Eilidh M Duncan

Learning curves, taking instructions, and patient safety: using a theoretical domains framework in an interview study to investigate prescribing errors among trainee doctors

BackgroundPrescribing errors are a major source of morbidity and mortality and represent a significant patient safety concern. Evidence suggests that trainee doctors are responsible for most prescribing errors. Understanding the factors that influence prescribing behavior may lead to effective interventions to reduce errors. Existing investigations of prescribing errors have been based on Human Error Theory but not on other relevant behavioral theories. The aim of this study was to apply a broad theory-based approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to investigate prescribing in the hospital context among a sample of trainee doctors.MethodSemistructured interviews, based on 12 theoretical domains, were conducted with 22 trainee doctors to explore views, opinions, and experiences of prescribing and prescribing errors. Content analysis was conducted, followed by applying relevance criteria and a novel stage of critical appraisal, to identify which theoretical domains could be targeted in interventions to improve prescribing.ResultsSeven theoretical domains met the criteria of relevance: “social professional role and identity,” “environmental context and resources,” “social influences,” “knowledge,” “skills,” “memory, attention, and decision making,” and “behavioral regulation.” From critical appraisal of the interview data, “beliefs about consequences” and “beliefs about capabilities” were also identified as potentially important domains. Interrelationships between domains were evident. Additionally, the data supported theoretical elaboration of the domain behavioral regulation.ConclusionsIn this investigation of hospital-based prescribing, participants’ attributions about causes of errors were used to identify domains that could be targeted in interventions to improve prescribing. In a departure from previous TDF practice, critical appraisal was used to identify additional domains that should also be targeted, despite participants’ perceptions that they were not relevant to prescribing errors. These were beliefs about consequences and beliefs about capabilities. Specifically, in the light of the documented high error rate, beliefs that prescribing errors were not likely to have consequences for patients and that trainee doctors are capable of prescribing without error should also be targeted in an intervention. This study is the first to suggest critical appraisal for domain identification and to use interview data to propose theoretical elaborations and interrelationships between domains.

Perceived causes of prescribing errors by junior doctors in hospital inpatients: a study from the PROTECT programme

Introduction Prescribing errors are a major cause of patient safety incidents. Understanding the underlying factors is essential in developing interventions to address this problem. This study aimed to investigate the perceived causes of prescribing errors among foundation (junior) doctors in Scotland. Methods In eight Scottish hospitals, data on prescribing errors were collected by ward pharmacists over a 14-month period. Foundation doctors responsible for making a prescribing error were interviewed about the perceived causes. Interview transcripts were analysed using content analysis and categorised into themes previously identified under Reasons Model of Accident Causation and Human Error. Results 40 prescribers were interviewed about 100 specific errors. Multiple perceived causes for all types of error were identified and were categorised into five categories of error-producing conditions, (environment, team, individual, task and patient factors). Work environment was identified as an important aspect by all doctors, especially workload and time pressures. Team factors included multiple individuals and teams involved with a patient, poor communication, poor medicines reconciliation and documentation and following incorrect instructions from other members of the team. A further team factor was the assumption that another member of the team would identify any errors made. The most frequently noted individual factors were lack of personal knowledge and experience. The main task factor identified was poor availability of drug information at admission and the most frequently stated patient factor was complexity. Conclusions This study has emphasised the complex nature of prescribing errors, and the wide range of error-producing conditions within hospitals including the work environment, team, task, individual and patient. Further work is now needed to develop and assess interventions that address these possible causes in order to reduce prescribing error rates.

