Objectives To evaluate the implementation and adoption of the NHS detailed care records service in “early adopter” hospitals in England.Design Theoretically informed, longitudinal qualitative evaluation based on case studies.Setting 12 “early adopter” NHS acute hospitals and specialist care settings studied over two and a half years.Data sources Data were collected through in depth interviews, observations, and relevant documents relating directly to case study sites and to wider national developments that were perceived to impact on the implementation strategy. Data were thematically analysed, initially within and then across cases. The dataset consisted of 431 semistructured interviews with key stakeholders, including hospital staff, developers, and governmental stakeholders; 590 hours of observations of strategic meetings and use of the software in context; 334 sets of notes from observations, researchers’ field notes, and notes from national conferences; 809 NHS documents; and 58 regional and national documents.Results Implementation has proceeded more slowly, with a narrower scope and substantially less clinical functionality than was originally planned. The national strategy had considerable local consequences (summarised under five key themes), and wider national developments impacted heavily on implementation and adoption. More specifically, delays related to unrealistic expectations about the capabilities of systems; the time needed to build, configure, and customise the software; the work needed to ensure that systems were supporting provision of care; and the needs of end users for training and support. Other factors hampering progress included the changing milieu of NHS policy and priorities; repeatedly renegotiated national contracts; different stages of development of diverse NHS care records service systems; and a complex communication process between different stakeholders, along with contractual arrangements that largely excluded NHS providers. There was early evidence that deploying systems resulted in important learning within and between organisations and the development of relevant competencies within NHS hospitals.Conclusions Implementation of the NHS Care Records Service in “early adopter” sites proved time consuming and challenging, with as yet limited discernible benefits for clinicians and no clear advantages for patients. Although our results might not be directly transferable to later adopting sites because the functionalities we evaluated were new and untried in the English context, they shed light on the processes involved in implementing major new systems. The move to increased local decision making that we advocated based on our interim analysis has been pursued and welcomed by the NHS, but it is important that policymakers do not lose sight of the overall goal of an integrated interoperable solution.

Objectives To describe and evaluate the implementation and adoption of detailed electronic health records in secondary care in England and thereby provide early feedback for the ongoing local and national rollout of the NHS Care Records Service. Design A mixed methods, longitudinal, multisite, sociotechnical case study. Setting Five NHS acute hospital and mental health trusts that have been the focus of early implementation efforts and at which interim data collection and analysis are complete. Data sources and analysis Dataset for the evaluation consists of semi-structured interviews, documents and field notes, observations, and quantitative data. Qualitative data were analysed thematically with a sociotechnical coding matrix, combined with additional themes that emerged from the data. Main results Hospital electronic health record applications are being developed and implemented far more slowly than was originally envisioned; the topdown, standardised approach has needed to evolve to admit more variation and greater local choice, which hospital trusts want in order to support local activity. Despite considerable delays and frustrations, support for electronic health records remains strong, including from NHS clinicians. Political and financial factors are now perceived to threaten nationwide implementation of electronic health records. Interviewees identified a range of consequences of long term, centrally negotiated contracts to deliver the NHS Care Records Service in secondary care, particularly as NHS trusts themselves are not party to these contracts. These include convoluted communication channels between different stakeholders, unrealistic deployment timelines, delays, and applications that could not quickly respond to changing national and local NHS priorities. Our data suggest support for a "middle-out" approach to implementing hospital electronic health records, combining government direction with increased local autonomy, and for restricting detailed electronic health record sharing to local health communities.Conclusions Experiences from the early implementation sites, which have received considerable attention, financial investment and support, indicate that delivering improved healthcare through nationwide electronic health records will be a long, complex, and iterative process requiring flexibility and local adaptability both with respect to the systems and the implementation strategy. The more tailored, responsive approach that is emerging is becoming better aligned with NHS organisations' perceived needs and is, if pursued, likely to deliver clinically useful electronic health record systems.

