More than 20 years since a landmark study1 documented hospitalised patients were more likely to die when their nurse cared for too many patients at a time, hundreds of rigorously conducted studies in over 30 countries have documented a relationship between nurse understaffing and poorer outcomes of all kinds, including preventable patient deaths and avoidable burnout of nurses.2–4 Despite the empirical evidence, chronic hospital nurse understaffing persists.

Why has the research evidence not substantively transformed hospital staffing practices? One possible explanation is that the benefits of eliminating nurse understaffing accrue to patients and nurses, while the costs of staffing more nurses accrue to hospitals.

Hospitals are the most expensive healthcare setting, largely because of the intensive nursing care that hospitalised patients require. Indeed, if patients can have procedures and treatments administered outside of hospitals (eg, outpatient offices, home care), they do,...

BMJ is concerned about the consent obtained from veterans to use their personal information in this research paper1 and broader Veterans' Medicines Advice and Therapeutics Education Services (MATES) program. BMJ was contacted by veterans who asked the journal to retract the content on this basis.

 The MATES program was operated by the Department for Veterans Affairs (DVA), and the research was conducted by the University of South Australia (UniSA).2 DVA was responsible for obtaining consent from the veterans to use their personal information in the MATES program; they were also responsible for managing opt-out requests.

 In 2018, a veteran lodged a complaint with the Australian Information and Privacy Commissioner about the validity of consent for DVA’s collection and use of their personal information in the MATES programme. In 2023, the Privacy Commissioner determined that DVA had breached an Australian privacy principle by using and disclosing...

Since the 18th century, bedside rounds have been a fundamental component of clinical care, serving as a setting where clinical information is gathered, processed and shared.1 This tradition highlights the importance of maintaining a high level of structure during clinical encounters. Over time, structured tools to guide care have been widely adopted across multiple specialties.2–6 Systematic checklists, in particular, have become the most used form of structured intervention in bedside wards to enhance patient care and safety.7–9 This intervention has been associated with improved non-clinical outcomes, such as communication and adherence to standard protocols.7–9 However, their impact on clinical outcomes remains a matter of debate.10

A 2014 systematic review found that safety checklists improved team communication, improved adherence to standards and reduced adverse...

Background

Understaffing by nursing staff in hospitals is linked to patients coming to harm and dying unnecessarily. There is a vicious cycle whereby poor work conditions, including understaffing, can lead to nursing vacancies, which in turn leads to further understaffing. Is hospital investment in nursing staff, to eliminate understaffing on wards, cost-effective?

Methods

This longitudinal observational study analysed data on 185 adult acute units in four hospital Trusts in England over a 5-year period. We modelled the association between a patient’s exposure to ward nurse understaffing (days where staffing was below the ward mean) over the first 5 days of stay and risk of death, risk of readmission and length of stay, using survival analysis and linear mixed models. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of eliminating understaffing by registered nurses (RN) and nursing support (NS) staff, estimating net costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). We took a hospital cost perspective.

Findings

Exposure to RN understaffing is associated with increased hazard of death (adjusted HR (aHR) 1.079, 95% CI 1.070 to 1.089), increased chance of readmission (aHR 1.010, 95% CI 1.005 to 1.016) and increased length of stay (ratio 1.687, 95% CI 1.666 to 1.707), while exposure to NS understaffing is associated with smaller increases in hazard of death (aHR 1.072, 95% CI 1.062 to 1.081) and length of stay (ratio 1.608, 95% CI 1.589 to 1.627) but reduced readmissions (aHR 0.994, 95% CI 0.988 to 0.999). Eliminating both RN and NS understaffing is estimated to cost £2778 per QALY (staff costs only), £2685 (including benefits of reduced staff sickness and readmissions) or save £4728 (including benefits of reduced lengths of stay). Using agency staff to eliminate understaffing is less cost-effective and would save fewer lives than using permanent members of staff. Targeting specific patient groups with improved staffing would save fewer lives and, in the scenarios tested, cost more per QALY than eliminating all understaffing.

