No abstract

Background Showing how engagement adds value for all stakeholders can be an effective motivator for broader implementation of patient engagement. However, it is unclear what methods can best be used to evaluate patient engagement. This paper is focused on ways to evaluate patient engagement at three decision‐making points in the medicines research and development process: research priority setting, clinical trial design and early dialogues with regulators and health technology assessment bodies. Objective Our aim was to review the literature on monitoring and evaluation of patient engagement, with a focus on indicators and methods. Search strategy and inclusion criteria We undertook a scoping literature review using a systematic search, including academic and grey literature with a focus on evaluation approaches or outcomes associated with patient engagement. No date limits were applied other than a cut‐off of publications after July 2018. Data extraction and synthesis Data were extracted from 91 publications, coded and thematically analysed. Main results A total of 18 benefits and 5 costs of patient engagement were identified, mapped with 28 possible indicators for their evaluation. Several quantitative and qualitative methods were found for the evaluation of benefits and costs of patient engagement. Discussion and conclusions Currently available indicators and methods are of some use in measuring impact but are not sufficient to understand the pathway to impact, nor whether interaction between researchers and patients leads to change. We suggest that the impacts of patient engagement can best be determined not by applying single indicators, but a coherent set of measures.

If the practitioner uses a clinical computer during consultation with the patient there may be adverse effects on the quality of interpersonal communication in the consultation. Greatbach et al showed in 1995 that these adverse effects might be minimised when the practitioner is well-practised and able to put in the background the tasks involving the computer. 1 In the subsequent seven years, as clinical computer systems have become more sophisticated, the clinician may be called on to pay more attention to the content displayed on the computer screen.This study shows that this required level of attention cannot be put in the background, and that general practitioners (GPs) are not able to multitask at this level. Clinicians can use specific communication skills to manage the consultation, so that they are not called on to concentrate on the computer screen and the patient at the same time. The two tasks can be accomplished in the same consultation, but not simultaneously.

Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD) is a not-for-profit independent multinational coalition of patients, patient stakeholders, and the pharmaceutical industry with interests across diverse disease areas and conditions. PFMD aims to facilitate an integrated approach to medicines development with all stakeholders involved early in the development process. A key strength of the coalition that differentiates it from other groups that involve patients or patient groups is that PFMD has patient organizations as founding members, ensuring that the patient perspective is the starting point when identifying priorities and developing solutions to meet patients’ needs. In addition, PFMD has from inception been formed as an equal collaboration among patient groups, patients, and pharmaceutical industry and has adopted a unique trans-Atlantic setup and scope that reflects its global intent. This parity extends to its governance model, which ensures at least equal or greater share of voice for patient group members. PFMD is actively inviting additional members and aims to expand the collaboration to include stakeholders from other sectors. The establishment of PFMD is particularly timely as patient engagement (PE) has become a priority for many health stakeholders and has led to a surge of mostly disconnected activities to deliver this. Given the current plethora of PE initiatives, an essential first step has been to determine, based on a comprehensive mapping, those strategic areas of most need requiring a focused initial effort from the perspective of all stakeholders. PFMD has identified four priority areas that will need to be addressed to facilitate implementation of PE. These are (1) culture and process change, (2) development of a global meta-framework for PE, (3) information exchange, and (4) training. This article discusses these priority themes and ongoing or planned PFMD activities within each.

Keywords AbstractBackground Medication errors are one of the leading causes of harmin health care. Review and analysis of errors have often emphasized their preventable nature and potential for reoccurrence. Of the few error studies conducted in primary care to date, most have focused on evaluating individual parts of the medicines management system. Studying individual parts of the system does not provide a complete perspective and may further weaken the evidence and undermine interventions. Aim and Objectives The aim of this review is to estimate the scale of medication errors as a problem across the medicines management system in primary care. Objectives were: 1. To review studies addressing the rates of medication errors, and 2. To identify studies on interventions to prevent medication errors in primary care. Methods A systematic search of the literature was performed in PubMed (MEDLINE), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), Embase, PsycINFO, PASCAL, Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Knowledge, and CINAHL PLUS from 1999 to November, 2012. Bibliographies of relevant publications were searched for additional studies. Key findings Thirty-three studies estimating the incidence of medication errors and thirty-six studies evaluating the impact of error-prevention interventions in primary care were reviewed. This review demonstrated that medication errors are common, with error rates between <1% and >90%, depending on the part of the system studied, and the definitions and methods used. The prescribing stage is the most susceptible, and that the elderly (over 65 years), and children (under 18 years) are more likely to experience significant errors. Individual interventions demonstrated marginal improvements in medication safety when implemented on their own. Conclusion Targeting the more susceptible population groups and the most dangerous aspects of the system may be a more effective approach to error management and prevention. Co-implementation of existing interventions at points within the system may offer time-and cost-effective options to improving medication safety in primary care.