Plain English summaryPlain English summaryThere 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.AbstractBackground 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.

BackgroundThe aim of the study was to explore the impact of the implementation of an electronic prescribing and medication administration system (ePA) on the safety of medication administration in an inpatient hospital setting. Objectives were to compare the prevalence and types of: 1) medication administration errors, and 2) documentation discrepancies, between a paper and an ePA system. Additionally, we wanted to describe any observed changes to medication administration practices.MethodsThe study was based on an elderly medicine ward in an English hospital. From December 2014 to June 2015, nurses’ medication administration rounds were observed every 5 days before and after ePA implementation using an interrupted time-series approach. Medication administration error and documentation discrepancy rates pre- versus post-ePA were analysed descriptively and chi-squared tests used to test for any difference; segmented regression analysis was used to determine changes in longitudinal trend.ResultsObservations were made at 15 pre- and 15 post-ePA implementation time-points. Pre-ePA on paper, there were 18 medication administration errors in 428 opportunities for error (4.2%; 95% confidence interval 2.3–6.1%), and with ePA there were 18 in 528 (3.4%; 95% confidence interval 1.9–5.0%; p = 0.64). Regarding documentation, pre-ePA on paper there were 5 discrepancies in 460 observed documentations (1.1%; 95% confidence interval 0.1–2.0%); with ePA there were 18 in 557 (3.2%; 95% confidence interval 1.8–4.7%; p = 0.04). The most common electronic documentation discrepancy was documentation that a dose had been administered when it had not. Segmented regression analysis was unable to detect any significant longitudinal changes. Changes to working practices post-ePA were observed, such as nurses demonstrating less-consistent self-checking when preparing and administering medications.ConclusionsFindings suggest no change in medication error rate, although ePA encourages certain types of errors and mitigates others. There was a statistically significant increase in documentation discrepancies which is likely to be due to adoption of new working practices with ePA.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2462-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundPrescribing errors occur in up to 15% of UK inpatient medication orders. However, junior doctors report insufficient feedback on errors. A barrier preventing feedback is that individual prescribers often cannot be clearly identified on prescribing documentation.AimTo reduce prescribing errors in a UK hospital by improving feedback on prescribing errors.InterventionsWe developed three linked interventions using plan–do–study–act cycles: (1) name stamps for junior doctors who were encouraged to stamp or write their name clearly when prescribing; (2) principles of effective feedback to support pharmacists to provide feedback to doctors on individual prescribing errors and (3) fortnightly prescribing advice emails that addressed a common and/or serious error.Implementation and evaluationInterventions were introduced at one hospital site in August 2013 with a second acting as control. Process measures included the percentage of inpatient medication orders for which junior doctors stated their name. Outcome measures were junior doctors' and pharmacists' perceptions of current feedback provision (evaluated using quantitative pre-questionnaires and post-questionnaires and qualitative focus groups) and the prevalence of erroneous medication orders written by junior doctors between August and December 2013.ResultsThe percentage of medication orders for which junior doctors stated their name increased from about 10% to 50%. Questionnaire responses revealed a significant improvement in pharmacists' perceptions but no significant change for doctors. Focus group findings suggested increased doctor engagement with safe prescribing. Interrupted time series analysis showed no difference in weekly prescribing error rates between baseline and intervention periods, compared with the control site.ConclusionFindings suggest improved experiences around feedback. However, attempts to produce a measurable reduction in prescribing errors are likely to need a multifaceted approach of which feedback should form part.

BackgroundInpatient medication errors are a significant concern. An approach not yet widely studied is to facilitate greater involvement of inpatients with their medication. At the same time, electronic prescribing is becoming increasingly prevalent in the hospital setting. In this study we aimed to explore hospital inpatients’ involvement with medication safety-related behaviours, facilitators and barriers to this involvement, and the impact of electronic prescribing.MethodsWe conducted ethnographic observations and interviews in two UK hospital organisations, one with established electronic prescribing and one that changed from paper to electronic prescribing during our study. Researchers and lay volunteers observed nurses’ medication administration rounds, pharmacists’ ward rounds, doctor-led ward rounds and drug history taking. We also conducted interviews with healthcare professionals, patients and carers. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Observation notes and transcripts were coded thematically.ResultsPaper or electronic medication records were shown to patients in only 4 (2%) of 247 cases. However, where they were available during patient-healthcare professional interactions, healthcare professionals often viewed them in order to inform patients about their medicines and answer any questions. Interprofessional discussions about medicines seemed more likely to happen in front of the patient where paper or electronic drug charts were available near the bedside. Patients and carers had more access to paper-based drug charts than electronic equivalents. However, interviews and observations suggest there are potentially more significant factors that affect patient involvement with their inpatient medication. These include patient and healthcare professional beliefs concerning patient involvement, the way in which healthcare professionals operate as a team, and the underlying culture.ConclusionPatients appear to have more access to paper-based records than electronic equivalents. However, to develop interventions to increase patient involvement with medication safety behaviours, a wider range of factors needs to be considered.

Plain English summaryThere is a consensus that patients and the public should be involved in research in a meaningful way. To date, lay people have been mostly involved in developing research ideas and commenting on patient information but not as much in actual data collection.We have had firsthand experience with lay people helping to conduct a study on how patients in hospital are involved with their medicines. In the first part of this study, we observed doctors’ ward rounds, pharmacists’ ward visits and nurses’ drug administration rounds, to find out if and how healthcare professionals interacted with patients about their medicines. Lay people conducted some of these observations. We wanted to explore the benefits and challenges of having lay people conduct these observations, to tell us more about how lay people can be involved in conducting such research.We interviewed the lay members and researchers involved in this research to find out their views. We also looked at the observation notes to identify what the lay people had noticed that the researchers had not.The lay members and researchers reported that lay members added value to the study by bringing new perspectives. Lay people had noticed some different things to the researchers. We experienced some challenges which need to be addressed. These weregetting the lay observers registered with the hospitals to allow them to be on the wards in this capacitylay observers and researchers having different understanding of research procedures such as patient consenttrying to find lay observers of different backgrounds and ethnic groupsAbstractBackground: It is recognised that involving lay people with research in a meaningful rather than tokenistic way is both important and challenging. In a recent health services research study addressing inpatient involvement in medication safety, we sought to overcome this challenge by including lay people in collecting observational data in the hospital setting. The aim of this study was to evaluate lay and researcher perspectives on lay involvement in data collection in order to inform and enhance the future role of lay people in carrying out health services research.Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with the lay members who collected observational data in our wider study and the researchers who provided support and/or were involved in their recruitment and training. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded using open thematic analysis. In addition, we conducted secondary analysis of the observational data to identify the specific contributions of lay observers.Results: We interviewed the three lay members and the four researchers involved. Both these interviews and the secondary data analysis demonstrated that the lay members added value to the study by bringing additional general perspectives on communication with hospital inpatients.Combined with researchers’ perspectives on interactions more specifically related to medication, this provided a broader answer to our research question of how healt...