There are many theories that explain how adults learn and each has its own merits. This Guide explains and explores the more commonly used ones and how they can be used to enhance student and faculty learning. The Guide presents a model that combines many of the theories into a flow diagram which can be followed by anyone planning learning. The schema can be used at curriculum planning level, or at the level of individual learning. At each stage of the model, the Guide identifies the responsibilities of both learner and educator. The role of the institution is to ensure that the time and resources are available to allow effective learning to happen. The Guide is designed for those new to education, in the hope that it can unravel the difficulties in understanding and applying the common learning theories, whilst also creating opportunities for debate as to the best way they should be used.

No abstract

Prescribing errors affect patient safety throughout hospital practice. Previous reviews of studies have often targeted specific populations or settings, or did not adopt a systematic approach to reviewing the literature. Therefore, we set out to systematically review the prevalence, incidence and nature of prescribing errors in hospital inpatients. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (all from 1985 to October 2007) were searched for studies of prescriptions for adult or child hospital inpatients giving enough data to calculate an error rate. Electronic prescriptions and errors for single diseases, routes of administration or types of prescribing error were excluded, as were non-English language publications. Median error rate (interquartile range [IQR]) was 7% (2-14%) of medication orders, 52 (8-227) errors per 100 admissions and 24 (6-212) errors per 1000 patient days. Most studies (84%) were conducted in single hospitals and originated from the US or UK (72%). Most errors were intercepted and reported before they caused harm, although two studies reported adverse drug events. Errors were most common with antimicrobials and more common in adults (median 18% of orders [ten studies, IQR 7-25%]) than children (median 4% [six studies, IQR 2-17%]). Incorrect dosage was the most common error. Overall, it is clear that prescribing errors are a common occurrence, affecting 7% of medication orders, 2% of patient days and 50% of hospital admissions. However, the reported rates of prescribing errors varied greatly and this could be partly explained by variations in the definition of a prescribing error, the methods used to collect error data and the setting of the study. Furthermore, a lack of standardization between severity scales prevented any comparison of error severity across studies. Future research should address the wide disparity of data-collection methods and definitions that bedevils comparison of error rates or meta-analysis of different studies.

Prescribing errors are common, they result in adverse events and harm to patients and it is unclear how best to prevent them because recommendations are more often based on surmized rather than empirically collected data. The aim of this systematic review was to identify all informative published evidence concerning the causes of and factors associated with prescribing errors in specialist and non-specialist hospitals, collate it, analyse it qualitatively and synthesize conclusions from it. Seven electronic databases were searched for articles published between 1985-July 2008. The reference lists of all informative studies were searched for additional citations. To be included, a study had to be of handwritten prescriptions for adult or child inpatients that reported empirically collected data on the causes of or factors associated with errors. Publications in languages other than English and studies that evaluated errors for only one disease, one route of administration or one type of prescribing error were excluded. Seventeen papers reporting 16 studies, selected from 1268 papers identified by the search, were included in the review. Studies from the US and the UK in university-affiliated hospitals predominated (10/16 [62%]). The definition of a prescribing error varied widely and the included studies were highly heterogeneous. Causes were grouped according to Reason's model of accident causation into active failures, error-provoking conditions and latent conditions. The active failure most frequently cited was a mistake due to inadequate knowledge of the drug or the patient. Skills-based slips and memory lapses were also common. Where error-provoking conditions were reported, there was at least one per error. These included lack of training or experience, fatigue, stress, high workload for the prescriber and inadequate communication between healthcare professionals. Latent conditions included reluctance to question senior colleagues and inadequate provision of training. Prescribing errors are often multifactorial, with several active failures and error-provoking conditions often acting together to cause them. In the face of such complexity, solutions addressing a single cause, such as lack of knowledge, are likely to have only limited benefit. Further rigorous study, seeking potential ways of reducing error, needs to be conducted. Multifactorial interventions across many parts of the system are likely to be required.