Interpretation

Rectifying understaffing on inpatient wards is crucial to reduce length of stay, readmissions and deaths. According to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence £10 000 per QALY threshold, it is cost-effective to eliminate understaffing by nursing staff. This research points towards investing in RNs over NS staff and permanent over temporary workers. Targeting particular patient groups would benefit fewer patients and is less cost-effective.

Objectives

In the intensive care unit (ICU), antibiotics are often given longer than recommended in guidelines. A better understanding of the factors influencing antibiotic therapy duration is needed to develop improvement strategies to effectively address these drivers of excessive duration. This study aimed to explore the determinants of adherence to recommended antibiotic therapy durations among healthcare professionals involved in antibiotic decision-making within the ICU, focusing on multidisciplinary meetings (MDMs).

Methods

Semistructured interviews were held with healthcare professionals involved in antibiotic decision-making during MDMs in four Dutch ICUs. Participants included intensivists, clinical microbiologists and ICU residents. Transcripts were analysed using deductive and inductive content analysis methods.

Results

A total of 20 participants were interviewed. The interviews revealed that decision-making regarding antibiotic therapy duration is a complex process, primarily centred around professional interactions during MDMs and involving a broad range of determinants. These determinants were categorised into the following four steps: (1) the introduction of duration as a topic for discussion in the MDM (eg, lack of priority to discuss antibiotic therapy duration); (2) the discussion of antibiotic therapy duration itself (eg, lack of core members during MDM); (3) the establishment of a concrete decision (eg, lack of documentation of the decisions made); (4) the execution of the decision (eg, forgetting to stop antibiotics).

Conclusions

Our study identified numerous factors that influence decisions about the duration of antibiotic therapy during MDMs in the ICU. By describing these factors throughout the decision-making process, we provided valuable insights into barriers that commonly arise in specific steps, highlighting critical areas for improvement. Daily MDMs were deemed essential for informed decision-making regarding antibiotic therapy duration by the interviewees. Strategies to improve appropriate duration in the ICU should prioritise strengthening interdisciplinary communication between healthcare professionals and adding structure to these meetings.

Objectives

The aim of this article is to provide an estimate of the proportion of the general public reporting healthcare-related harm in Great Britain, its location, impact, responses post-harm and desired reactions from healthcare providers.

Design

We used a cross-sectional survey, using quota sampling.

Setting

This research was conducted in Great Britain.

Participants

The survey had 10 064 participants (weighted analysis).

Results

In our survey 9.7% participants reported harm caused by the National Health Service (NHS) in the last 3 years through treatment or care (6.2%) or the lack of access to care (3.5%). The main location where the harm first occurred was hospitals. A total of 37.6% of participants reported a moderate impact and 44.8% a severe impact of harm. The most common response to harm was to share their experience with others (67.1%). Almost 60% sought professional advice and support, with 11.6% contacting the Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS). Only 17% submitted a formal complaint, and 2.1% made a claim for financial compensation. People wanted treatment or care to redress the harm (44.4%) and an explanation (34.8%). Two-thirds of those making a complaint felt it was not handled well and approximately half were satisfied with PALS. Experiences and responses differed according to sex and age (eg, women reported more harm). People with long-term illness or disability, those in lower social grades, and people in other disadvantaged groups reported higher rates and more severe impact of harm.

Conclusions

We found that 9.7% of the British general population reported harm by the NHS, a higher rate than reported in two previous surveys. Our study used a broader and more inclusive definition of harm and was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, making comparison to previous surveys challenging. People responded to harm in different ways, such as sharing experiences with others and seeking professional advice and support. Mostly, people who were harmed wanted help to redress the harm or to gain access to the care needed. Low satisfaction with PALS and complaints services may reflect that these services do not always deliver the required support. There is a need to better understand the patient perspective following harm and for further consideration of what a person-centred approach to resolution and recovery might look like.

