OBJECTIVE: To describe the training undertaken by pharmacists employed in a pharmacist-led information technology-based intervention study to reduce medication errors in primary care (PINCER Trial), evaluate pharmacists' assessment of the training, and the time implications of undertaking the training. METHODS: Six pharmacists received training, which included training on root cause analysis and educational outreach, to enable them to deliver the PINCER Trial intervention. This was evaluated using self-report questionnaires at the end of each training session. The time taken to complete each session was recorded. Data from the evaluation forms were entered onto a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, independently checked and the summary of results further verified. Frequencies were calculated for responses to the three-point Likert scale questions. Free-text comments from the evaluation forms and pharmacists' diaries were analysed thematically. KEY FINDINGS: All six pharmacists received 22 h of training over five sessions. In four out of the five sessions, the pharmacists who completed an evaluation form (27 out of 30 were completed) stated they were satisfied or very satisfied with the various elements of the training package. Analysis of free-text comments and the pharmacists' diaries showed that the principles of root cause analysis and educational outreach were viewed as useful tools to help pharmacists conduct pharmaceutical interventions in both the study and other pharmacy roles that they undertook. The opportunity to undertake role play was a valuable part of the training received. CONCLUSIONS: Findings presented in this paper suggest that providing the PINCER pharmacists with training in root cause analysis and educational outreach contributed to the successful delivery of PINCER interventions and could potentially be utilised by other pharmacists based in general practice to deliver pharmaceutical interventions to improve patient safety.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the training undertaken by pharmacists employed in a pharmacist-led information technology-based intervention study to reduce medication errors in primary care (PINCER Trial), evaluate pharmacists' assessment of the training, and the time implications of undertaking the training. METHODS: Six pharmacists received training, which included training on root cause analysis and educational outreach, to enable them to deliver the PINCER Trial intervention. This was evaluated using self-report questionnaires at the end of each training session. The time taken to complete each session was recorded. Data from the evaluation forms were entered onto a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, independently checked and the summary of results further verified. Frequencies were calculated for responses to the three-point Likert scale questions. Free-text comments from the evaluation forms and pharmacists' diaries were analysed thematically. KEY FINDINGS: All six pharmacists received 22 h of training over five sessions. In four out of the five sessions, the pharmacists who completed an evaluation form (27 out of 30 were completed) stated they were satisfied or very satisfied with the various elements of the training package. Analysis of free-text comments and the pharmacists' diaries showed that the principles of root cause analysis and educational outreach were viewed as useful tools to help pharmacists conduct pharmaceutical interventions in both the study and other pharmacy roles that they undertook. The opportunity to undertake role play was a valuable part of the training received. CONCLUSIONS: Findings presented in this paper suggest that providing the PINCER pharmacists with training in root cause analysis and educational outreach contributed to the successful delivery of PINCER interventions and could potentially be utilised by other pharmacists based in general practice to deliver pharmaceutical interventions to improve patient safety.
Authors: Mark Jeffries; Wouter T Gude; Richard N Keers; Denham L Phipps; Richard Williams; Evangelos Kontopantelis; Benjamin Brown; Anthony J Avery; Niels Peek; Darren M Ashcroft Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2020-04-17 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Libby Laing; Nde-Eshimuni Salema; Mark Jeffries; Azwa Shamsuddin; Aziz Sheikh; Antony Chuter; Justin Waring; Anthony Avery; Richard N Keers Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-09-19 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Libby Laing; Nde-Eshimuni Salema; Mark Jeffries; Azwa Shamsuddin; Aziz Sheikh; Antony Chuter; Justin Waring; Anthony Avery; Richard N Keers Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-10-14 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Mark Jeffries; Richard N Keers; Denham L Phipps; Richard Williams; Benjamin Brown; Anthony J Avery; Niels Peek; Darren M Ashcroft Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-10-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Niels Peek; Wouter T Gude; Richard N Keers; Richard Williams; Evangelos Kontopantelis; Mark Jeffries; Denham L Phipps; Benjamin Brown; Anthony J Avery; Darren M Ashcroft Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2020-10-13 Impact factor: 11.069