ObjectivesTo describe current use of electronic prescribing (EP) in English acute NHS hospital trusts, and the use of multiple EP systems within the same hospital.DesignDescriptive cross-sectional postal survey.SettingAcute NHS hospital trusts in England.ParticipantsThe survey was sent to chief pharmacists in all acute English NHS hospital trusts in 2011. Where trusts comprised multiple hospitals, respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire for their main acute hospital.Main Outcome MeasuresPrevalence of EP use in acute NHS hospitals; number of different EP systems in each hospital; stages of the patient pathway in which EP used; extent of deployment across the hospital; comprehensiveness regarding the drugs prescribed; decision support functionalities used.ResultsWe received responses from 101 trusts (61%). Seventy (69%) respondent hospitals had at least one form of EP in use. More than half (39;56%) of hospitals with EP had more than one system in use, representing 60 different systems. The most common were systems used only for discharge prescribing, used in 48 (48% of respondent hospitals). Specialist chemotherapy EP systems were second most common (34; 34%). Sixteen specialist inpatient systems were used across 15 hospitals, most commonly in adult critical care. Only 13 (13%) respondents used inpatient electronic prescribing across all adult medical and surgical wards. Overall, 24 (40%) systems were developed ‘in-house’. Decision support functionality varied widely.ConclusionsIt is UK government policy to encourage the adoption of EP in hospitals. Our work shows that EP is prevalent in English hospitals, although often in limited clinical areas and for limited types of prescribing. The diversity of systems in use, often within the same hospital, may create challenges for staff training and patient safety.

BackgroundSystems and processes for prescribing, supplying and administering inpatient medications can have substantial impact on medication administration errors (MAEs). However, little is known about the medication systems and processes currently used within the English National Health Service (NHS). This presents a challenge for developing NHS-wide interventions to increase medication safety. We therefore conducted a cross-sectional postal census of medication systems and processes in English NHS hospitals to address this knowledge gap.MethodsThe chief pharmacist at each of all 165 acute NHS trusts was invited to complete a questionnaire for medical and surgical wards in their main hospital (July 2011). We report here the findings relating to medication systems and processes, based on 18 closed questions plus one open question about local medication safety initiatives. Non-respondents were posted another questionnaire (August 2011), and then emailed (October 2011).ResultsOne hundred (61% of NHS trusts) questionnaires were returned. Most hospitals used paper-based prescribing on the majority of medical and surgical inpatient wards (87% of hospitals), patient bedside medication lockers (92%), patients’ own drugs (89%) and ‘one-stop dispensing’ medication labelled with administration instructions for use at discharge as well as during the inpatient stay (85%). Less prevalent were the use of ward pharmacy technicians (62% of hospitals) or pharmacists (58%) to order medications on the majority of wards. Only 65% of hospitals used drug trolleys; 50% used patient-specific inpatient supplies on the majority of wards. Only one hospital had a pharmacy open 24 hours, but all had access to an on-call pharmacist. None reported use of unit-dose dispensing; 7% used an electronic drug cabinet in some ward areas. Overall, 85% of hospitals had a double-checking policy for intravenous medication and 58% for other specified drugs. “Do not disturb” tabards/overalls were routinely used during nurses’ drug rounds on at least one ward in 59% of hospitals.ConclusionsInter- and intra-hospital variations in medication systems and processes exist, even within the English NHS; future research should focus on investigating their potential effects on nurses’ workflow and MAEs, and developing NHS-wide interventions to reduce MAEs.

Medical errors are of economic importance and can contribute to serious adverse events for patients. Medical errors refer to preventable events resulting from healthcare interactions, whether these events harm the patient or not. In Kuwait, there is a paucity literature detailing the causes, forms, and risks of medical errors in their state-funded healthcare facilities. This study aimed to explore medical errors, their causes and preventive strategies in a Kuwait tertiary hospital based on the perceptions and experience of a cross-section of healthcare professionals using a questionnaire with 27 open (n = 10) and closed (n = 17) questions. The recruited healthcare professionals in this study included pharmacists, nurses, physicians, dentists, radiographers, hospital administrators, surgeons, nutritionists, and physiotherapists. The collected data were analysed quantitatively using descriptive statistics. A total of 203 participants filled and completed the survey questionnaire. The frequency of medical errors in Kuwait was found to be high at 60.3% ranging from incidences of prolonged hospital stays (32.9%), adverse events and life-threatening complications (32.3%), and fatalities (20.9%). The common medical errors result from incomplete instructions, incorrect dosage, and incorrect route of administration, diagnosis errors, and labelling errors. The perceived causes of these medical errors include high workload, lack of support systems, stress, medical negligence, inadequate training, miscommunication, poor collaboration, and non-adherence to safety guidelines among the healthcare professionals.

