barriers to barcode medication administration by nursing staff using behavioural science frameworks. A mixed methods study

INTRODUCTION: Barcode medication administration (BCMA) technology helps ensure correct medications are administered by nursing staff through scanning of patient and medication barcodes. In many hospitals scanning rates are low, limiting the potential safety benefits. We aimed to explore the barriers and facilitators to BCMA use in a London hospital. METHODS: In this mixed methods study we used local quantitative data on BCMA scanning rates to identify clinically similar wards (in terms of patient acuity and workload) with different scanning rates for qualitative exploration. Interviews designed to elicit barriers to using BCMA technology were conducted with nursing staff, supported by observations of medication administration. Qualitative data were analysed inductively and a thematic framework constructed housing key themes, subsequently categorised into barriers and facilitators. To explore patient perspectives of BCMA scanning, a purposive sample of patients were also interviewed. These patient data were analysed deductively according to the thematic framework. Themes were mapped to behavioural science frameworks to further understand the behaviours involved. RESULTS: BCMA was operational on 15 wards, with only six having medication scan rates of more than 10% of scannable doses. Of three wards selected for qualitative investigation, the lowest scan rate was 6.7%. Twenty-seven nurses and 15 patients were interviewed. Eleven key themes were identified, encompassing both barriers and facilitators to BCMA use. Barriers included poor trolley ergonomics and perceived time inefficiency. Facilitators included a streamlined process and thorough training. All nurses described BCMA as positive for patient safety. Patients described BCMA as making them "feel safer". Behavioural science frameworks highlighted the importance of professional role and an individual's belief in their capability. CONCLUSION: We present a novel exploration of facilitators and barriers to BCMA use from the viewpoint of both patients and nursing staff, highlighting a strong perception that BCMA enhances safety. Barriers were reported on both high and low usage wards, demonstrating the importance of behaviours and motivations. These findings provide a detailed understanding from which to design interventions to support behaviour change and increase BCMA use