David K. Raynor

Care homes’ use of medicines study: prevalence, causes and potential harm of medication errors in care homes for older people

Introduction: Care home residents are at particular risk from medication errors, and our objective was to determine the prevalence and potential harm of prescribing, monitoring, dispensing and administration errors in UK care homes, and to identify their causes. Methods: A prospective study of a random sample of residents within a purposive sample of homes in three areas. Errors were identified by patient interview, note review, observation of practice and examination of dispensed items. Causes were understood by observation and from theoretically framed interviews with home staff, doctors and pharmacists. Potential harm from errors was assessed by expert judgement. Results: The 256 residents recruited in 55 homes were taking a mean of 8.0 medicines. One hundred and seventy-eight (69.5%) of residents had one or more errors. The mean number per resident was 1.9 errors. The mean potential harm from prescribing, monitoring, administration and dispensing errors was 2.6, 3.7, 2.1 and 2.0 (0 = no harm, 10 = death), respectively. Contributing factors from the 89 interviews included doctors who were not accessible, did not know the residents and lacked information in homes when prescribing; home staff’s high workload, lack of medicines training and drug round interruptions; lack of team work among home, practice and pharmacy; inefficient ordering systems; inaccurate medicine records and prevalence of verbal communication; and difficult to fill (and check) medication administration systems. Conclusions: That two thirds of residents were exposed to one or more medication errors is of concern. The will to improve exists, but there is a lack of overall responsibility. Action is required from all concerned.

Provision of information about drug side-effects to patients

To make informed decisions about taking medicinal drugs, people need accurate information about side-effects. A European Union guideline now recommends use of qualitative descriptions for five bands of risk, ranging from very rare (affecting <0.01% of the population), to very common (>10%). We did four studies of more than 750 people, whom we asked to estimate the probability of having a side-effect on the basis of qualitative and quantitative descriptions. Our results showed that qualitative descriptions led to gross overestimation of risk. Until further work is done on how patients taking the drugs interpret these terms, the terms should not be used in drug information leaflets.

Comparison of two methods of presenting risk information to patients about the side effects of medicines

Objective: To determine whether the use of verbal descriptors suggested by the European Union (EU) such as “common” (1–10% frequency) and “rare” (0.01–0.1%) effectively conveys the level of risk of side effects to people taking a medicine. Design: Randomised controlled study with unconcealed allocation. Participants: 120 adults taking simvastatin or atorvastatin after cardiac surgery or myocardial infarction. Setting: Cardiac rehabilitation clinics at two hospitals in Leeds, UK. Intervention: A written statement about one of the side effects of the medicine (either constipation or pancreatitis). Within each side effect condition half the patients were given the information in verbal form and half in numerical form (for constipation, “common” or 2.5%; for pancreatitis, “rare” or 0.04%). Main outcome measure: The estimated likelihood of the side effect occurring. Other outcome measures related to the perceived severity of the side effect, its risk to health, and its effect on decisions about whether to take the medicine. Results: The mean likelihood estimate given for the constipation side effect was 34.2% in the verbal group and 8.1% in the numerical group; for pancreatitis it was 18% in the verbal group and 2.1% in the numerical group. The verbal descriptors were associated with more negative perceptions of the medicine than their equivalent numerical descriptors. Conclusions: Patients want and need understandable information about medicines and their risks and benefits. This is essential if they are to become partners in medicine taking. The use of verbal descriptors to improve the level of information about side effect risk leads to overestimation of the level of harm and may lead patients to make inappropriate decisions about whether or not they take the medicine.

We are the experts: people with asthma talk about their medicine information needs

People with chronic illness are being encouraged to become more involved in their care. For this, they need to be well informed about their medicines, and more written medicines information is becoming available. However, there is little data about its effectiveness and impact. This study examined the patient perspective of medicines information through focus groups of people with asthma. Most participants actively sought medicines information from a variety of professional and lay sources. There were some positive experiences but many examples of partial or total information failure. Individualised information was valued and medicine leaflets were generally seen as less helpful than face-to-face advice. Some felt strongly that patients with long experience should be involved in the development of medicine information leaflets. We conclude that medicine information leaflets do not currently meet the needs of users and that people who take medicines should be involved in their development and testing.