Background

Evaluation of neck trauma is a common reason for emergency department (ED) visits. There are several validated clinical decision rules, such as the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) Cervical Spine (C-spine) Rule, that can be used to risk stratify these patients and identify low-risk patients who do not require CT imaging. Overutilisation of CT imaging exposes patients to unnecessary radiation, impairs hospital throughput and increases healthcare costs. Various audit-and-feedback strategies have been described in other settings, but it is not known whether these strategies are effective for reducing imaging overutilisation in the ED. Additionally, the effectiveness of face-to-face feedback strategies as compared with digital feedback strategies for addressing this problem has not been previously evaluated. The aim of this study was to compare audit-and-feedback strategies to reduce CT overutilisation in the ED.

Methods

This was a prospective randomised controlled trial, in which emergency medicine clinicians were randomised into three arms to receive digital feedback, hybrid face-to-face/digital feedback or no feedback. Each clinician received three rounds of feedback on patient encounters in which they ordered a CT of the C-spine. Patient encounters were retrospectively reviewed to determine each clinician’s overutilisation rate, defined as the percentage of patients who underwent CT of the C-spine despite being classified as low risk by NEXUS criteria.

Results

A total of 78 emergency medicine clinicians were randomised into three arms. Baseline overutilisation rates for each group were 46%–47% of CT of the C-spine studies. After three rounds of audit-and-feedback strategy, the clinicians in the digital feedback group had an overutilisation rate of 33%, compared with 44% in the control group (p=0.020). The hybrid feedback group had an overutilisation rate of 36% (p=0.055 vs control; p=0.577 vs digital feedback). Over the study period, the digital group saw a reduction of 1.26 CT of the C-spine studies per provider per month (p=0.049), and the hybrid feedback group saw a reduction of 1.43 CTs per provider per month (p=0.044).

Conclusion

A digital audit-and-feedback strategy is effective for reducing overutilisation of CT imaging of the C-spine in the ED, while the effectiveness of a hybrid strategy requires further investigation.

Background

Ward rounds are an essential activity occurring in hospital settings. Despite their fundamental role in guiding patient care, they have no standardised approach. Implementation of structured interventions during ward rounds was shown to improve outcomes such as efficiency, documentation and communication. Whether these improvements have an impact on clinical outcomes is unclear. Our systematic review assessed whether structured interventions to guide ward rounds affect patient outcomes.

Methods

A systematic search was carried out in May 2023 on Embase, Medline, CINAHL, ERIC, Web of Science Core Collection, the Cochrane Library (Wiley) and Google Scholar, and a backward and forward citation search in January 2024. We included peer-reviewed, original studies assessing the use of structured interventions during bedside ward rounds (BWRs) on clinical outcomes. All inpatient hospital settings where BWRs are performed were included. We excluded papers looking at board, teaching or medication rounds.

Results

Our search strategy yielded 29 studies. Two were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 27 were quasi-experimental interventional studies. The majority (79%) were conducted in intensive care units. The main clinical outcomes reported were mortality, infectious complications, length of stay (LOS) and duration of mechanical ventilation (DoMV). Mortality, LOS and rates of urinary tract and central-line associated bloodstream infections did not seem to be affected, positively or negatively, by interventions structuring BWRs, while evidence was conflicting regarding their effects on rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia and DoMV, with a signal towards improved outcomes. Studies were generally of low-to-moderate quality.

Conclusion

The impact of structured interventions during BWRs on clinical outcomes remains inconclusive. Higher quality research focusing on multicentric RCTs or on prospective pre–post trials with concurrent cohorts, matched for key characteristics, is needed.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42023412637.

Background

Hospital incident reporting and patient concerns systems are widely used to detect and respond to patient harm. Despite increasing recognition of the link between equity and safety, equity remains poorly integrated into the design and function of these systems. Consequently, these systems risk obscuring or reproducing inequities rather than revealing and attending to them.

Objective

To examine how issues of equity are currently considered in research about hospital incident reporting and patient concerns systems and identify opportunities to more systematically include equity in how patient safety is addressed.

Methods

A critical interpretive synthesis was conducted to develop a theoretical understanding of the topic through inductive analysis and interpretation. The databases CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO were searched from database inception to 6 February 2024. Select social science, patient safety and health services literature supported the interpretive process.

Results

After screening 6508 abstracts and conducting hand searches, we included 30 articles in our review. Our analysis identified four equity-related themes. The first theme describes how knowledge injustices in ‘what counts as a safety event or contributor’ shape what patient issues are recognised, recorded and addressed. The second theme examines how individual bias and systemic discrimination affect which safety events and concerns get reported. The third theme explores both opportunities and limitations of stratifying data to uncover equity-related patterns of harm. The fourth theme presents alternate frameworks, including restorative and human rights approaches, as ways to address inequities and humanise harm.

Conclusion

The findings provide direction for changes within incident reporting and patient concerns practices (eg, expanding definitions of harms; creating accessible and culturally safe patient concerns systems). They also affirm the opportunity to learn from, and build on, initiatives such as taking a restorative approach that moves beyond a customer service and risk management framing.

Since the Institute of Medicine released its landmark report in 19991 highlighting serious concerns about patient safety (PS) and the quality of healthcare in the USA, training programmes around the world have made quality improvement (QI) and PS key components of resident education and experience. In recognising that physicians must learn to interact with and adapt to a constantly changing healthcare environment, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and ACGME International (ACGME-I) identified QI and PS as two of the six ‘Pathways of Excellence’ expected in an optimal clinical learning environment.2 In this journal, Molina et al present an exemplary effort to train the next generation of healthcare professionals in improvement science.3 This 13-year QI initiative in a large paediatric residency programme demonstrated how applying QI methodology to the educational programme itself can strengthen resident training. Through phased interventions—including structured didactics,...

Medication-related problems remain one of the leading causes of patient harm.1 Studies show that advances in electronic health records (EHR) and computerised prescribing systems with clinical decision support (CDS) have reduced prescription errors, improved physician performance and patient outcomes. However, these effects are not universally experienced and are influenced by usability, perceived usefulness, relevance and efficiency.2 3

Medication-related CDS can be classified as basic (eg, drug-drug interaction (DDI) or drug-allergy checks) or advanced, whereby patient-specific information in the EHR is used (eg, drug-disease contraindication or drug-laboratory test checks).4 However, a key persistent issue with CDS is alert fatigue, where clinically important alerts are ignored alongside alerts that are not clinically important or relevant. This is exacerbated when healthcare providers are presented with excessive and unimportant alerts, resulting in high alert override rates.5 Indeed, DDI software is often associated with...

Background

Drug–drug interaction (DDI) alerts target the co-prescription of two potentially interacting medications and are a frequent feature of electronic medical records (EMRs). There have been few controlled studies evaluating the effectiveness of DDI alerts. This study aimed to determine the impact of DDI alerts on rates of DDIs and on associated patient harms.

Methods

Quasi-experimental controlled pre–post study in five Australian hospitals. Three hospitals acted as control hospitals (EMR with no DDI alerts) and two as intervention (EMR with DDI alerts). Only DDI alerts at the highest severity level (defined as ‘major contraindicated’) were switched on at intervention hospitals. These alerts were not tailored to clinical context (ie, patient, drug). A total of 2078 patients were randomly selected from all patients (adult and paediatric) admitted to hospitals 6 months before and 6 months after EMR implementation. A retrospective chart review was performed by study pharmacists. The primary outcome was the proportion of admissions with a clinically relevant DDI. Secondary outcomes included the proportions of admissions with a potential DDI and with DDI-related harm.

Results

Potential DDIs were identified in the majority of admissions (n=1574, 74.7%) and clinically relevant DDIs identified in half (n=1026, 48.7%). DDI alerts were associated with a reduction in the proportion of admissions with potential DDIs (adjusted OR (AOR)=0.38 (0.19, 0.78)) but no change in clinically relevant DDIs (AOR=1.12 (0.68, 1.84)) or in DDI-related harm (AOR=2.42 (0.47,12.31)). 199 DDIs (76 at control and 123 at intervention hospitals) for 35 patient admissions were associated with patient harm, and 2 patients experienced severe DDI-related harm pre-EMR implementation.

Discussion

Implementation of DDI alerts, without tailoring alerts to clinical context, is unlikely to reduce patient harms from DDIs. Organisations should reconsider implementation of DDI alerts in EMRs where significant tailoring of alerts is not possible. Future research should focus on identifying safe, efficient and cost-effective ways of refining DDI alerts, so expected clinical benefits are achieved, and negative consequences of excessive alerting are minimised.

Background

Self-management support (SMS) is a recommended component of cancer survivorship care that improves health-related quality of life and reduces healthcare utilisation. However, widespread implementation has been difficult to achieve, with a gap in the literature on system-wide implementation efforts. This study examines contextual factors perceived to influence SMS adoption and sustainment in cancer centres in the Republic of Ireland.

Method

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 47 key informants from 20 cancer organisations across community and hospital settings. Participants were asked to report the level of adoption and sustainment of SMS at their organisation. This information was used to categorise organisations as low, medium or high implementers. We conducted cross-case analysis following the principles of Framework Analysis. Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research as a menu of constructs, we examined factors influencing adoption and sustainment and variation in levels of implementation.

Results

National policy, external accreditation, external financing opportunities and the presence of champions in organisations are influential early in the implementation process driving adoption. Healthcare provider-led programmes and evidence of SMS improving patient outcomes and aligning with an organisation’s priorities are necessary to secure buy-in, particularly among senior leadership. An organisational culture of entrepreneurship enables adoption and sustainment, with resources and a culture supporting staff well-being enabling sustainment.

Conclusion

While national policy is a driver, additional factors related to programme attributes and local contextual features such as the presence of champions, organisational readiness and culture influence implementation. The results may be used for future evaluations of SMS implementation in cancer survivorship care and to inform the development of tailored implementation strategies.

Introduction and aims

Women residing in lower socioeconomic status (SES) areas have lower breast cancer survival but it is not clear how differences in the quality of care received contribute to these disparities. We compared adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer and subsequent breast cancer survival between women residing in lower versus higher SES areas.

Methods

We conducted a multicentre population-based study of all new cases of invasive breast cancer in women diagnosed 2010–2014 in six Spanish provinces with population-based cancer registries (n=3206). Clinical data were extracted in the framework of the European Cancer High Resolution studies and vital status follow-up covered a minimum of 5 years. SES of the patient’s residence was measured with the 2011 Spanish Deprivation Index. Adherence to CPG was measured with 16 indicators based on European and Spanish guidelines. Relative survival was modelled using flexible parametric models.

Results

There were no differences in the type of treatment received but women living in the lowest SES areas were less likely to undergo a sentinel lymph node biopsy, reconstruction after mastectomy, surgery within 30 days after pathological diagnosis and adjuvant treatment within 6 weeks after surgery. After accounting for demographic and clinical factors, women residing in lower SES areas had higher risk of death, HR=1.57 (95% CI 1.04, 2.36). Further accounting for adherence to CPG in the model, in particular having undergone a sentinel lymph node biopsy, eliminated the significant effect of SES.

Conclusions

Despite the overall coverage of the Spanish health system, women living in more deprived areas were less likely to receive care in line with CPG and had shorter survival.

Introduction

QI education is essential for resident physicians with established requirements from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education outlining the necessary components. Literature supports the inclusion of both didactic and experiential learning, however, most studies review knowledge and attitude based assessments of residency QI programs. In 2012, our pediatric residency program identified a gap in resident engagement in QI, which led to the formalization of a QI education program grounded in the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) Model for improvement with objective measures of QI projects.

Methods

Over 13 years, our program implemented interative interventions across three phases to enchance QI training. Initial core interventions involved the structure of didactics to teach core principles of QI and with time focusing on more individualized mentorship. Our efforts were guided through a residency QI committee. Our aim was to (1) increase the percentage of resident QI projects with SMART aims, and (2) increase the use of QI graphs (run charts and SPC charts) of resident QI projects. We tracked graduating resident exit survey satisfaction with the QI program as a balancing measure.

Results

From 2012 through 2025, over 300 resident completed 390 QI projects that were reviewed. The percentage of of projects with SMART aims and QI graphs increased over time. The percentage of projects applying for American Board of Pediatrics Part IV applications and presenting at conferences also increased. Resident satisfaction remained with with an average "Poor" rating of only 2.6%.

Conclusions

Using the model for improvement to assess objective measures in a residency QI program is both feasible and effective. This 13-year intiative demonstrates how systematic, iterative improvement can improve the rigor of resident QI projects. Future goals including leveraging informatics to further support residents with their projects and track downstream patient outcomes.

The quality of care anyone receives in the USA is highly dependent on where they receive care. Prior research has found that on average, risk-adjusted mortality differences between top-decile and bottom-decile hospitals can be over twofold. When looking specifically at patient safety, the difference is over 10-fold between top-decile and bottom-decile hospitals. Even after adjusting for population factors (eg, demographics, lifestyle and socioeconomics), co-morbidities and health system factors, these geographic differences in outcomes persist.1 Anyone entering a hospital should be alarmed by the high variability in the quality and outcome of the care they receive simply based on location.

The variability in care and outcomes is even more concerning for people who have faced,2 and continue to face,3 stigma and discrimination in seeking health care. For sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) people, entering a...

What should we do in order to improve quality and safety in medicines management? How beneficial is it to design the medicines management system—for example, the tasks, tools and physical environment—to support effective working versus making people adapt to the systems in which they find themselves? As Sanders and McCormick1 put the question: is it better (more convenient, more cost-effective, more appealing) to bend metal or to twist arms?

This question arises when considering, among other problems in healthcare delivery, that of confusing look-alike, sound-alike (LASA) medicine names, which persists as a threat to medication safety despite much discussion and examination.2 Various measures have been suggested to minimise the risk of LASA medication errors in the pharmacy setting, including education of pharmacy staff, procedural controls and medicines labelling,3 4 although with no silver bullet identified so far.5 6

Background

Given the emphasis on promoting inclusive policies, we investigated the relationship between US hospitals’ inclusion efforts for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, and other sexual and gender-diverse (LGBTQ+) populations and patient satisfaction from 2016 to 2023.

Methods

This retrospective longitudinal observational study analysed 6 years of data between 2016 and 2023 from the Healthcare Equality Index (HEI), which measures hospitals’ LGBTQ+ inclusion efforts, and the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems, which measures patient satisfaction. Generalised estimating equations (GEE) were used to obtain population-averaged estimates of the association between hospitals’ LGBTQ+ inclusion efforts—assessed by (1) their participation and (2) performance in the HEI (range: 0–100)—and patient satisfaction—measured by (1) patients’ hospital rating (range: 0–100) and (2) willingness to recommend the hospital (range: 0–100). We accounted for hospital characteristics, including medical teaching status, specialised service capability, hospital size, ownership, system membership, region and metropolitan location.

Results

Compared with hospitals that never participated in the HEI, those that occasionally participated reported a 0.33-point higher patient rating (p=0.019, 95% CI 0.05, 0.60) and a 0.49-point higher patient recommendation score (p=0.011, 95% CI 0.11, 0.87). Those who always participated reported a 1.30-point higher rating (p<0.001, 95% CI 0.89, 1.70) and a 1.90-point higher recommendation score (p<0.001, 95% CI 1.36, 2.44). Among hospitals that participated in the HEI, a 10-point increase in the total HEI score was associated with a 0.10-point increase in patient ratings (p=0.031, 95% CI 0.01, 0.20) and a 0.15-point increase in patient recommendations (p=0.023, 95% CI 0.02, 0.28).

Conclusion

Hospitals engaging in LGBTQ+ inclusion efforts are associated with higher patient satisfaction.

Background

Wrong-drug medication errors are common. Regulators screen drug names for confusability, but screening methods lack empirical validation. Previous work showed that psycholinguistic tests on pairs of drug names are associated with real-world error rates in chain pharmacies. However, regulators evaluate individual names not pairs, and individual names can be confused with multiple drugs (eg, hydroxyzine with hydralazine but also hydrocet, thorazine, hydrochlorothiazide). This study examines whether an individual drug name’s performance on psycholinguistic tests correlates with that name’s sum total error rate in the real world.

Methods

Nineteen pharmacists and 18 pharmacy technicians completed memory and perception tests assessing confusability of 77 drug names. Tests involved presenting a drug name to participants in conditions that hindered their ability to see, hear or remember the name. Participants typed the name they perceived and selected that name from a menu of alternatives. Error rates on the tests were assessed in relation to real-world rates, as reported by the patient safety organisation associated with a national pharmacy chain in the USA.

Results

Mean error rate on the psycholinguistic tests was positively correlated with the log-adjusted real-world error rate (r=0.50, p<0.0001). Linear and mixed effects logistic regression analyses indicated that the lab-measured error rates significantly predicted the real-world error rates and vice versa.

Conclusions

Lab-based psycholinguistic tests are associated with real-world drug name confusion error rates. Previous work showed that such tests were associated with error rates of specific look-alike sound-alike pairs, and the current work showed that lab-based error rates are also associated with an individual drug’s overall error rate. Taken together, these studies validate the use of psycholinguistic tests in assessing the confusability of proposed drug names.

Background

Medication errors are the leading cause of preventable harm in healthcare. Despite proliferation of medication-related clinical decision support systems (CDSS), current systems have limitations. We therefore developed an indication-based prescribing tool. This performs dose calculations using an underlying formulary and provides patient-specific dosing recommendations. Objectives were to compare the incidence and types of erroneous medication orders, time to prescribe (TTP) and perceived workload using the NASA Task Load Index (TLX), in simulated prescribing tasks with and without this intervention. We also sought to identify the workflow steps most vulnerable to error and to gain participant feedback.

Methods

A simulated, randomised, cross-over exploratory study was conducted at a London NHS Trust. Participants completed five simulated prescribing tasks with, and five without, the intervention. Data collection methods comprised direct observation of prescribing tasks, self-reported task load and semistructured interviews. A concurrent triangulation design combined quantitative and qualitative data.

Results

24 participants completed a total of 240 medication orders. The intervention was associated with fewer prescribing errors (6.6% of 120 orders) compared with standard practice (28.3% of 120 orders; odds ratio 0.18, p<0.01), a shorter TTP and lower overall NASA-TLX scores (p<0.01). Control arm workflow vulnerabilities included failures in identifying correct doses, applying maximum dose limits and calculating patient-specific dosages. Intervention arm errors primarily stemmed from misidentifying patient-specific information from the medication scenario. Thematic analysis of participant interviews identified six themes: navigating trust and familiarity, addressing challenges and suggestions for improvement, integration of local guidelines and existing CDSS, intervention endorsement, ‘search by indication’ and targeting specific patient and staff groups.

Conclusion

The intervention represents a promising advancement in medication safety, with implications for enhancing patient safety and efficiency. Further real-world evaluation and development of the system to meet the needs of more diverse patient groups, users and healthcare settings is now required.

Trial registration number

NCT05493072.