Paula Bowman

and 4 more

Background: Near-misses are errors that have the potential to cause an adverse event but fail to do so because of chance or because they are intercepted. By 2021, Sri Lanka had only established systems for maternal and blood transfusion services. Methods: A new, holistic near-miss reporting system was developed and piloted at a large tertiary hospital in 2022 to guide subsequent nationwide implementation. During the pre-interventional phase, national-level consultative meetings (n=20), key informant interviews (n=10) and focus groups (n=22) were convened with purposively selected representatives of professional colleges, academia, medical administrators, and senior staff of the participating hospital to identify existing methods of reporting near-misses. A near-miss reporting format and guidelines were designed with input from national-level consultative meetings. Training on the new system for medical and nursing officers, periodic reminders to staff, and dissemination of preventive measures for patient safety incidents were implemented as interventions. A pre-post evaluation was conducted to identify the effect of the new system, and stakeholders’ views on potential for nationwide implementation. Results: Eight near-misses were reported three months following implementation, compared to none prior to implementation. Study participants expressed satisfaction with the new system’s user-friendliness, clarity, non-punitiveness, voluntary nature, and confidentiality protection. The system was perceived to be suitable for national implementation following refinements. Conclusions: This evidence-based near-miss reporting system, combined with the complementary activities implemented in the pilot setting, should now be introduced into additional hospitals before national implementation to further enhance its design, support from stakeholders, and quality and safety impact.

Shadi Alruthea

and 3 more

Aim: To conduct the first systematic synthesis of existing evidence reviews on interventions to enhance medication safety in RACS, to establish and compare their effectiveness. Method: This umbrella review included examination of meta-analyses, scoping and systematic reviews. Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and The Cochrane library database of Systematic Reviews) were explored for eligible reviews. Those meeting the inclusion criteria were critically appraised using the JBI Critical Appraisal Instrument for Systematic reviews and Research Syntheses by two authors. Results: Fourteen reviews covering 166 unique, primary studies were included. Interventions were grouped according to type: medication review (n= 12); staff education (n= 8); multidisciplinary team meetings (n= 6); computerised clinical decision support systems (n= 5); and transferring medicines information between health care settings (n= 1). Most reviews showed mixed evidence to support interventions’ effectiveness, due to the significant heterogeneity between original research studies in respect to sites, samples sizes and intervention periods. However, in all intervention categories, pharmacists’ collaboration with other health care professionals was most beneficial, showing definitive evidence for improving medication safety and quality of prescribing in RACS. The evidence suggests that combining two or more interventions is the most promising approach, despite this presenting implementation barriers in the resource-limited environments of many RACS, and methodological challenges in identifying the precise contribution of individual interventions, when implemented concurrently. Conclusion: Health stakeholders should explore a combination of at least two interventions, such as medication review and staff education, to improve medication safety in RACS.