Patients understanding of risk associated with medication use: Impact of European Commission guidelines and other risk scales.

Patients want and need comprehensive and accurate information about their medicines so that they can participate in decisions about their healthcare. In particular, they require information about the likely risks and benefits that are associated with the different treatment options. However, to provide this information in a form that people can readily understand and use is a considerable challenge to healthcare professionals. One recent attempt to standardise the language of risk has been to produce sets of verbal descriptors that correspond to specific probability ranges, such as those outlined in the European Commission (EC) Pharmaceutical Committee guidelines in 1998 for describing the incidence of adverse effects.This paper provides an overview of a number of studies involving members of the general public, patients, and hospital doctors, that evaluated the utility of the EC guideline descriptors (very common, common, uncommon, rare, very rare). In all studies it was found that people significantly over-estimated the likelihood of adverse effects occurring, given specific verbal descriptors. This in turn resulted in significantly higher ratings of their perceived risks to health and significantly lower ratings of their likelihood of taking the medicine. Such problems of interpretation are not restricted to the EC guideline descriptors. Similar levels of misinterpretation have also been demonstrated with two other recently advocated risk scales (Calman’s verbal descriptor scale and Barclay, Costigan and Davies’ lottery scale).In conclusion, the challenge for risk communicators and for future research will be to produce a language of risk that is sufficiently flexible to take into account different perspectives, as well as changing circumstances and contexts of illness and its treatments. In the meantime, we urge the EC and other legislative bodies to stop recommending the use of specific verbal labels or phrases until there is a stronger evidence base to support their use.

The role and value of written information for patients about individual medicines: a systematic review

Objective To review research on the role and value of written medicines information for patients from the perspective of patients and health professionals.

Medication reviews: Medication reviews

Recent years have seen a formalization of medication review by pharmacists in all settings of care. This article describes the different types of medication review provided in primary care in the UK National Health Service (NHS), summarizes the evidence of effectiveness and considers how such reviews might develop in the future. Medication review is, at heart, a diagnostic intervention which aims to identify problems for action by the prescriber, the clinican conducting the review, the patient or all three but can also be regarded as an educational intervention to support patient knowledge and adherence. There is good evidence that medication review improves process outcomes of prescribing including reduced polypharmacy, use of more appropriate medicines formulation and more appropriate choice of medicine. When ‘harder’ outcome measures have been included, such as hospitalizations or mortality in elderly patients, available evidence indicates that whilst interventions could improve knowledge and adherence they did not reduce mortality or hospital admissions with one study showing an increase in hospital admissions. Robust health economic studies of medication reviews remain rare. However a review of cost‐effectiveness analyses of medication reviews found no studies in which the cost of the intervention was greater than the benefit. The value of medication reviews is now generally accepted despite lack of robust research evidence consistently demonstrating cost or clinical effectiveness compared with traditional care. Medication reviews can be more effectively deployed in the future by targeting, multi‐professional involvement and paying greater attention to medicines which could be safely stopped.

Buyer beware? Does the information provided with herbal products available over the counter enable safe use?

