Dataset Information

A qualitative study exploring how routinely collected Medication Safety Thermometer data have been used for quality improvement purposes using case studies from three UK hospitals

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The Medication Safety Thermometer (MedsST) is a medication safety data collection tool, which has been used by over 100 UK healthcare organisations to enable measurement of medication safety for improvement purposes. This study aimed to explore whether, and how, data collected by the MedsST have been used in organisations to facilitate medication safety improvements.

Design

Routine MedsST data collected between October 2013 and July 2016 were analysed using Run charts. Identified changes were investigated using interviews with staff from each hospital trust. The interviews were analysed using a framework based on Normalisation Process Theory, focusing on use of the MedsST and its data.

Setting

Three National Health Service hospital trusts in the North West of England, which have used the MedsST for the longest period.

Participants

Eight interview participants, purposely sampled based on their involvement with the MedsST, included pharmacists, pharmacy technicians and nurses.

Results

Improvement was often at ward level and focused on particular areas of medication safety, led by clinical champions. The most sustainable improvements involved changes to systems, such as introducing new guidelines. Although some improvement occurred, internal communication about improvements was poor, and large amounts of data remained unused, often due to a lack of ownership of data review and use.

Conclusions

Simply collecting data is not sufficient; a system of data collection, review and use for improvement is required. Issues with such systems may have been recognised and averted if implementation theory had been used in the early stages of national development and implementation. However, implementation theory could be used within organisations to fix issues locally, particularly to increase ward-level ownership of this system, which could lead to considerable improvements.

SUBMITTER: Rostami P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6398683 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The positive deviance approach seeks to identify and learn from exceptional performers. Although a framework exists to apply positive deviance within healthcare organisations, there is limited guidance to support its implementation. The approach has also rarely explored exceptional performance on broad outcomes, been implemented at ward level, or applied within the UK. This study develops and critically appraises a pragmatic method for identifying positively deviant wards using a routinely collected, broad measure of patient safety. DESIGN:A two-phased observational study was conducted. During phase 1, cross-sectional and temporal analyses of Safety Thermometer data were conducted to identify a discrete group of positively deviant wards that consistently demonstrated exceptional levels of safety. A group of matched comparison wards with above average performances were also identified. During phase 2, multidisciplinary staff and patients on the positively deviant and comparison wards completed surveys to explore whether their perceptions of safety supported the identification of positively deviant wards. SETTING:34 elderly medical wards within a northern region of England, UK. PARTICIPANTS:Multidisciplinary staff (n=161) and patients (n=188) clustered within nine positively deviant and comparison wards. RESULTS:Phase 1: A combination of analyses identified five positively deviant wards that performed best in the region, outperformed their organisation and performed consistently well over 12 months. Five above average matched comparator wards were also identified. Phase 2: Staff and patient perceptions of safety generally supported the identification of positively deviant wards using Safety Thermometer data, although patient perceptions of safety were less concordant with the routinely collected data. CONCLUSIONS:This study tentatively supports a pragmatic method of using routinely collected data to identify positively deviant elderly medical wards; however, it also highlights the various challenges that are faced when conducting the first stage of the positive deviance approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:UK Clinical Research Network Portfolio (reference-18050).

Project description:BackgroundIn recent years, studies that used routinely collected data (RCD), such as electronic medical records and administrative claims, for exploring drug treatment effects, including effectiveness and safety, have been increasingly published. Abstracts of such studies represent a highly attended source for busy clinicians or policy-makers, and are important for indexing by literature database. If less clearly presented, they may mislead decisions or indexing. We thus conducted a cross-sectional survey to systematically examine how the abstracts of such studies were reported.MethodsWe searched PubMed to identify all observational studies published in 2018 that used RCD for assessing drug treatment effects. Teams of methods-trained collected data from eligible studies using pilot-tested, standardized forms that were developed and expanded from "The reporting of studies conducted using observational routinely collected health data statement for pharmacoepidemiology" (RECORD-PE) statement. We used descriptive analyses to examine how authors reported data source, study design, data analysis, and interpretation of findings.ResultsA total of 222 studies were included, of which 118 (53.2%) reported type of database used, 17 (7.7%) clearly reported database linkage, and 140 (63.1%) reported coverage of data source. Only 44 (19.8%) studies stated a predefined hypothesis, 127 (57.2%) reported study design, 140 (63.1%) reported statistical models used, 142 (77.6%) reported adjusted estimates, 33 (14.9%) mentioned sensitivity analyses, and 39 (17.6%) made a strong claim about treatment effect. Studies published in top 5 general medicine journals were more likely to report the name of data source (94.7% vs. 67.0%) and study design (100% vs. 53.2%) than those in other journals.ConclusionsThe under-reporting of key methodological features in abstracts of RCD studies was common, which would substantially compromise the indexing of this type of literature and prevent the effective use of study findings. Substantial efforts to improve the reporting of abstracts in these studies are highly warranted.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine whether gender differences in primary care consultation rates (1) vary by age and deprivation status and (2) diminish when consultation for reproductive reasons or common underlying morbidities are accounted for.DesignCross-sectional study of a cohort of patients registered with general practice.SettingUK primary care.SubjectsPatients (1 869 149 men and 1 916 898 women) registered with 446 eligible practices in 2010.Primary outcome measuresPrimary care consultation rate.ResultsThis study analyses routinely collected primary care consultation data. The crude consultation rate was 32% lower in men than women. The magnitude of gender difference varied across the life course, and there was no 'excess' female consulting in early and later life. The greatest gender gap in primary care consultations was seen among those aged between 16 and 60 years. Gender differences in consulting were higher in people from more deprived areas than among those from more affluent areas. Accounting for reproductive-related consultations diminished but did not eradicate the gender gap. However, consultation rates in men and women who had comparable underlying morbidities (as assessed by receipt of medication) were similar; men in receipt of antidepressant medication were only 8% less likely to consult than women in receipt of antidepressant medication (relative risk (RR) 0.916, 95% CI 0.913 to 0.918), and men in receipt of medication to treat cardiovascular disease were just 5% less likely to consult (RR=0.950, 95% CI 0.948 to 0.952) than women receiving similar medication. These small gender differences diminished further, particularly for depression (RR=0.950, 95% CI 0.947 to 0.953), after also taking account of reproductive consultations.ConclusionsOverall gender differences in consulting are most marked between the ages of 16 and 60 years; these differences are only partially accounted for by consultations for reproductive reasons. Differences in consultation rates between men and women were largely eradicated when comparing men and women in receipt of medication for similar underlying morbidities.