The definition of problem-based learning (PBL) as an educational concept is as elusive in 2008 as it has been since the concept was first expressed over forty years ago. A definitive guide to the practice of PBL is equally elusive. Like all worthwhile educational ideas, PBL has proved attractive to those teachers who seek improvements for their courses. Its appeal has transcended the traditional boundaries in formal education so that there are examples of PBL from primary to tertiary education, and across many disciplines within these. Dissemination, however, has wrought confusion in understanding and practice, and consequent difficulties for researchers in evaluating its efficacy, and lack of clear advice for those who would like to adopt PBL. Rather than attempting to be definitive, this Guide explores the various interpretations and practices that claim the label PBL, and critiques these against the original concept and practice. The primary aim is to provide insight into the causes of the confusion about PBL in 2008. The second aim is to point a feasible way forward so that, where appropriate, the potential of PBL as a whole-of-curriculum concept may be realised; and, where it is not possible to implement the whole concept, worthwhile educational principles that have been associated more or less with PBL may be recognised as such and given value in their own right.

This pragmatic randomized controlled trial tested the effectiveness of long-term psychoanalytic psychotherapy (LTPP) as an adjunct to treatmentas-usual according to UK national guidelines (TAU), compared to TAU alone, in patients with long-standing major depression who had failed at least two different treatments and were considered to have treatment-resistant depression. Patients (N5129) were recruited from primary care and randomly allocated to the two treatment conditions. They were assessed at 6-monthly intervals during the 18 months of treatment and at 24, 30 and 42 months during follow-up. The primary outcome measure was the 17-item version of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17), with complete remission defined as a HDRS-17 score 8, and partial remission defined as a HDRS-17 score 12. Secondary outcome measures included self-reported depression as assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory -II, social functioning as evaluated by the Global Assessment of Functioning, subjective wellbeing as rated by the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation -Outcome Measure, and satisfaction with general activities as assessed by the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire. Complete remission was infrequent in both groups at the end of treatment (9.4% in the LTPP group vs. 6.5% in the control group) as well as at 42-month follow-up (14.9% vs. 4.4%). Partial remission was not significantly more likely in the LTPP than in the control group at the end of treatment (32.1% vs. 23.9%, p50.37), but significant differences emerged during follow-up (24 months: 38.8% vs. 19.2%, p50.03; 30 months: 34.7% vs. 12.2%, p50.008; 42 months: 30.0% vs. 4.4%, p50.001). Both observer-based and self-reported depression scores showed steeper declines in the LTPP group, alongside greater improvements on measures of social adjustment. These data suggest that LTPP can be useful in improving the long-term outcome of treatment-resistant depression. End-oftreatment evaluations or short follow-ups may miss the emergence of delayed therapeutic benefit.

No abstract

IntroductionIt has been suggested that doctors in their first year of post-graduate training make a disproportionate number of prescribing errors.ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the prevalence of prescribing errors made by first-year post-graduate doctors with that of errors by senior doctors and non-medical prescribers and to investigate the predictors of potentially serious prescribing errors.MethodsPharmacists in 20 hospitals over 7 prospectively selected days collected data on the number of medication orders checked, the grade of prescriber and details of any prescribing errors. Logistic regression models (adjusted for clustering by hospital) identified factors predicting the likelihood of prescribing erroneously and the severity of prescribing errors.ResultsPharmacists reviewed 26,019 patients and 124,260 medication orders; 11,235 prescribing errors were detected in 10,986 orders. The mean error rate was 8.8 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 8.6–9.1) errors per 100 medication orders. Rates of errors for all doctors in training were significantly higher than rates for medical consultants. Doctors who were 1 year (odds ratio [OR] 2.13; 95 % CI 1.80–2.52) or 2 years in training (OR 2.23; 95 % CI 1.89–2.65) were more than twice as likely to prescribe erroneously. Prescribing errors were 70 % (OR 1.70; 95 % CI 1.61–1.80) more likely to occur at the time of hospital admission than when medication orders were issued during the hospital stay. No significant differences in severity of error were observed between grades of prescriber. Potentially serious errors were more likely to be associated with prescriptions for parenteral administration, especially for cardiovascular or endocrine disorders.ConclusionThe problem of prescribing errors in hospitals is substantial and not solely a problem of the most junior medical prescribers, particularly for those errors most likely to cause significant patient harm. Interventions are needed to target these high-risk errors by all grades of staff and hence improve patient safety.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40264-015-0320-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.