Jane Ferguson

The implementation of medical revalidation: an assessment using normalisation process theory

BackgroundMedical revalidation is the process by which all licensed doctors are legally required to demonstrate that they are up to date and fit to practise in order to maintain their licence. Revalidation was introduced in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2012, constituting significant change in the regulation of doctors. The governing body, the General Medical Council (GMC), envisages that revalidation will improve patient care and safety. This potential however is, in part, dependent upon how successfully revalidation is embedded into routine practice. The aim of this study was to use Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) to explore issues contributing to or impeding the implementation of revalidation in practice.MethodsWe conducted seventy-one interviews with sixty UK policymakers and senior leaders at different points during the development and implementation of revalidation: in 2011 (n = 31), 2013 (n = 26) and 2015 (n = 14). We selected interviewees using purposeful sampling. NPT was used as a framework to enable systematic analysis across the interview sets.ResultsInitial lack of consensus over revalidation’s purpose, and scepticism about its value, decreased over time as participants recognised the benefits it brought to their practice (coherence category of NPT). Though acceptance increased across time, revalidation was not seen as a legitimate part of their role by all doctors. Key individuals, notably the Responsible Officer (RO), were vital for the successful implementation of revalidation in organisations (cognitive participation category). The ease with which revalidation could be integrated into working practices varied greatly depending on the type of role a doctor held and the organisation they work for and the provision of resources was a significant variable in this (collective action category). Formal evaluation of revalidation in organisations was lacking but informal evaluation was taking place. Revalidation had not yet reached the stage where feedback was being used for improvement (reflexive monitoring category).ConclusionsRequiring all organisations to use the same revalidation model made revalidation easy to integrate into existing work for some but problematic for others. In order for revalidation to be fully embedded and successful, impeding factors, such as a lack of resources, need to be addressed.

The Evolving Purposes of Medical Revalidation in the United Kingdom: A Qualitative Study of Professional and Regulatory Narratives

Purpose Previous research found professionalism and regulation to be competing discourses when plans for medical revalidation in the United Kingdom were being developed in 2011. The purpose of this study was to explore how these competing discourses developed and how the perceived purposes of revalidation evolved as the policy was implemented. Method Seventy-one interviews with 60 UK policy makers and senior health care leaders were conducted during the development and implementation of revalidation: 31 in 2011, 26 in 2013, and 14 in 2015. Interviewees were selected using purposeful sampling. Across all interviews, questions focused around three areas: individual roles in relation to revalidation; interviewees’ understanding of revalidation, its purpose, and aims; and predictions or experiences of revalidation’s impact. The first two interview sets also included questions about measurement and evaluation of revalidation. Data were analyzed using the constant comparative method to understand changes and continuities. Results Two main discourses regarding the purpose of revalidation were present across the implementation period: professionalism and regulation. The nature of the relationship between these two purposes and how they were described changed over time, with the separate discourses converging, and early concerns about actual or potential conflict being replaced by perceptions of coexistence or codependency. Conclusions The changing nature of the discourse about revalidation suggests that early concerns about adverse consequences were not borne out as organizations and professionals engaged with implementation and experienced the realities of revalidation in practice. Reconciling professional and regulatory narratives was arguably necessary to the effective implementation of revalidation.

Refer-to-pharmacy: a qualitative study exploring the implementation of an electronic transfer of care initiative to improve medicines optimisation following hospital discharge

BackgroundTransition between care settings is a time of high risk for preventable medication errors. Poor communication about medication changes on discharge from hospital can result in adverse drug events and medicines-related readmissions. Refer-to-Pharmacy is a novel electronic referral system that allows hospital pharmacy staff to refer patients from their bedside to their community pharmacist for post-hospital discharge medication support. The aim of this study was to examine factors that promoted or inhibited the implementation of Refer-to-Pharmacy in hospital and community settings.MethodsTwenty six interviews with hospital pharmacists (n = 11), hospital technicians (n = 10), and community pharmacists (n = 5) using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) as the underpinning conceptual framework for data collection and analysis.ResultsUsing NPT to understand the implementation of the technology revealed that the participants unanimously agreed that the scheme was potentially beneficial for patients and was more efficient than previous systems (coherence). Leadership and initiation of the scheme was more achievable in the contained hospital environment, while initiation was slower to progress in the community pharmacy settings (cognitive participation). Hospital pharmacists and technicians worked flexibly together to deliver the scheme, and community pharmacists reported better communication with General Practitioners (GPs) about changes to patients’ medication (collective action). However, participants reported being unaware of how the scheme impacted patients, meaning they were unable to evaluate the effectiveness of scheme (reflexive monitoring).ConclusionThe Refer-to-Pharmacy scheme was perceived by participants as having important benefits for patients, reduced the possibility for human error, and was more efficient than previous ways of working. However, initiation of the scheme was more achievable in the single site of the hospital in comparison to disparate community pharmacy organisations. Community and hospital pharmacists and organisational leaders will need to work individually and collectively if Refer-to-Pharmacy is to become more widely embedded across health settings.