PURPOSE.To describe clinical pharmacist interventions across a range of critical care units (CCUs) throughout the United Kingdom (UK). To identify CCU medication error rate, prescription optimisation and to identify the type and impact of each intervention in the prevention of harm and improvement of patient therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS.A prospective observational study was undertaken in 21 UK CCUs from [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] th Nov 2012. A data collection web portal was designed where the specialist critical care pharmacist (SCCP) reported all interventions at their site. Each intervention was classified as either: medication error, optimisation or consult. In addition, a clinical impact scale was used to code the interventions. Interventions were scored as low, moderate, high impact and life saving. The final coding was moderated by blinded independent multidisciplinary trialists. RESULTS. 20,517 prescriptions were reviewed with 3,294 interventions recorded during the weekdays. This resulted in an overall intervention rate of 16.1%: 6.8% were classified as medication errors, 8.3 % optimisations and 1.0% consults. The interventions were classified as: low impact (34.0%), moderate impact (46.7%) high impact (19.3%) and one case was life saving. Almost three-quarters of interventions were to optimise the effectiveness of and improve safety of pharmacotherapy. CONCLUSIONS. This observational study demonstrated that both medication error resolution and pharmacist led optimisation rates were substantial. Almost 1 in 6 prescriptions required an intervention from the clinical pharmacist. The error rate was slightly lower than an earlier UK prescribing error study (EQUIP). Two thirds of the interventions were of moderate to high impact. Key wordsCritical care, interventions, specialist critical care pharmacist, medication errors, optimisations, impact coding IntroductionThe critically ill patient is at risk of medicines-related adverse events [1], drug interactions and on some occasions inadequate therapy [2]. This risk can be exacerbated by the presence of organ failure or by supportive therapies such as renal replacement therapy. Consequently, interventions to reduce medication errors and optimise therapy are an essential component of patient care. These include electronic prescribing, smart infusion pumps, medicines reconciliation, clinical guidelines and services normally led by a specialist critical care pharmacist (SCCP) [3]. Improving the safety and efficacy of medication therapy in critical care patients is the cornerstone of SCCP activity. Since the first reports of clinical pharmacist interventions in critical care in the mid-1980s [4], there has been a gradual progression from those focused on financial savings in medicine use, to reducing medication errors and more recently to the optimisation of medication therapy [5]. Clinical pharmacists have been reported to improve medicines-related patient outcomes in the use of sedation [6], antimicrobial therapy [7], therapeutic drug m...

Quality issueApproximately 10% of patients are harmed by healthcare, and of this harm 15% is thought to be medication related. Despite this, medication safety data used for improvement purposes are not often routinely collected by healthcare organizations over time.Initial assessmentA need for a prospective medication safety measurement tool was identified.Choice of solutionThe aim was to develop a tool to allow measurement and aid improvement of medication safety over time. The methodology used for the National Health Service (NHS) Safety Thermometer was identified as an approach. The resulting tool was named the ‘Medication Safety Thermometer’.ImplementationThe development of the Medication Safety Thermometer was facilitated by a multidisciplinary steering group using a Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) method. Alpha and beta testing occurred over a period of 9 months. The tool was officially launched in October 2013 and continued to be improved until May 2016 using ongoing user feedback.EvaluationFeedback was gained through paper and online forms, and was discussed at regular steering group meetings. This resulted in 16 versions of the tool. The tool is now used nationally, with over 230 000 patients surveyed in over 100 NHS organizations. Data from these organizations are openly accessible on a dedicated website.Lessons learnedMeasuring harm from medication errors is complex and requires steps to measure individual errors, triggers of harm and actual harm. PDSA methodology can be effectively used to develop measurement systems. Measurement at the point of care is beneficial and a multidisciplinary approach is vital.

Electronic prescribing appears to reduce rates of dosing errors in paediatrics, but larger studies are required to assess the effect on the severity of these errors and in different settings.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) remains an important global public health issue with antimicrobial misuse and overuse being one of the main drivers. The Global Point Prevalence Survey (G-PPS) of Antimicrobial Consumption and Resistance assesses the prevalence and the quality of antimicrobial prescriptions across hospitals globally. G-PPS was carried out at 17 hospitals across Ghana, Uganda, Zambia and Tanzania. The overall prevalence of antimicrobial use was 50% (30–57%), with most antibiotics prescribed belonging to the WHO ‘Access’ and ‘Watch’ categories. No ‘Reserve’ category of antibiotics was prescribed across the study sites while antimicrobials belonging to the ‘Not Recommended’ group were prescribed infrequently. Antimicrobials were most often prescribed for prophylaxis for obstetric or gynaecological surgery, making up between 12 and 18% of total prescriptions across all countries. The most prescribed therapeutic subgroup of antimicrobials was ‘Antibacterials for systemic use’. As a result of the programme, PPS data are now readily available for the first time in the hospitals, strengthening the global commitment to improved antimicrobial surveillance. Antimicrobial stewardship interventions developed included the formation of AMS committees, the provision of training and the preparation of new AMS guidelines. Other common interventions included the presentation of findings to clinicians for increased awareness, and the promotion of a multi-disciplinary approach to successful AMS programmes. Repeat PPS would be necessary to continually monitor the impact of interventions implemented. Broader participation is also encouraged to strengthen the evidence base.

No abstract

No abstract