was undertaken. The 526 186 medication incident reports represented 9.68% of all patient safety incidents. Medication incidents from acute general hospitals (394 951) represented 75% of reports. There were relatively smaller numbers of medication incident reports (44 952) from primary care, representing 8.5% of the total. Of 86 821 (16%) medication incidents reporting actual patient harm, 822 (0.9%) resulted in death or severe harm. The incidents involving medicine administration (263 228; 50%) and prescribing (97 097; 18%) were the process steps with the largest number of reports. Omitted and delayed medicine (82 028; 16%) and wrong dose (80 170; 15%) represented the largest error categories. Thirteen medicines or therapeutic groups accounted for 377 (46%) of the incidents with outcomes of death or severe harm. The National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) has issued guidance to help minimize incidents with many of these medicines. Many recent incidents could have been prevented if the NPSA guidance had been better implemented. It is recommended that healthcare organizations in all sectors establish an effective infrastructure to oversee and promote safe medication practice, including an annual medication safety report. In the future, preventable harms from medication incidents can be further minimized by; the continued use of the NRLS to identify and prioritize important actions to improve medication safety, a central organization continuing to issue medication safety guidance to the service and better methods to ensure that the National Health Service has implemented this guidance.

The use of tall man letters could be applied in a variety of visual presentations of drug names--for example, by manufacturers on packaging, labeling, and computer software, and in pharmacies on shelf labels. Additionally, this paper demonstrates two meaningful behavioral measures that can be used during product design to objectively assess confusability of packaging and labeling.

BackgroundLithium is a commonly prescribed drug with a narrow therapeutic index, and recognised adverse effects on the kidneys and thyroid. Clinical guidelines for the management of bipolar affective disorder published by The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommend checks of renal and thyroid function before lithium is prescribed. They further recommend that all patients who are prescribed lithium should have their renal and thyroid function checked every six months, and their serum lithium checked every three months. Adherence to these recommendations has not been subject to national UK audit.MethodsThe Prescribing Observatory for Mental Health (POMH-UK) invited all National Health Service Mental Health Trusts in the UK to participate in a benchmarking audit of lithium monitoring against recommended standards. Data were collected retrospectively from clinical records and submitted electronically.Results436 clinical teams from 38 Trusts submitted data for 3,373 patients. In patients recently starting lithium, there was a documented baseline measure of renal or thyroid function in 84% and 82% respectively. For patients prescribed lithium for a year or more, the NICE standards for monitoring lithium serum levels, and renal and thyroid function were met in 30%, 55% and 50% of cases respectively.ConclusionsThe quality of lithium monitoring in patients who are in contact with mental health services falls short of recognised standards and targets. Findings from this audit, along with reports of harm received by the National Patient Safety Agency, prompted a Patient Safety Alert mandating primary care, mental health and acute Trusts, and laboratory staff to work together to ensure systems are in place to support recommended lithium monitoring by December 2010.

No abstract

OBJECTIVES: To explore the sources of patients' knowledge about the potential side-effects of oral steroids prescribed to treat asthma. METHODS: Seventeen in-depth interviews were conducted with patients taking prescribed oral steroid medication (prednisolone) for asthma. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and the data organized according to common themes. RESULTS: All the respondents acknowledged they had no choice but to take oral steroids but they wanted to be informed about the potential side-effects. Respondents reported that they had not received sufficient information about side-effects from their general practitioner (GP). Information was sought from both medical sources (pharmacists and asthma nurses) and non-medical sources (friends and family, self-help groups and the media) to supplement their knowledge. The conclusions drawn about the risks of taking oral steroids were also influenced by respondents' existing beliefs. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents drew upon information about oral steroids from a variety of professional and lay sources. The findings add weight to calls for doctors and patients to share their respective knowledge in consultations. Developing an understanding of the views of GPs about the provision of information about side-effects would help to identify any perceived barriers to a more open exchange of information in the consultation.