Nick Barber

The introduction of a new method of transmitting prescriptions from general practices to community pharmacies in England (Electronic Prescription Service Release 2 (EPS2)) has generated debate on how it will change work practice. As EPS2 will be a key technical element in dispensing, we reviewed the literature to find that there were no studies on how social and technical elements come together to form work practice in community pharmacies. This means the debate has little point of reference. Our aim therefore was to study the ways social and technical elements of a community pharmacy are used to achieve dispensing through the development of a conceptual model on pharmacy work practice, and to consider how a core technical element such the EPS2 could change work practice.

Background: Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is a prospective risk assessment tool that has been widely used within the aerospace and automotive industries and has been utilised within healthcare since the early 1990s. The aim of this study was to explore the validity of FMEA outputs within a hospital setting in the United Kingdom. Methods: Two multidisciplinary teams each conducted an FMEA for the use of vancomycin and gentamicin. Four different validity tests were conducted: · Face validity: by comparing the FMEA participants’ mapped processes with observational work. · Content validity: by presenting the FMEA findings to other healthcare professionals. · Criterion validity: by comparing the FMEA findings with data reported on the trust’s incident report database. · Construct validity: by exploring the relevant mathematical theories involved in calculating the FMEA risk priority number. Results: Face validity was positive as the researcher documented the same processes of care as mapped by the FMEA participants. However, other healthcare professionals identified potential failures missed by the FMEA teams. Furthermore, the FMEA groups failed to include failures related to omitted doses; yet these were the failures most commonly reported in the trust’s incident database. Calculating the RPN by multiplying severity, probability and detectability scores was deemed invalid because it is based on calculations that breach the mathematical properties of the scales used. Conclusion: There are significant methodological challenges in validating FMEA. It is a useful tool to aid multidisciplinary groups in mapping and understanding a process of care; however, the results of our study cast doubt on its validity. FMEA teams are likely to need different sources of information, besides their personal experience and knowledge, to identify potential failures. As for FMEA’s methodology for scoring failures, there were discrepancies between the teams’ estimates and similar incidents reported on the trust’s incident database. Furthermore, the concept of multiplying ordinal scales to prioritise failures is mathematically flawed. Until FMEA’s validity is further explored, healthcare organisations should not solely depend on their FMEA results to prioritise patient safety issues.

There is a recognised need to build primary care medication adherence services which are tailored to patients' needs. Continuous quality improvement of such services requires a regular working method of measuring adherence in order to monitor effectiveness. Self report has been considered the method of choice for clinical use; it is cheap, relatively unobtrusive and able to distinguish between intentional and unintentional non-adherence, which have different underlying causes and therefore require different interventions. A self report adherence measure used in routine clinical practice would ideally be brief, acceptable to patients, valid, reliable, have the ability to distinguish between different types of non-adherence and be able to be completed by or in conjunction with carers where necessary.

Quantitative prospective methods are widely used to evaluate the impact of new technologies such as electronic prescribing (eP) on medication errors. However, they are labour-intensive and it is not always feasible to obtain pre-intervention data. Our objective was to compare the eP medication error picture obtained with retrospective quantitative and qualitative methods.

This paper reports a study undertaken in the UK to gather lessons learned from hospital sites that have implemented electronic prescribing systems. The work was commissioned by NHS Connecting for Health, the UK Department of Health agency responsible for the implementation of the National Programme for Information Technology. The aim was to capture front-line experience of the project and systems implementation, and to share it with staff who will in the future participate in other implementations. Data were drawn from detailed interviews with staff and a survey in 13 hospitals in England, as well as a review of published studies of implementations. The study output is a report and six user-facing briefing documents targeted at key stakeholder groups; nurses, pharmacist, doctors, senior executives, implementation team members and IM&T staff.

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.

The UK, USA and the World Health Organization have identified improved patient safety in healthcare as a priority. Medication error has been identified as one of the most frequent forms of medical error and is associated with significant medical harm. Errors are the result of the systems that produce them. In industrial settings, a range of systematic techniques have been designed to reduce error and waste. The first stage of these processes is to map out the whole system and its reliability at each stage. However, to date, studies of medication error and solutions have concentrated on individual parts of the whole system. In this paper we wished to conduct a systematic review of the literature, in order to map out the medication system with its associated errors and failures in quality, to assess the strength of the evidence and to use approaches from quality management to identify ways in which the system could be made safer.

To provide a formative socio-technical evaluation of a pilot implementation of an integrated electronic prescribing, automated dispensing, barcode patient identification and electronic medication administration record (EMAR) system on one ward. A qualitative observational approach using discourse analysis within a socio-technical evaluation framework addressing systems functions, human perspectives and organisational context. Surgical ward in a teaching hospital. Staff on study ward and in pharmacy. Implementation over time of an integrated electronic prescribing, automated dispensing, barcode patient identification and EMAR system. Assessment of technical performance, developed attitudes to the new system, changes to delivery of care and work practices. The system was successfully implemented on the ward, and remained in operation for over 2 years. Many of the technical components of the system initially showed problems, but the system evolved, with increased functionality and improved performance. Attitudes to the system in the early stages were mixed. Over time, and with experience of making the system work for them, staff attitudes changed to become more balanced and the potential benefits of the system became clearer to most. The system structured the work of staff, sometimes unexpectedly. Electronic prescribing systems need to be seen as occasions for change and learning rather than as black-boxed technical solutions to identified problems. The evaluation framework allows understanding as well as hypothesis testing, and is recommended for future evaluations of electronic prescribing systems.