Aim To identify the types and frequencies of communication issues (communication pairs, person related, institutional, structural, process and prescription‐related issues) detected in medication incident reports and to compare communication issues that caused moderate or serious harm to patients. Background Communication issues have been found to be among the main contributing factors of medication incidents, thus necessitating communication enhancement. Design A sequential exploratory mixed‐method design. Methods Medication incident reports from Finland (n = 500) for the year 2015 in which communication was marked as a contributing factor were used as the data source. Indicator phrases were used for searching communication issues from free texts of incident reports. The detected issues were analysed statistically, qualitatively and considering the harm caused to the patient. Citations from free texts were extracted as evidence of issues and were classified following main categories of indicator phrases. The EQUATOR’s SRQR checklist was followed in reporting. Results Twenty‐eight communication pairs were identified, with nurse–nurse (68.2%; n = 341), nurse–physician (41.6%; n = 208) and nurse–patient (9.6%; n = 48) pairs being the most frequent. Communication issues existed mostly within unit (76.6%, n = 383). The most commonly identified issues were digital communication (68.2%; n = 341), lack of communication within a team (39.6%; n = 198), false assumptions about work processes (25.6%; n = 128) and being unaware of guidelines (25.0%; n = 125). Collegial feedback and communication from patients and relatives were the preventing issues. Moderate harm cases were often linked with lack of communication within the unit, digital communication and not following guidelines. Conclusions The interventions should be prioritised to (a) enhancing communication about work‐processes, (b) verbal communication about digital prescriptions between professionals, (c) feedback among professionals and (f) encouraging patients to communicate about medication. Relevance to clinical practice Upon identifying the most harmful and frequent communication issues, interventions to strengthen medication safety can be implemented.

Background Communication challenges contribute to medication incidents in hospitals, but it is unclear how communication can be improved. The aims of this study were threefold: firstly, to describe the most common communication challenges related to medication incidents as perceived by healthcare professionals across specialized hospitals for adult patients; secondly, to consider suggestions from healthcare professionals with regard to improving medication communication; and thirdly, to explore how text mining compares to manual analysis when analyzing the free-text content of survey data. Methods This was a cross-sectional, descriptive study. A digital survey was sent to professionals in two university hospital districts in Finland from November 1, 2019, to January 31, 2020. In total, 223 professionals answered the open-ended questions; respondents were primarily registered nurses (77.7 %), physicians (8.6 %), and pharmacists (7.3 %). Text mining and manual inductive content analysis were employed for qualitative data analysis. Results The communication challenges were: (1) inconsistent documentation of prescribed and administered medication; (2) failure to document orally given prescriptions; (3) nurses’ unawareness of prescriptions (given outside of ward rounds) due to a lack of oral communication from the prescribers; (4) breaks in communication during care transitions to non-communicable software; (5) incomplete home medication reconciliation at admission and discharge; (6) medication lists not being updated during the inpatient period due to a lack of clarity regarding the responsible professional; and (7) work/environmental factors during medication dispensation and the receipt of verbal prescriptions. Suggestions for communication enhancements included: (1) structured digital prescriptions; (2) guidelines and training on how to use documentation systems; (3) timely documentation of verbal prescriptions and digital documentation of administered medication; (4) communicable software within and between organizations; (5) standardized responsibilities for updating inpatients’ medication lists; (6) nomination of a responsible person for home medication reconciliation at admission and discharge; and (7) distraction-free work environment for medication communication. Text mining and manual analysis extracted similar primary results. Conclusions Non-communicable software, non-standardized medication communication processes, lack of training on standardized documentation, and unclear responsibilities compromise medication safety in hospitals. Clarification is needed regarding interdisciplinary medication communication processes, techniques, and responsibilities. Text mining shows promise for free-text analysis.