Nick Barber

Appropriate prescribing in elderly people: how well can it be measured and optimised?

Prescription of medicines is a fundamental component of the care of elderly people, and optimisation of drug prescribing for this group of patients has become an important public-health issue worldwide. Several characteristics of ageing and geriatric medicine affect medication prescribing for elderly people and render the selection of appropriate pharmacotherapy a challenging and complex process. In the first paper in this series we aim to define and categorise appropriate prescribing in elderly people, critically review the instruments that are available to measure it and discuss their predictive validity, critically review recent randomised controlled intervention studies that assessed the effect of optimisation strategies on the appropriateness of prescribing in elderly people, and suggest directions for future research and practice.

Causes of prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: a prospective study

BACKGROUND To prevent errors made during the prescription of drugs, we need to know why they arise. Theories of human error used to understand the causes of mistakes made in high-risk industries are being used in health-care. They have not, however, been applied to prescribing errors, which are a great cause of patient harm. Our aim was to use this approach to investigate the causes of such errors. METHODS Pharmacists at a UK teaching hospital prospectively identified 88 potentially serious prescribing errors. We interviewed the prescribers who made 44 of these, and analysed our findings with human error theory. FINDINGS Our results suggest that most mistakes were made because of slips in attention, or because prescribers did not apply relevant rules. Doctors identified many risk factors-work environment, workload, whether or not they were prescribing for their own patient, communication within their team, physical and mental well-being, and lack of knowledge. Organisational factors were also identified, and included inadequate training, low perceived importance of prescribing, a hierarchical medical team, and an absence of self-awareness of errors. INTERPRETATION To reduce prescribing errors, hospitals should train junior doctors in the principles of drug dosing before they start prescribing, and enforce good practice in documentation. They should also create a culture in which prescription writing is seen as important, and formally review interventions made by pharmacists, locum arrangements, and the workload of junior doctors, and make doctors aware of situations in which they are likely to commit errors.

Prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: their incidence and clinical significance

Background: It has been estimated that 1–2% of US inpatients are harmed by medication errors, the majority of which are errors in prescribing. The UK Department of Health has recommended that serious errors in the use of prescribed drugs should be reduced by 40% by 2005; however, little is known about the current incidence of prescribing errors in the UK. This pilot study sought to investigate their incidence in one UK hospital. Methods: Pharmacists prospectively recorded details of all prescribing errors identified in non-obstetric inpatients during a 4 week period. The number of medication orders written was estimated from a 1 in 5 sample of inpatients. Potential clinical significance was assessed by a pharmacist and a clinical pharmacologist. Results: About 36 200 medication orders were written during the study period, and a prescribing error was identified in 1.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4 to 1.6). A potentially serious error occurred in 0.4% (95% CI 0.3 to 0.5). Most of the errors (54%) were associated with choice of dose. Error rates were significantly different for different stages of patient stay (p<0.0001) with a higher error rate for medication orders written during the inpatient stay than for those written on admission or discharge. While the majority of all errors (61%) originated in medication order writing, most serious errors (58%) originated in the prescribing decision. Conclusions: There were about 135 prescribing errors identified each week, of which 34 were potentially serious. Knowing where and when errors are most likely to occur will be helpful in designing initiatives to reduce them. The methods developed could be used to evaluate such initiatives.