Project description:BackgroundAdvancing the use of genomic data with routinely collected health data holds great promise for health care and research. Increasing the use of these data is a high priority to understand and address the causes of disease.ObjectiveThis study aims to provide an outline of the use of genomic data alongside routinely collected data in health research to date. As this field prepares to move forward, it is important to take stock of the current state of play in order to highlight new avenues for development, identify challenges, and ensure that adequate data governance models are in place for safe and socially acceptable progress.MethodsWe conducted a literature review to draw information from past studies that have used genomic and routinely collected data and conducted interviews with individuals who use these data for health research. We collected data on the following: the rationale of using genomic data in conjunction with routinely collected data, types of genomic and routinely collected data used, data sources, project approvals, governance and access models, and challenges encountered.ResultsThe main purpose of using genomic and routinely collected data was to conduct genome-wide and phenome-wide association studies. Routine data sources included electronic health records, disease and death registries, health insurance systems, and deprivation indices. The types of genomic data included polygenic risk scores, single nucleotide polymorphisms, and measures of genetic activity, and biobanks generally provided these data. Although the literature search showed that biobanks released data to researchers, the case studies revealed a growing tendency for use within a data safe haven. Challenges of working with these data revolved around data collection, data storage, technical, and data privacy issues.ConclusionsUsing genomic and routinely collected data holds great promise for progressing health research. Several challenges are involved, particularly in terms of privacy. Overcoming these barriers will ensure that the use of these data to progress health research can be exploited to its full potential.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Clinical trials generally each collect their own data despite routinely collected health data (RCHD) increasing in quality and breadth. Our aim is to quantify UK-based randomised controlled trials (RCTs) accessing RCHD for participant data, characterise how these data are used and thereby recommend how more trials could use RCHD. METHODS:We conducted a systematic review of RCTs accessing RCHD from at least one registry in the UK between 2013 and 2018 for the purposes of informing or supplementing participant data. A list of all registries holding RCHD in the UK was compiled. In cases where registries published release registers, these were searched for RCTs accessing RCHD. Where no release register was available, registries were contacted to request a list of RCTs. For each identified RCT, information was collected from all publicly available sources (release registers, websites, protocol etc.). The search and data extraction were undertaken between January and May 2019. RESULTS:We identified 160 RCTs accessing RCHD between 2013 and 2018 from a total of 22 registries; this corresponds to only a very small proportion of all UK RCTs (about 3%). RCTs accessing RCHD were generally large (median sample size 1590), commonly evaluating treatments for cancer or cardiovascular disease. Most of the included RCTs accessed RCHD from NHS Digital (68%), and the most frequently accessed datasets were mortality (76%) and hospital visits (55%). RCHD was used to inform the primary trial (82%) and long-term follow-up (57%). There was substantial variation in how RCTs used RCHD to inform participant outcome measures. A limitation was the lack of information and transparency from registries and RCTs with respect to which datasets have been accessed and for what purposes. CONCLUSIONS:In the last five years, only a small minority of UK-based RCTs have accessed RCHD to inform participant data. We ask for improved accessibility, confirmed data quality and joined-up thinking between the registries and the regulatory authorities. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42019123088.

Project description:IntroductionIt is estimated that peripheral arterial disease occurs in one in five people aged over 60 years in the UK. Major lower limb amputation is a debilitating and life-changing potential outcome of peripheral arterial disease. A number of risk factors are involved in the development of the disease including smoking and diabetes. There is debate over the prevalence of major lower limb amputation in the UK with regional variations unexplained. The choice of data source can affect the epidemiological calculations and sources can also differ in the ability to explain variation. This study will aim to estimate the prevalence/incidence/number of major lower limb amputation in the UK. It will also identify sources of routinely collected electronic health data which report the epidemiology of major lower limb amputation in the UK.Methods and analysisA systematic search of peer-reviewed journals will be conducted in Medline, Excerpta Medica database, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, The Cochrane Library and Scopus. A grey literature search for government and parliament publications, conference abstracts, theses and unpublished articles will be performed. Articles will be screened against the inclusion/exclusion criteria and data extracted using a pretested extraction form by two independent reviewers. Prevalence, incidence or number of cases (depending on data reported) will be extracted. Disagreements will be resolved by discussion. Data synthesis will be performed either as a narrative summary or by meta-analysis. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the I2 statistic. If heterogeneity is low-moderate, pooled estimates will be calculated using random-effects models. If possible, meta-regression for time trends in the incidence of major lower limb amputation will be performed along with subgroup analysis, primarily in regional variation.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this study as study data are anonymised and available in the public domain. Dissemination will be by publication in a peer reviewed journal and by appropriate conference presentation.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020165592.