Background Medication administration errors (MAEs) are a problem, yet methodological variation between studies presents a potential barrier to understanding how best to increase safety. Using the UK as a case-study, we systematically summarised methodological variations in MAE studies, and their effects on reported MAE rates.

ContextResearch has documented the problem of medication administration errors and their causes. However, little is known about how nurses administer medications safely or how existing systems facilitate or hinder medication administration; this represents a missed opportunity for implementation of practical, effective, and low-cost strategies to increase safety.AimTo identify system factors that facilitate and/or hinder successful medication administration focused on three inter-related areas: nurse practices and workarounds, workflow, and interruptions and distractions.MethodsWe used a mixed-methods ethnographic approach involving observational fieldwork, field notes, participant narratives, photographs, and spaghetti diagrams to identify system factors that facilitate and/or hinder successful medication administration in three inpatient wards, each from a different English NHS trust. We supplemented this with quantitative data on interruptions and distractions among other established medication safety measures.FindingsOverall, 43 nurses on 56 drug rounds were observed. We identified a median of 5.5 interruptions and 9.6 distractions per hour. We identified three interlinked themes that facilitated successful medication administration in some situations but which also acted as barriers in others: (1) system configurations and features, (2) behaviour types among nurses, and (3) patient interactions. Some system configurations and features acted as a physical constraint for parts of the drug round, however some system effects were partly dependent on nurses’ inherent behaviour; we grouped these behaviours into ‘task focused’, and ‘patient-interaction focused’. The former contributed to a more streamlined workflow with fewer interruptions while the latter seemed to empower patients to act as a defence barrier against medication errors by being: (1) an active resource of information, (2) a passive information resource, and/or (3) a ‘double-checker’.ConclusionsWe have identified practical examples of system effects on work optimisation and nurse behaviours that potentially increase medication safety, and conceptualized ways in which patient involvement can increase medication safety in hospitals.

Addressing the silent pandemic of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a focus of the 2021 G7 meeting. A major driver of AMR and poor clinical outcomes is suboptimal antimicrobial use. Current research in AMR is inequitably focused on new drug development. To achieve antimicrobial security we need to balance AMR research efforts between development of new agents and strategies to preserve the efficacy and maximise effectiveness of existing agents. Combining a review of current evidence and multistage engagement with diverse international stakeholders (including those in healthcare, public health, research, patient advocacy and policy) we identified research priorities for optimising antimicrobial use in humans across four broad themes: policy and strategic planning; medicines management and prescribing systems; technology to optimise prescribing; and context, culture and behaviours. Sustainable progress depends on: developing economic and contextually appropriate interventions; facilitating better use of data and prescribing systems across healthcare settings; supporting appropriate and scalable technological innovation. Implementing this strategy for AMR research on the optimisation of antimicrobial use in humans could contribute to equitable global health security.