Although doctors know the importance of obtaining an accurate medication history and checking prescriptions with patients, they often fail to put this into practice, resulting in prescribing errors.

ObjectivesIt is recommended that patients are seen within 4 h of arrival in Acute Medical Units in English hospitals. This study explored the frequency and nature of interruptions and delays potentially affecting the duration of the Acute Medical Unit admission process and the quality of care provided.DesignThe admission process was directly observed for patients admitted to the Acute Medical Unit over four one-week periods, November 2009 to April 2011.SettingUK teaching hospital Acute Medical Unit.ParticipantsHospital staff n = 36.Main outcome measuresPatient waiting times, duration of clerking, number of interruptions and/or delays.ResultsThirty-five doctors and one nurse practitioner were observed admitting 71 medical patients, 48/71 (68%) patients were clerked within 4 h of arrival. A delay and/or interruption affected 49/71 (69%) patients. Sixty-six interruptions were observed in 36/71 (51%) of admissions, of these 19/36 (53%) were interrupted more than once. The grade of doctor had no bearing on the frequency of interruption; however, clerking took significantly longer when interrupted; overall doctors grade ST1 and above were quicker at clerking than foundation doctors. Delays affected 31/71 (44%) of admissions, 14/31 (45%) involved X-rays or ECGs; other causes of delays included problems with equipment and computers.ConclusionInterruptions and delays regularly occurred during the admission process in the study hospital which impacts adversely on patient experience and compliance with the recommended 4-h timeframe, further work is required to assess the impact on patient safety. Data obtained from this observational study were used to guide operational changes to improve the process.

BackgroundImplementing venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment guidance on admission to hospital has proved difficult worldwide. In 2010, VTE risk assessment in English hospitals was linked to financial sanctions. This study investigated possible barriers and facilitators for VTE risk assessment in medical patients and evaluated the impact of local and national initiatives.SettingAcute Medical Unit in one English National Health Service university teaching hospital.MethodsThis was a mixed methods study; National Research Ethics Service approval was granted. Data were collected over four 1-week periods; November 2009 (1), January 2010 (2), April 2010 (3) and April 2011 (4). Case notes for all medical patients admitted during these periods were reviewed. Thirty-six staff were observed admitting 71 of these patients; 24 observed staff participated in a structured interview.Results876 case notes were reviewed. In total, 82.1% of patients had one or more VTE risk factors and 25.3% one or more bleeding risks. VTE risk assessment rose from a baseline of 6.9–19.6%, following local initiatives, and to 98.7% following financially sanctioned government targets. A similar increase in appropriate prescribing of prophylaxis was seen, but inappropriate prescribing also rose. No staff observed in period 1 conducted VTE risk assessment, risk-assessment forms were largely ignored or discarded during period 2; and electronic recording systems available during period 3 were not accessed. Few patients were asked any VTE-related questions in periods 1, 2 or 3.Interviewees’ actual knowledge of VTE risk was not related to perceived knowledge level. Eight of the 24 staff interviewed were aware of national policies or guidance: none had seen them. Principal barriers identified to risk assessment were: involvement of multiple staff in individual admissions; interruptions; lack of policy awareness; time pressure and complexity of tools.ConclusionsNational financial sanctions appear effective in implementing guidance, where other local measures have failed.