Dataset Information

Pharmacist-led, video-stimulated feedback to reduce prescribing errors in doctors-in-training: A mixed methods evaluation.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

To develop and evaluate a feasible, authentic pharmacist-led prescribing feedback intervention for doctors-in-training, to reduce prescribing errors.

Methods

This was a mixed methods study. Sixteen postgraduate doctors-in training, rotating though the surgical assessment unit of 1 UK hospital, were filmed taking a medication history with a patient and prescribing medications. Each doctor reviewed their video footage and made plans to improve their prescribing, supported by feedback from a pharmacist. Quantitative data in the form of prescribing error prevalence data were collected on 1 day per week before, during and after the intervention period (between November 2015 and March 2017). Qualitative data in the form of individual semi-structured interviews were collected with a subset of participants, to evaluate their experience. Quantitative data were analysed using a statistical process chart and qualitative data were transcribed and analysed thematically.

Results

During the data collection period, 923 patient drug charts were reviewed by pharmacists who identified 1219 prescribing errors overall. Implementation of this feedback approach was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the mean number of prescribing errors, from 19.0/d to 11.7/d (estimated to equate to 38% reduction; P < .0001). Pharmacist-led video-stimulated prescribing feedback was feasible and positively received by participants, who appreciated the reinforcement of good practice as well as the opportunity to reflect on and improve practice.

Conclusions

Feedback to doctors-in-training tends to be infrequent and often negative, but this feasible feedback strategy significantly reduced prescribing errors and was well received by the target audience as a supportive developmental approach.

SUBMITTER: Parker H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6783579 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pharmacist-led, video-stimulated feedback to reduce prescribing errors in doctors-in-training: A mixed methods evaluation.

Parker Hazel H Farrell Odran O Bethune Rob R Hodgetts Ali A Mattick Karen K

British journal of clinical pharmacology 20190823 10

<h4>Aims</h4>To develop and evaluate a feasible, authentic pharmacist-led prescribing feedback intervention for doctors-in-training, to reduce prescribing errors.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a mixed methods study. Sixteen postgraduate doctors-in training, rotating though the surgical assessment unit of 1 UK hospital, were filmed taking a medication history with a patient and prescribing medications. Each doctor reviewed their video footage and made plans to improve their prescribing, supported by fe ...[more]

PMID: 31313340

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionMedication errors are avoidable events that can occur at any stage of the medication use process. They are widespread in healthcare systems and are linked to an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Several strategies have been studied to reduce their occurrence including different types of pharmacy-based interventions. One of the main pharmacist-led interventions is educational programs, which seem to have promising benefits.ObjectiveTo describe and compare various pharmacist-led educational interventions delivered to healthcare providers and to evaluate their impact qualitatively and quantitatively on medication error rates.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted through searching Cochrane Library, EBSCO, EMBASE, Medline and Google Scholar from inception to June 2020. Only interventional studies that reported medication error rate change after the intervention were included. Two independent authors worked through the data extraction and quality assessment using Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool (CCAT). Summary odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model for rates of medication errors. Research protocol is available in The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under the registration number CRD42019116465.ResultsTwelve studies involving 115058 participants were included. The two main recipients of the educational interventions were nurses and resident physicians. Educational programs involved lectures, posters, practical teaching sessions, audit and feedback method and flash cards of high-risk abbreviations. All studies included educational sessions as part of their program, either alone or in combination with other approaches, and most studies used errors encountered before implementing the intervention to inform the content of these sessions. Educational programs led by a pharmacist were associated with significant reductions in the overall rate of medication errors occurrence (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.65).ConclusionPharmacist-led educational interventions directed to healthcare providers are effective at reducing medication error rates. This review supports the implementation of pharmacist-led educational intervention aimed at reducing medication errors.

Project description:PurposeThe objective of this study was to implement a standardized process across health systems to determine the prevalence and clinical relevance of prescribing errors intercepted by pharmacists.MethodsThis prospective, multicenter, observational study was conducted across 11 hospitals. Pharmacist-intercepted prescribing errors were collected during inpatient order verification over 6 consecutive weeks utilizing a standardized documentation process. The potential harm of each error was evaluated using a modified National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC-MERP) index with physician validation, and errors were stratified into those with potentially low, serious, or life-threatening harm. Endpoints included the median error rate per 1,000 patient days, error type, and potential harm with correlating cost avoidance.ResultsPharmacists intervened on 7,187 errors, resulting in a mean error rate of 39 errors per 1,000 patient days. Among the errors, 46.6% (n = 3,349) were determined to have potentially serious consequences and 2.4% (n = 175) could have been life-threatening if not intercepted. This equates to $874,000 in avoided cost. The top 3 error types occurring with the highest frequency were "wrong dose/rate/frequency" (n = 2,298, 32.0%), "duplicate therapy" (n = 1,431, 19.9%), and "wrong timing" (n = 960, 13.4%). "Wrong dose/rate/frequency" (n = 49, 28%), "duplicate therapy" (n = 26, 14.9%), and "drug-disease interaction" (n = 24, 13.7%) errors occurred with the highest frequency among errors with potential for life-threatening harm. "Wrong dose/rate/frequency" (n = 1,028, 30.7%), "wrong timing" (n = 573, 17.1%), and "duplicate therapy" (n = 482, 14.4%) errors occurred with the highest frequency among errors with potentially serious harm.ConclusionDocumentation of pharmacist intervention on prescribing errors via a standardized process creates a platform for multicenter analysis of prescribing error trends and an opportunity for development of system-wide solutions to reduce potential harm from prescribing errors.