Of the 37 million people estimated to be living with HIV globally in 2017, about 24.7 million were in the sub-Saharan Africa region, which has been and remains worst affected by the epidemic. Enrolment of newly diagnosed individuals into care in the region, however, remains poor with up to 54% not being linked to care. Linkage to care is a very important step in the HIV cascade as it is the precursor to initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART), retention in care, and viral suppression. A systematic review was conducted to gather information regarding the strategies that have been documented to increase linkage to care of Persons living with HIV(PLHIV) in urban areas of sub-Saharan Africa. An electronic search was conducted on Scopus, Cochrane central, CINAHL Plus, PubMed and OpenGrey for linkage strategies implemented from 2006. A total of 189 potentially relevant citations were identified, of which 7 were eligible for inclusion. The identified strategies were categorized using themes from literature. The most common strategies included: health system interventions (i.e. comprehensive care, task shifting); patient convenience and accessibility (i.e. immediate CD4 count testing, immediate ART initiation, community HIV testing); behavior interventions and peer support (i.e. assisted partner services, care facilitation, mobile phone appointment reminders, health education) and incentives (i.e. non-cash financial incentives and transport reimbursement). Several strategies showed favorable outcomes: comprehensive care, immediate CD4 count testing, immediate ART initiation, and assisted partner services. Assisted partner services, same day home-based ART initiation, combination intervention strategies and point-of-care CD4 testing significantly improved linkage to care in urban settings of sub-Saharan African region. They can be delivered either in a health facility or in the community but should be facilitated by health workers. There is, however, the need to conduct more linkage-specific studies in the sub-region.

Objective: To examine evidence on the economic impact of electronic prescribing (EP) systems in the hospital setting. Method: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, the European Network of Health Economic Evaluation Database and Web of Science from inception to October 2013. Full and partial economic evaluations of EP or computerised provider order entry were included. We excluded studies assessing prescribing packages for specific drugs, and monetary outcomes that were not related to medicines. A checklist was used to evaluate risk of bias and evidence quality. Results: The search yielded 1,160 articles of which three met the inclusion criteria. Two were full economic evaluations and one a partial economic evaluation. A meta-analysis wasn't appropriate as studies were heterogeneous in design, economic evaluation method, interventions and outcome measures. Two studies investigated the financial impact of reducing preventable adverse drug events. The third measured savings related to various aspects of the system including those related to medication. Two studies reported positive financial effects. However the overall quality of the economic evidence was low and key details often not reported. Discussion There seems to be some evidence of financial benefits of EP in the hospital setting. However, it is not clear if evidence is transferable to other settings. Research is scarce and limited in quality, and reported methods are not always transparent. Further robust, high quality research is required to establish if hospital EP is cost effective and thus inform policy makers' decisions. We are pleased to submit our manuscript entitled: "Economic impact of electronic prescribing in the hospital setting: a systematic review". This systematic review examines the evidence to establish if electronic prescribing systems use in the hospital setting is cost effective. We conducted a systematic search of seven databases from inception to October 2013 and included full and partial economic evaluations of electronic prescribing systems or computerised provider order entry. COVER LETTERWe found some evidence of financial benefits of EP use. However, it is not clear if evidence is transferable to other settings. Our review also shows that studies exploring the economic impact of electronic prescribing systems in this context are scarce and limited in quality. Therefore we endorse further robust research to establish if electronic prescribing systems use in hospitals is good value for money. This manuscript has not been previously published and is not under consideration in the same or substantially similar form in any other peer-reviewed media. All authors listed have contributed sufficiently to the project to be included as authors, and all those who are qualified to be authors are listed in the author byline. To the best of our knowledge, no conflict of interest, financial or other, exists. We have included acknowle...