Ethnographic study of incidence and severity of intravenous drug errors

Abstract Objectives: To determine the incidence and clinical importance of errors in the preparation and administration of intravenous drugs and the stages of the process in which errors occur. Design: Prospective ethnographic study using disguised observation. Participants: Nurses who prepared and administered intravenous drugs. Setting: 10 wards in a teaching and non-teaching hospital in the United Kingdom. Main outcome measures: Number, type, and clinical importance of errors. Results: 249 errors were identified. At least one error occurred in 212 out of 430 intravenous drug doses (49%, 95% confidence interval 45% to 54%). Three doses (1%) had potentially severe errors, 126 (29%) potentially moderate errors, and 83 (19%) potentially minor errors. Most errors occurred when giving bolus doses or making up drugs that required multiple step preparation. Conclusions: The rate of intravenous drug errors was high. Although most errors would cause only short term adverse effects, a few could have been serious. A combination of reducing the amount of preparation on the ward, training, and technology to administer slow bolus doses would probably have the greatest effect on error rates. What is already known on this topic Errors in preparing and administering intravenous drugs can cause considerable harm to patients Reduction of drug errors is a government health target in the United Kingdom and the United States What this study adds Errors occurred in about half of the intravenous drug doses observed Errors were potentially harmful in about a third of cases The most common errors were giving bolus doses too quickly and mistakes in preparing drugs that required multiple steps

Using Reflexivity to Optimize Teamwork in Qualitative Research

Reflexivity is often described as an individual activity. The authors propose that reflexivity employed as a team activity, through the sharing of reflexive writing (accounts of personal agendas, hidden assumptions, and theoretical definitions) and group discussions about arising issues, can improve the productivity and functioning of qualitative teams and the rigor and quality of the research. The authors review the literature on teamwork, highlighting benefits and pitfalls, and define and discuss the role for reflexivity. They describe their own team and detail how they work together on a project investigating doctor-patient communication about prescribing. The authors present two reflexive tools they have used and show through examples how they have influenced the effectiveness of their team in terms of process, quality, and outcome.

What is a prescribing error

Objective—To develop a practitioner led definition of a prescribing error for use in quantitative studies of their incidence. Design—Two stage Delphi technique. Subjects—A panel of 34 UK judges, which included physicians, surgeons, pharmacists, nurses and risk managers. Main outcome measures—The extent to which judges agreed with a general definition of a prescribing error, and the extent to which they agreed that each of 42 scenarios represented a prescribing error. Results—Responses were obtained from 30 (88%) of 34 judges in the first Delphi round, and from 26 (87%) of 30 in the second round. The general definition of a prescribing error was accepted. The panel reached consensus that 24 of the 42 scenarios should be included as prescribing errors and that five should be excluded. In general, transcription errors, failure to communicate essential information, and the use of drugs or doses inappropriate for the individual patient were considered prescribing errors; deviations from policies or guidelines were not. Conclusions—Health care professionals are in broad agreement about the types of events that should be included and excluded as prescribing errors. A general definition of a prescribing error has been developed, together with more detailed guidance regarding the types of events that should be included. This definition allows the comparison of prescribing error rates among different prescribing systems and different hospitals, and is suitable for use in both research and clinical governance initiatives. (Quality in Health Care 2000;9:232–237)

Causes of intravenous medication errors: an ethnographic study

Background: Intravenous (IV) medication errors are frequent events. They are associated with considerable harm, but little is known about their causes. Human error theory is increasingly used to understand adverse events in medicine, but has not yet been applied to study IV errors. Our aim was to investigate causes of errors in IV drug preparation and administration using a framework of human error theory. Methods: A trained and experienced observer accompanied nurses during IV drug rounds on 10 wards in two hospitals (one university teaching hospital and one non-teaching hospital) in the UK. Information came from observation and talking informally to staff. Human error theory was used to analyse the causes of IV error. Results: 265 IV drug errors were identified during observation of 483 drug preparations and 447 administrations. The most common type of error was the deliberate violation of guidelines when injecting bolus doses faster than the recommended speed of 3–5 minutes. Causes included a lack of perceived risk, poor role models, and available technology. Mistakes occurred when drug preparation or administration involved uncommon procedures such as the preparation of very small volumes or the use of unusual drug vial presentations. Causes included a lack of knowledge of preparation or administration procedures and complex design of equipment. Underlying problems were the cultural context allowing unsafe drug use, the failure to teach practical aspects of drug handling, and design failures. Conclusions: Training needs and design issues should be addressed to reduce the rate of IV drug preparation and administration errors. This needs a coordinated approach from practitioners, regulators, and the pharmaceutical industry.

The impact of a closed-loop electronic prescribing and administration system on prescribing errors, administration errors and staff time: a before-and-after study

Objectives: To assess the impact of a closed-loop electronic prescribing, automated dispensing, barcode patient identification and electronic medication administration record (EMAR) system on prescribing and administration errors, confirmation of patient identity before administration, and staff time. Design, setting and participants: Before-and-after study in a surgical ward of a teaching hospital, involving patients and staff of that ward. Intervention: Closed-loop electronic prescribing, automated dispensing, barcode patient identification and EMAR system. Main outcome measures: Percentage of new medication orders with a prescribing error, percentage of doses with medication administration errors (MAEs) and percentage given without checking patient identity. Time spent prescribing and providing a ward pharmacy service. Nursing time on medication tasks. Results: Prescribing errors were identified in 3.8% of 2450 medication orders pre-intervention and 2.0% of 2353 orders afterwards (p<0.001; χ2 test). MAEs occurred in 7.0% of 1473 non-intravenous doses pre-intervention and 4.3% of 1139 afterwards (p = 0.005; χ2 test). Patient identity was not checked for 82.6% of 1344 doses pre-intervention and 18.9% of 1291 afterwards (p<0.001; χ2 test). Medical staff required 15 s to prescribe a regular inpatient drug pre-intervention and 39 s afterwards (p = 0.03; t test). Time spent providing a ward pharmacy service increased from 68 min to 98 min each weekday (p = 0.001; t test); 22% of drug charts were unavailable pre-intervention. Time per drug administration round decreased from 50 min to 40 min (p = 0.006; t test); nursing time on medication tasks outside of drug rounds increased from 21.1% to 28.7% (p = 0.006; χ2 test). Conclusions: A closed-loop electronic prescribing, dispensing and barcode patient identification system reduced prescribing errors and MAEs, and increased confirmation of patient identity before administration. Time spent on medication-related tasks increased.

Implementation and adoption of nationwide electronic health records in secondary care in England: final qualitative results from prospective national evaluation in "early adopter" hospitals

Objectives To evaluate the implementation and adoption of the NHS detailed care records service in “early adopter” hospitals in England. Design Theoretically informed, longitudinal qualitative evaluation based on case studies. Setting 12 “early adopter” NHS acute hospitals and specialist care settings studied over two and a half years. Data sources Data were collected through in depth interviews, observations, and relevant documents relating directly to case study sites and to wider national developments that were perceived to impact on the implementation strategy. Data were thematically analysed, initially within and then across cases. The dataset consisted of 431 semistructured interviews with key stakeholders, including hospital staff, developers, and governmental stakeholders; 590 hours of observations of strategic meetings and use of the software in context; 334 sets of notes from observations, researchers’ field notes, and notes from national conferences; 809 NHS documents; and 58 regional and national documents. Results Implementation has proceeded more slowly, with a narrower scope and substantially less clinical functionality than was originally planned. The national strategy had considerable local consequences (summarised under five key themes), and wider national developments impacted heavily on implementation and adoption. More specifically, delays related to unrealistic expectations about the capabilities of systems; the time needed to build, configure, and customise the software; the work needed to ensure that systems were supporting provision of care; and the needs of end users for training and support. Other factors hampering progress included the changing milieu of NHS policy and priorities; repeatedly renegotiated national contracts; different stages of development of diverse NHS care records service systems; and a complex communication process between different stakeholders, along with contractual arrangements that largely excluded NHS providers. There was early evidence that deploying systems resulted in important learning within and between organisations and the development of relevant competencies within NHS hospitals. Conclusions Implementation of the NHS Care Records Service in “early adopter” sites proved time consuming and challenging, with as yet limited discernible benefits for clinicians and no clear advantages for patients. Although our results might not be directly transferable to later adopting sites because the functionalities we evaluated were new and untried in the English context, they shed light on the processes involved in implementing major new systems. The move to increased local decision making that we advocated based on our interim analysis has been pursued and welcomed by the NHS, but it is important that policymakers do not lose sight of the overall goal of an integrated interoperable solution.

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.