A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems

BackgroundImplementing new practices requires changes in the behaviour of relevant actors, and this is facilitated by understanding of the determinants of current and desired behaviours. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was developed by a collaboration of behavioural scientists and implementation researchers who identified theories relevant to implementation and grouped constructs from these theories into domains. The collaboration aimed to provide a comprehensive, theory-informed approach to identify determinants of behaviour. The first version was published in 2005, and a subsequent version following a validation exercise was published in 2012. This guide offers practical guidance for those who wish to apply the TDF to assess implementation problems and support intervention design. It presents a brief rationale for using a theoretical approach to investigate and address implementation problems, summarises the TDF and its development, and describes how to apply the TDF to achieve implementation objectives. Examples from the implementation research literature are presented to illustrate relevant methods and practical considerations.MethodsResearchers from Canada, the UK and Australia attended a 3-day meeting in December 2012 to build an international collaboration among researchers and decision-makers interested in the advancing use of the TDF. The participants were experienced in using the TDF to assess implementation problems, design interventions, and/or understand change processes. This guide is an output of the meeting and also draws on the authors’ collective experience. Examples from the implementation research literature judged by authors to be representative of specific applications of the TDF are included in this guide.ResultsWe explain and illustrate methods, with a focus on qualitative approaches, for selecting and specifying target behaviours key to implementation, selecting the study design, deciding the sampling strategy, developing study materials, collecting and analysing data, and reporting findings of TDF-based studies. Areas for development include methods for triangulating data, e.g. from interviews, questionnaires and observation and methods for designing interventions based on TDF-based problem analysis.ConclusionsWe offer this guide to the implementation community to assist in the application of the TDF to achieve implementation objectives. Benefits of using the TDF include the provision of a theoretical basis for implementation studies, good coverage of potential reasons for slow diffusion of evidence into practice and a method for progressing from theory-based investigation to intervention.

Active ingredients are reported more often for pharmacologic than non-pharmacologic interventions: an illustrative review of reporting practices in titles and abstracts

Key components of healthcare interventions include ‘active ingredients’ (intervention components that can be specifically linked to effects on outcomes such that, were they omitted, the intervention would be ineffective). These should be reported in titles and abstracts of published reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, reporting of non-pharmacologic interventions (NPIs), particularly behaviour change interventions (BCIs), is difficult, owing to their complexity. This illustrative review compares how pharmacologic interventions (PIs), NPIs and BCIs are specified in titles and abstracts to clarify how reporting of NPIs and BCIs can be improved. MEDLINE and Embase were searched for RCTs published in the British Medical Journal, The Journal of the American Medical Association, The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and Annals of Behavioral Medicine from 2009 to March 2011. All types of intervention, participant and outcome were included. A random sample of 198 studies (sampled proportionally from included journals) stratified by intervention type (PI/NPI) was taken: 98 evaluated PIs, 96 evaluated NPIs and four evaluated both. Studies were coded for the presence or absence of key components. The frequency data were analyzed using the chi-square test. Active ingredients were named in 88% titles and 95% abstracts of PI reports, and in 51% titles and 71% abstracts of NPI reports, with a significant association between intervention type and reporting of active ingredients in titles (χ2(1) = 28.90; P < 0.001) and abstracts (χ2(1) = 16.94; P < 0.001). Active ingredients were named in BCI reports in 37% titles and 56% abstracts, and in other NPI reports in 66% titles and 86% abstracts. There was also a significant association between intervention type and reporting of active ingredients in titles (χ2(1) = 6.68; P = 0.010) and abstracts (χ2(1) = 8.66; P = 0.003). Reporting practices also differed for such components as the trial setting and intervention provider. This review highlights the need for improved reporting of NPIs (particularly BCIs) and indicates that a set of agreed labels and definitions for complex NPIs could facilitate standardized reporting. This would ensure that interventions can be faithfully replicated and that evidence for interventions can be appropriately synthesized.

Clinical stakeholders' opinions on the use of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in critically ill patients in intensive care units: an international Delphi study.