Project description:ObjectivesStudy objectives were to investigate the prevalence and causes of prescribing errors amongst foundation doctors (i.e. junior doctors in their first (F1) or second (F2) year of post-graduate training), describe their knowledge and experience of prescribing errors, and explore their self-efficacy (i.e. confidence) in prescribing.MethodA three-part mixed-methods design was used, comprising: prospective observational study; semi-structured interviews and cross-sectional survey. All doctors prescribing in eight purposively selected hospitals in Scotland participated. All foundation doctors throughout Scotland participated in the survey. The number of prescribing errors per patient, doctor, ward and hospital, perceived causes of errors and a measure of doctors' self-efficacy were established.Results4710 patient charts and 44,726 prescribed medicines were reviewed. There were 3364 errors, affecting 1700 (36.1%) charts (overall error rate: 7.5%; F1:7.4%; F2:8.6%; consultants:6.3%). Higher error rates were associated with : teaching hospitals (p<0.001), surgical (p?=?<0.001) or mixed wards (0.008) rather thanmedical ward, higher patient turnover wards (p<0.001), a greater number of prescribed medicines (p<0.001) and the months December and June (p<0.001). One hundred errors were discussed in 40 interviews. Error causation was multi-factorial; work environment and team factors were particularly noted. Of 548 completed questionnaires (national response rate of 35.4%), 508 (92.7% of respondents) reported errors, most of which (328 (64.6%) did not reach the patient. Pressure from other staff, workload and interruptions were cited as the main causes of errors. Foundation year 2 doctors reported greater confidence than year 1 doctors in deciding the most appropriate medication regimen.ConclusionsPrescribing errors are frequent and of complex causation. Foundation doctors made more errors than other doctors, but undertook the majority of prescribing, making them a key target for intervention. Contributing causes included work environment, team, task, individual and patient factors. Further work is needed to develop and assess interventions that address these.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Previous reports have highlighted the suboptimal utilization and prescription of statin therapy among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the Malaysian clinical practice. This study aims to test the impact of a pharmacist-led academic detailing program on improving the overall statin therapy prescribing in Malaysian hospital and primary care settings. METHODS:As a quasi-experimental design with a control group and pre-tests., we examined 1,598 medical records of T2DM subjects in six healthcare facilities in the state of Pahang, Malaysia. In all study sites, there was a pre and post-intervention assessment of the percentage of appropriate statin therapy prescribing that complied with the clinical guidelines with no potential safety issues. The intervention was an academic detailing program offered to the health care providers in three study sites, while the other three sites served as the control group. A comparison of the overall percentage of appropriate statin therapy prescribing before and after the academic detailing was performed in all intervention and control sites. RESULTS:Overall, 797 medical records were examined in the pre-intervention phase, and 801 records were evaluated in the post-intervention phase. The academic detailing program was associated with a statistically significant difference in the proportion of appropriate statin therapy prescribing between the post-intervention phase compared to the pre-intervention phase (n = 246, 61.7% versus n = 188, 47.1%), p = 0.001. Whereas, the appropriate statin therapy prescribing in the control study sites experienced a modest change from 53.8% (214/398) to 56.7% (228/402), p = 0.220. The academic detailing showed significant increases in the proportions of appropriate statin therapy prescribing in both hospital and primary care settings. CONCLUSIONS:The academic detailing program was found to be significantly associated with a positive impact on the overall statin therapy prescribing among patients with T2DM in Malaysian hospital and primary care settings.

Project description:Medication errors are common in primary care and are associated with considerable risk of patient harm. We tested whether a pharmacist-led, information technology-based intervention was more effective than simple feedback in reducing the number of patients at risk of measures related to hazardous prescribing and inadequate blood-test monitoring of medicines 6 months after the intervention.In this pragmatic, cluster randomised trial general practices in the UK were stratified by research site and list size, and randomly assigned by a web-based randomisation service in block sizes of two or four to one of two groups. The practices were allocated to either computer-generated simple feedback for at-risk patients (control) or a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER), composed of feedback, educational outreach, and dedicated support. The allocation was masked to researchers and statisticians involved in processing and analysing the data. The allocation was not masked to general practices, pharmacists, patients, or researchers who visited practices to extract data. [corrected]. Primary outcomes were the proportions of patients at 6 months after the intervention who had had any of three clinically important errors: non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) prescribed to those with a history of peptic ulcer without co-prescription of a proton-pump inhibitor; ? blockers prescribed to those with a history of asthma; long-term prescription of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or loop diuretics to those 75 years or older without assessment of urea and electrolytes in the preceding 15 months. The cost per error avoided was estimated by incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. This study is registered with Controlled-Trials.com, number ISRCTN21785299.72 general practices with a combined list size of 480,942 patients were randomised. At 6 months' follow-up, patients in the PINCER group were significantly less likely to have been prescribed a non-selective NSAID if they had a history of peptic ulcer without gastroprotection (OR 0·58, 95% CI 0·38-0·89); a ? blocker if they had asthma (0·73, 0·58-0·91); or an ACE inhibitor or loop diuretic without appropriate monitoring (0·51, 0·34-0·78). PINCER has a 95% probability of being cost effective if the decision-maker's ceiling willingness to pay reaches £75 per error avoided at 6 months.The PINCER intervention is an effective method for reducing a range of medication errors in general practices with computerised clinical records.Patient Safety Research Portfolio, Department of Health, England.

Dataset Information

Pharmacist-led, video-stimulated feedback to reduce prescribing errors in doctors-in-training: A mixed methods evaluation.

Aims

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Pharmacist-led, video-stimulated feedback to reduce prescribing errors in doctors-in-training: A mixed methods evaluation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure