Introduction: Care home residents are at particular risk from medication errors, and our objective was to determine the prevalence and potential harm of prescribing, monitoring, dispensing and administration errors in UK care homes, and to identify their causes. Methods: A prospective study of a random sample of residents within a purposive sample of homes in three areas. Errors were identified by patient interview, note review, observation of practice and examination of dispensed items. Causes were understood by observation and from theoretically framed interviews with home staff, doctors and pharmacists. Potential harm from errors was assessed by expert judgement. Results: The 256 residents recruited in 55 homes were taking a mean of 8.0 medicines. One hundred and seventy-eight (69.5%) of residents had one or more errors. The mean number per resident was 1.9 errors. The mean potential harm from prescribing, monitoring, administration and dispensing errors was 2.6, 3.7, 2.1 and 2.0 (0 = no harm, 10 = death), respectively. Contributing factors from the 89 interviews included doctors who were not accessible, did not know the residents and lacked information in homes when prescribing; home staff’s high workload, lack of medicines training and drug round interruptions; lack of team work among home, practice and pharmacy; inefficient ordering systems; inaccurate medicine records and prevalence of verbal communication; and difficult to fill (and check) medication administration systems. Conclusions: That two thirds of residents were exposed to one or more medication errors is of concern. The will to improve exists, but there is a lack of overall responsibility. Action is required from all concerned.

There is a recognised need to build primary care medication adherence services which are tailored to patients' needs. Continuous quality improvement of such services requires a regular working method of measuring adherence in order to monitor effectiveness. Self report has been considered the method of choice for clinical use; it is cheap, relatively unobtrusive and able to distinguish between intentional and unintentional non-adherence, which have different underlying causes and therefore require different interventions. A self report adherence measure used in routine clinical practice would ideally be brief, acceptable to patients, valid, reliable, have the ability to distinguish between different types of non-adherence and be able to be completed by or in conjunction with carers where necessary.

Background: Vaccine hesitancy was labelled as one of the top ten threats to global health by the World Health Organization in 2019 and is associated with negative health outcomes. Previous reviews on cause of vaccines have not included vaccine hesitancy related to the COVID-19 vaccine. This review aimed to fill this gap by synthesising the findings of studies identifying causes of vaccine hesitancy to the COVID-19 and influenza vaccines. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted. Searches were carried out in the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. Following data extraction, a thematic analysis was conducted of the causes of vaccine hesitancy in adults for the influenza and COVID-19 vaccines. Results: Fourteen papers were included. Four themes were identified as causes of vaccine hesitancy comprising: concerns over safety, lack of trust, lack of need for vaccination and cultural reasons. While concerns over safety were found in all countries, some of these were specific to particular countries and cultures. Our findings suggest that scientific knowledge of vaccines and size of clinical trials during their development reduce vaccine hesitancy. However, pharmaceutical companies were not a trusted source of information. Conclusion: Our findings build on those of previous research to suggest specific information that may be helpful in addressing vaccine hesitancy. Targeted approaches from trusted sources are needed to address specific safety concerns.

Medications are mostly taken in patients’ own homes, increasingly administered by carers, yet studies of medication safety have been largely conducted in the hospital setting. We aimed to review studies of how carers cause and/or prevent medication administration errors (MAEs) within the patient’s home; to identify types, prevalence and causes of these MAEs and any interventions to prevent them. A narrative systematic review of literature published between 1 Jan 1946 and 23 Sep 2013 was carried out across the databases EMBASE, MEDLINE, PSYCHINFO, COCHRANE and CINAHL. Empirical studies were included where carers were responsible for preventing/causing MAEs in the home and standardised tools used for data extraction and quality assessment. Thirty-six papers met the criteria for narrative review, 33 of which included parents caring for children, two predominantly comprised adult children and spouses caring for older parents/partners, and one focused on paid carers mostly looking after older adults. The carer administration error rate ranged from 1.9 to 33% of medications administered and from 12 to 92.7% of carers administering medication. These included dosage errors, omitted administration, wrong medication and wrong time or route of administration. Contributory factors included individual carer factors (e.g. carer age), environmental factors (e.g. storage), medication factors (e.g. number of medicines), prescription communication factors (e.g. comprehensibility of instructions), psychosocial factors (e.g. carer-to-carer communication), and care-recipient factors (e.g. recipient age). The few interventions effective in preventing MAEs involved carer training and tailored equipment. This review shows that home medication administration errors made by carers are a potentially serious patient safety issue. Carers made similar errors to those made by professionals in other contexts and a wide variety of contributory factors were identified. The home care setting should be a priority for the development of patient safety interventions.

The UK, USA and the World Health Organization have identified improved patient safety in healthcare as a priority. Medication error has been identified as one of the most frequent forms of medical error and is associated with significant medical harm. Errors are the result of the systems that produce them. In industrial settings, a range of systematic techniques have been designed to reduce error and waste. The first stage of these processes is to map out the whole system and its reliability at each stage. However, to date, studies of medication error and solutions have concentrated on individual parts of the whole system. In this paper we wished to conduct a systematic review of the literature, in order to map out the medication system with its associated errors and failures in quality, to assess the strength of the evidence and to use approaches from quality management to identify ways in which the system could be made safer.

There is a consensus that patients and the public should be involved in research in a meaningful way. However, to date, lay people have been mostly involved in developing research ideas and commenting on patient information. We previously published a paper describing our experience with lay partners conducting observations in a study of how patients in hospital are involved with their medicines. In a later part of the same study, lay partners were also involved in analysing interviews that a researcher had conducted with patients, carers and healthcare professionals about patient and carer involvement with medicines in hospital. We therefore wanted to build on our previous paper and report on our experiences with lay partners helping to conduct data analysis. We therefore interviewed the lay members and researchers involved in the analysis to find out their views. Both lay members and researchers reported that lay partners added value to the study by bringing their own perspectives and identifying further areas for the researcher to look for in the interviews. In this way researchers and lay partners were able to work together to produce a richer analysis than would have been possible from either alone. Background It is recognised that involving lay people in research in a meaningful rather than tokenistic way is both important and challenging. In this paper, we contribute to this debate by describing our experiences of lay involvement in data analysis. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with the lay partners and researchers involved in qualitative data analysis in a wider study of inpatient involvement in medication safety. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded using open thematic analysis. Results We interviewed three lay partners and the three researchers involved. These interviews demonstrated that the lay members added value to the analysis by bringing their own perspectives; these were systematically integrated into the analysis by the lead researcher to create a synergistic output. Some challenges arose, including difficulties in recruiting a diverse range of members of the public to carry out the role; however there were generally fewer challenges in data analysis than there had been with our previous experience of lay partners’ involvement in data collection. Conclusions Lay members can add value to health services research by being involved in qualitative data analysis.