IntroductionSelective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) is a prophylactic antibiotic regimen that is not widely used in practice. We aimed to describe the opinions of key ‘stakeholders’ about the validity of the existing evidence base, likely consequences of implementation, relative importance of their opinions in influencing overall practice, likely barriers to implementation and perceptions of the requirement for further research to inform the decision about whether to embark on a further large randomised controlled trial.MethodsThis was a Delphi study informed by comprehensive framework of possible determinants of health professionals’ behaviour to study Critical Care practice in four countries. There were four key stakeholder participant groups including ICU physicians, pharmacists, clinical leads, and clinical microbiologists/ infectious disease physicians. Round one comprised participant interviews and Rounds two and three were online questionnaires using Delphi method.ResultsIn this study, 141 participants were recruited of whom 82% were retained. Participants rated themselves as knowledgeable about SDD. Antibiotic resistance was identified as the most important issue. SDD was seen as a low clinical priority but few participants reported strong opposition. There was moderate agreement that research to date has not adequately addressed concerns about antibiotic resistance and lacks generalizability. Participants indicated equipoise with regard to benefits and harms of SDD, and indicated strong support for a further randomised trial.ConclusionsClinicians have clinical equipoise about the effectiveness of SDD. Future research requires longer follow up to assess antibiotic resistance as well as greater validity/generalizability to provide definitive answers on the effectiveness of decontamination and effects on antibiotic resistance. SDD was regarded as not being a high clinical priority, which may limit future trial participation. These results have identified that further large randomised controlled trial of SDD in critical care is both warranted and appropriate.

Using shared goal setting to improve access and equity: a mixed methods study of the Good Goals intervention in children’s occupational therapy

BackgroundAccess and equity in children’s therapy services may be improved by directing clinicians’ use of resources toward specific goals that are important to patients. A practice-change intervention (titled ‘Good Goals’) was designed to achieve this. This study investigated uptake, adoption, and possible effects of that intervention in children’s occupational therapy services.MethodsMixed methods case studies (n = 3 services, including 46 therapists and 558 children) were conducted. The intervention was delivered over 25 weeks through face-to-face training, team workbooks, and ‘tools for change’. Data were collected before, during, and after the intervention on a range of factors using interviews, a focus group, case note analysis, routine data, document analysis, and researchers’ observations.ResultsFactors related to uptake and adoptions were: mode of intervention delivery, competing demands on therapists’ time, and leadership by service manager. Service managers and therapists reported that the intervention: helped therapists establish a shared rationale for clinical decisions; increased clarity in service provision; and improved interactions with families and schools. During the study period, therapists’ behaviours changed: identifying goals, odds ratio 2.4 (95% CI 1.5 to 3.8); agreeing goals, 3.5 (2.4 to 5.1); evaluating progress, 2.0 (1.1 to 3.5). Children’s LoT decreased by two months [95% CI −8 to +4 months] across the services. Cost per therapist trained ranged from £1,003 to £1,277, depending upon service size and therapists’ salary bands.ConclusionsGood Goals is a promising quality improvement intervention that can be delivered and adopted in practice and may have benefits. Further research is required to evaluate its: (i) impact on patient outcomes, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and (ii) transferability to other clinical contexts.

Observational study of current use of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in UK Critical Care units

BACKGROUND Evidence supporting selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) is reasonably strong. We set out to determine use in UK critical care units and to compare patient outcomes between units that do and those that do not use SDD. METHODS A total of 250 UK general critical care units were surveyed. Case mix, outcomes, and lengths of stay for admissions to SDD units (with and without an i.v. component) and non-SDD units were compared using data from the Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre Case Mix Programme database. RESULTS A response was received from all the 250 critical care units surveyed. Of these, 13 (5.2%) reported using SDD on some or all admissions, and of these, 3 reported using an i.v. component. Data on 284,690 admissions (April 2008-March 2011) from units reporting to the ICNARC Case Mix Programme (CMP) were included in the analyses. Admissions to SDD (n=196) and non-SDD (n=9) units were a similar case mix with similar infection rates and average lengths of stay in the unit and hospital. There was no difference in risk-adjusted unit or hospital mortality. The rate of unit-acquired infections in blood was significantly lower in SDD units using an i.v. component. CONCLUSIONS Use of SDD in UK critical care is very low. The rate of unit-acquired infections in blood was significantly lower in SDD units using an i.v. component, but did not translate into a difference in acute hospital mortality or length of stay. There is a need to better understand the barriers to adoption of SDD into clinical practice and such work is underway.

