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.

Background: Traditional approaches to safety management in health care have focused primarily on counting errors and understanding how things go wrong. Resilient Health Care (RHC) provides an alternative complementary perspective of learning from incidents and understanding how, most of the time, work is safe. The aim of this review was to identify how RHC is conceptualised, described and interpreted in the published literature, to describe the methods used to study RHC, and to identify factors that develop RHC.Methods: Electronic searches of PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases were performed to identify relevant peer-reviewed studies, and a hand search undertaken for studies published in books that explained how RHC as a concept has been interpreted, what methods have been used to study it, and what factors have been important to its development. Studies were evaluated independently by two researchers. Data was synthesised using a thematic approach.Results: Thirty-six studies were included; they shared similar descriptions of RHC which was the ability to adjust its functioning prior to, during, or following events and thereby sustain required operations under both expected and unexpected conditions. Qualitative methods were mainly used to study RHC. Two types of data sources have been used: direct (e.g. focus groups and surveys) and indirect (e.g. observations and simulations) data sources. Most of the tools for studying RHC were developed based on predefined resilient constructs and have been categorised into three categories: performance variability and Work As Done, cornerstone capabilities for resilience, and integration with other safety management paradigms. Tools for studying RHC currently exist but have yet to be fully implemented. Effective team relationships, trade-offs and health care ‘resilience’ training of health care professionals were factors used to develop RHC.Conclusions: Although there was consistency in the conceptualisation of RHC, methods used to study and the factors used to develop it, several questions remain to be answered before a gold standard strategy for studying RHC can confidently be identified. These include operationalising RHC assessment methods in multi-level and diverse settings and developing, testing and evaluating interventions to address the wider safety implications of RHC amidst organisational and institutional change.

Objectives: Medicines play a key role in the lives of people with dementia, primarily to manage symptoms. Managing medicines is complex for people with dementia and their family carers and can result in multiple problems leading to harm. We conducted a systematic review to identify and model medication issues experienced and coping strategies used by people with dementia and/or family carers.Methods: Eleven general databases and four systematic review databases were searched. Studies were quality assessed using an established framework and thematically analysed.Results: Twenty‐one articles were included in this study, and four domains affecting medication use were identified: cognitive, medication, social and cultural, and knowledge/educational and communication. People with dementia reported medication issues in all four domains, but few coping strategies were developed. Family carers reported issues and coping strategies related to the medication and knowledge/educational and communication domains. Common issues with regards to knowledge and communication about medicines remain unresolved. The “voices” of people with dementia appeared largely missing from the literature so were in‐depth understanding of how, whether, and in which circumstances coping strategies work in managing medicines.Conclusions: Medicines management is a complex set of activities and although current coping strategies exists, these were primarily used by family carers or the person with dementia‐carer dyad. Health and social care practitioners and researchers should seek to understand in‐depth the “mechanisms of action” of existing coping strategies and actively involve people with dementia as co‐producers of knowledge to underpin any further work on medicines management.

Objectives Respiratory tract infections are frequently managed by nurse and pharmacist prescribers, and these prescribers are responsible for 8% of all primary care antibiotic prescriptions. Few studies have explored antibiotic prescribing among these prescribers, and interventions to target their antibiotic prescribing behaviour do not exist. Research objectives were to: (1) use the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify the factors that influence nurse and pharmacist prescriber management of respiratory tract infections and (2) identify the behaviour change techniques (BCTs) that can be used as the basis for the development of a theoretically informed intervention to support appropriate prescribing behaviour. Design Qualitative design comprising semistructured interviews, using the Theoretical Domains Framework and Capability, Opportunity and Motivation for Behaviour. Setting Primary care. Participants Twenty one prescribers (4 pharmacists and 17 nurses). Results A range of factors across 12 domains of the TDF were found to influence prescriber behaviour, and 40 BCTs were identified as supporting appropriate prescribing. For example, patient expectations (social influence) was identified as a factor influencing prescribing decisions, and a number of BCTs (problem solving, goal setting and information about health consequences) were identified as supporting prescribers in managing these expectations. Conclusion With increasing numbers of nurse and pharmacist prescribers managing infections in primary care, these findings will inform theoretically grounded interventions to support appropriate prescribing behaviour by these groups.

Healthcare professionals are involved in an array of patient- and medicine-related stewardship activities, for which an understanding and engagement with antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) is important. Undergraduate education provides an ideal opportunity to prepare healthcare professionals for these roles and activities. To provide UK national consensus on a common set of antimicrobial stewardship competencies appropriate for undergraduate healthcare professional education. A modified Delphi approach comprising two online surveys delivered to a UK national panel of 21 individuals reflecting expertise in prescribing and medicines management with regards to the education and practice of nurses and midwives, pharmacists, physiotherapists, and podiatrists; and antimicrobial prescribing and stewardship. Data collection took place between October and December 2017. A total of 21 participants agreed to become members of the expert panel, of whom 19 (90%) completed round 1 questionnaire, and 17 (89%) completed round 2. Panelists reached a consensus, with consistently high levels of agreement reached, on six overarching competency statements (subdivided into six domains), and 55 individual descriptors essential for antimicrobial stewardship by healthcare professionals. Due to the consistently high levels of agreement reached on competency statements and their associated descriptors, this competency framework should be used to direct education for undergraduate healthcare professionals, and those working in new clinical roles to support healthcare delivery where an understanding of, and engagement with, AMS is important. Although the competencies target basic education, they can also be used for continuing education.