A Technological Innovation to Reduce Prescribing Errors Based on Implementation Intentions: The Acceptability and Feasibility of MyPrescribe

Background Although prescribing of medication in hospitals is rarely an error-free process, prescribers receive little feedback on their mistakes and ways to change future practices. Audit and feedback interventions may be an effective approach to modifying the clinical practice of health professionals, but these may pose logistical challenges when used in hospitals. Moreover, such interventions are often labor intensive. Consequently, there is a need to develop effective and innovative interventions to overcome these challenges and to improve the delivery of feedback on prescribing. Implementation intentions, which have been shown to be effective in changing behavior, link critical situations with an appropriate response; however, these have rarely been used in the context of improving prescribing practices. Objective Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of providing feedback on prescribing errors via MyPrescribe, a mobile-compatible website informed by implementation intentions. Methods Data relating to 200 prescribing errors made by 52 junior doctors were collected by 11 hospital pharmacists. These errors were populated into MyPrescribe, where prescribers were able to construct their own personalized action plans. Qualitative interviews with a subsample of 15 junior doctors were used to explore issues regarding feasibility and acceptability of MyPrescribe and their experiences of using implementation intentions to construct prescribing action plans. Framework analysis was used to identify prominent themes, with findings mapped to the behavioral components of the COM-B model (capability, opportunity, motivation, and behavior) to inform the development of future interventions. Results MyPrescribe was perceived to be effective in providing opportunities for critical reflection on prescribing errors and to complement existing training (such as junior doctors’ e-portfolio). The participants were able to provide examples of how they would use “If-Then” plans for patient management. Technology, as opposed to other methods of learning (eg, traditional “paper based” learning), was seen as a positive advancement for continued learning. Conclusions MyPrescribe was perceived as an acceptable and feasible learning tool for changing prescribing practices, with participants suggesting that it would make an important addition to medical prescribers’ training in reflective practice. MyPrescribe is a novel theory-based technological innovation that provides the platform for doctors to create personalized implementation intentions. Applying the COM-B model allows for a more detailed understanding of the perceived mechanisms behind prescribing practices and the ways in which interventions aimed at changing professional practice can be implemented.

Addressing inequalities in the provision of pharmaceutical service in Scotland: a proof of concept study of telepharmacy in rural Scotland

Introduction: Since 2005, the workload of community pharmacists in England has increased with a concomitant increase in stress and work pressure. However, it is unclear how these factors are impacting on the ability of community pharmacists to ensure accuracy during the dispensing process. This research seeks to extend our understanding of the nature, outcome, and predictors of dispensing errors. Methodology: A retrospective analysis of a purposive sample of incident report forms (IRFs) from the database of a pharmacist indemnity insurance provider was conducted. Data collected included; type of error, degree of harm caused, pharmacy and pharmacist demographics, and possible contributory factors. Results: In total, 339 files from UK community pharmacies were retrieved from the database. The files dated from June 2006 to November 2011. Incorrect item (45.1%, n = 153/339) followed by incorrect strength (24.5%, n = 83/339) were the most common forms of error. Almost half (41.6%, n = 147/339) of the patients suffered some form of harm ranging from minor harm (26.7%, n = 87/339) to death (0.3%, n = 1/339). Insufficient staff (51.6%, n = 175/339), similar packaging (40.7%, n = 138/339) and the pharmacy being busier than normal (39.5%, n = 134/339) were identified as key contributory factors. Cross-tabular analysis against the final accuracy check variable revealed significant association between the pharmacy location (P < 0.024), dispensary layout (P < 0.025), insufficient staff (P < 0.019), and busier than normal (P < 0.005) variables. Conclusion: The results provide an overview of some of the individual, organisational and technical factors at play at the time of a dispensing error and highlight the need to examine further the relationships between these factors and dispensing error occurrence.