Implementing selective digestive tract decontamination in the intensive care unit: A qualitative analysis of nurse-identified considerations

OBJECTIVE To describe factors senior critical care nurses identify as being important to address when introducing selective digestive tract decontamination (SDD) in the clinical setting. BACKGROUND Critically ill patients are at risk of developing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). SDD is one strategy shown to prevent VAP and possibly improve survival in the critically ill. METHODS We performed a secondary analysis of qualitative data obtained from 20 interviews. An inductive thematic analysis approach was applied to data obtained from senior critical care nurses during phase two of a multi-methods study. RESULTS There were four primary considerations identified that should be addressed or considered prior to implementation of SDD. These considerations included education of health care professionals, patient comfort, compatibility of SDD with existing practices, and cost. CONCLUSIONS Despite a lack of experience with, or knowledge of SDD, nurses were able to articulate factors that may influence its implementation and delivery. Organizations or researchers considering implementation of SDD should include nurses as key members of the implementation team.

Non-prescription medicine misuse, abuse and dependence: a cross-sectional survey of the UK general population

Background Non-prescription medicines (NPMs) can be misused, abused or lead to dependence, but the prevalence of these problems within the UK general population was unknown. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of self-reported misuse, abuse and dependence to NPMs. Methods A cross-sectional postal survey was sent to 1000 individuals aged � 18 randomly drawn from the UK Edited Electoral Register. Results A response rate of 43.4% was achieved. The lifetime prevalence of NPM misuse was 19.3%. Lifetime prevalence of abuse was 4.1%. Younger age, having a long-standing illness requiring regular NPM use and ever having used illicit drugs or legal highs were predictive of misuse/ abuse of NPMs. In terms of dependence, lifetime prevalence was 2% with 0.8% currently dependent and 1.3% dependent in the past. Dependence was reported with analgesics (with and without codeine), sleep aids and nicotine products. Conclusion Given the increasing emphasis on self-care and empowering the public to manage their health with NPMs, the findings highlight the need for improved pharmacovigilance of these medicines to maximize benefits with minimal risk. Healthcare providers need to be aware of the potential for misuse, abuse and dependence, particularly in patients with long-term illness.

A pilot study of alcohol screening and brief interventions in community pharmacies

No randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of screening and brief intervention (SBI) have been conducted in the community pharmacy setting. This pilot study was designed to inform the development and implementation of a large-scale RCT. The study examined the feasibility of providing SBI in community pharmacies, including practical considerations, recruitment of pharmacists and clients, uptake, potential effectiveness, and acceptability. A cluster RCT was conducted involving 20 community pharmacies. Pharmacy customers were screened using the Fast Alcohol Screening Test (FAST) to determine eligibility. The control group received a general lifestyle leaflet, while the intervention group was offered BI from a trained pharmacist. Clients in both groups were asked to complete baseline and three- and six-month postal questionnaires of self-reported alcohol consumption and to re-take the FAST. Qualitative work included follow-up telephone interviews with clients as well as focus groups with the public and participating pharmacists. Over 1000 clients were approached, with 77.6% (n = 846) completing the FAST. Of these, 27.1% (n = 229) were eligible for inclusion (FAST score = 3), 69 of whom (30.1%) consented to participate (27 in the intervention group and 42 in the control group). Nearly twice the number of eligible clients were recruited from control versus intervention pharmacies (41.6% versus 21.2%). A range of barriers and facilitators were identified by participating pharmacists and clients regarding SBI delivery. The main barrier for pharmacists was approaching clients for screening. Delivery of SBI was acceptable to most pharmacists and staff, however, future success of SBI in this setting will depend on identifying strategies for supporting practitioners in engaging pharmacy clients for screening.