BackgroundHerbal products obtained over the counter are commonly used in Europe, North America and Australia. Although there is concern about a lack of information provided to consumers to allow the safe use of these products, there has been no published research to confirm these fears. In this study, we evaluated written information provided with commonly used herbal products in the UK in advance of a European Union Directive issued in April 2011 that tightened regulations for some herbal products, including requirements to provide safety information.MethodsFive commonly used herbal products were purchased from pharmacies, health food shops and supermarkets: St Johns wort, Asian ginseng, echinacea, garlic and ginkgo. Written information provided with the products (on the package or on a leaflet contained in the package) was evaluated for inclusion of each of the key safety messages included in the monographs of the US National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Specifically, we looked for information on precautions (such as Asian ginseng not being suitable for people with diabetes), interactions with conventional medicines (such as St Johns wort with the contraceptive pill and warfarin) and side effects (such as ginkgo and allergic reactions).ResultsOur analysis showed that, overall, 51 (75%) of 68 products contained none of the key safety messages. This included 4 of 12 St Johns wort products, 12 of 12 ginkgo products, 6 of 7 Asian ginseng products, 20 of 21 garlic products and 9 of 13 echinacea products. The two products purchased that are registered under the new European Union regulations (for St Johns wort) contained at least 85% of the safety messages.ConclusionsMost of the herbal medicine products studied did not provide key safety information which consumers need for their safe use. The new European Union legislation should ensure that St Johns wort and echinacea products will include the previously missing information in due course. The legislation does not apply to existing stock. Depending on therapeutic claims made by manufacturers, garlic, ginkgo and Asian ginseng products may not be covered by the legislation and can continue to be bought without the safety information. Also, consumers will still be able to buy products over the internet from locations outside European Union jurisdiction. Potential purchasers need to know, in both the short term and the long term, how to purchase herbal products which provide the information they need for the safe use of these products.

Communicating risk of medication side effects: An empirical evaluation of EU recommended terminology

Two experiments compared peoples interpretation of verbal and numerical descriptions of the risk of medication side effects occurring. The verbal descriptors were selected from those recommended for use by the European Union (very common, common, uncommon, rare, very rare). Both experiments used a controlled empirical methodology, in which nearly 500 members of the general population were presented with a fictitious (but realistic) scenario about visiting the doctor and being prescribed medication, together with information about the medicines side effects and their probability of occurrence. Experiment 1 found that, in all three age groups tested (18 - 40, 41 - 60 and over 60), participants given a verbal descriptor (very common) estimated side effect risk to be considerably higher than those given a comparable numerical description. Furthermore, the differences in interpretation were reflected in their judgements of side effect severity, risk to health, and intention to comply. Experiment 2 confirmed these findings using two different verbal descriptors (common and rare) and in scenarios which described either relatively severe or relatively mild side effects. Strikingly, only 7 out of 180 participants in this study gave a probability estimate which fell within the EU assigned numerical range. Thus, large scale use of the descriptors could have serious negative consequences for individual and public health. We therefore recommend that the EU and National authorities suspend their recommendations regarding these descriptors until a more substantial evidence base is available to support their appropriate use.

Can user testing of a clinical trial patient information sheet make it fit-for-purpose? - a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundThe participant information sheet (PIS) provided to potential trial participants is a critical part of the process of valid consent. However, there is long-standing concern that these lengthy and complex documents are not fit-for-purpose. This has been supported recently through the application of a performance-based approach to testing and improving readability called user testing. This method is now widely used to improve patient medicine leaflets - determining whether people can find and understand key facts. This study applied for the first time a controlled design to determine whether a PIS developed through user testing had improved readability over the original, using a sheet from a UK trial in acute myeloid leukemia (AML16).MethodsIn the first phase the performance of the original PIS was tested on people in the target group for the trial. There were three rounds of testing including 50 people in total - with the information revised according to its performance after each of the first 2 rounds. In the second phase, the revised PIS was compared with the original in a parallel groups randomised controlled trial (RCT) A total of 123 participants were recruited and randomly allocated to read one version of the PIS to find and show understanding of 21 key facts.ResultsThe first, developmental phase produced a revised PIS significantly altered in its wording and layout. In the second, trial phase 66% of participants who read the revised PIS were able to show understanding of all aspects of the trial, compared with 15% of those reading the original version (Odds Ratio 11.2; Chi-square = 31.5 p < .001). When asked to state a preference, 87.1% participants chose the revised PIS (Sign test p < .001).ConclusionsThe original PIS for the AML16 trial may not have enabled valid consent. Combining performance-based user testing with expertise in writing for patients and information design led to a significantly improved and preferred information sheet. User testing is an efficient method for indicating strengths and weaknesses in trial information, and Research Ethics Committees and Institutional Review Boards should consider requesting such testing, to ensure that PIS are fit-for-purpose.