Background Health and social care standards have been widely adopted as a quality improvement intervention. Standards are typically made up of evidence-based statements that describe safe, high-quality, person-centred care as an outcome or process of care delivery. They involve stakeholders at multiple levels and multiple activities across diverse services. As such, challenges exist with their implementation. Existing literature relating to standards has focused on accreditation and regulation programmes and there is limited evidence to inform implementation strategies specifically tailored to support the implementation of standards. This systematic review aimed to identify and describe the most frequently reported enablers and barriers to implementing (inter)nationally endorsed standards, in order to inform the selection of strategies that can optimise their implementation. Methods Database searches were conducted in Medline, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), SocINDEX, Google Scholar, OpenGrey and GreyNet International, complemented by manual searches of standard-setting bodies’ websites and hand searching references of included studies. Primary qualitative, quantitative descriptive and mixed methods studies that reported enablers and barriers to implementing nationally or internationally endorsed standards were included. Two researchers independently screened search outcomes and conducted data extraction, methodological appraisal and CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) assessments. An inductive analysis was conducted using Sandelowski’s meta-summary and measured frequency effect sizes (FES) for enablers and barriers. Results 4072 papers were retrieved initially with 35 studies ultimately included. Twenty-two thematic statements describing enablers were created from 322 descriptive findings and grouped under six themes. Twenty-four thematic statements describing barriers were created from 376 descriptive findings and grouped under six themes. The most prevalent enablers with CERQual assessments graded as high included: available support tools at local level (FES 55%); training courses to increase awareness and knowledge of the standards (FES 52%) and knowledge sharing and interprofessional collaborations (FES 45%). The most prevalent barriers with CERQual assessments graded as high included: a lack of knowledge of what standards are (FES 63%), staffing constraints (FES 46%), insufficient funds (FES 43%). Conclusions The most frequently reported enablers related to available support tools, education and shared learning. The most frequently reported barriers related to a lack of knowledge of standards, staffing issues and insufficient funds. Incorporating these findings into the selection of implementation strategies will enhance the likelihood of effective implementation of standards and subsequently, improve safe, quality care for people using health and social care services.
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial reuse. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. THE SAFETY OF INPATIENT HEALTH CARE N Engl J Med, 12 Jan 2023 Literature evaluating adverse events in hospitals spans four decades. The Harvard Medical Practice Study, published in 1991, found an adverse event rate of 3.7 events per 100 inpatient admissions, of which 28% were attributed to negligence and 16% led to death or permanent disability. 2 The Institute of Medicine’s 2000 report titled To Err is Human estimated that as many as 98 000 people die annually because of medical errors. Since publication of these findings, hospitals worldwide have taken measures to prevent adverse events. However, understanding the impact of these interventions remains elusive because accurate and timely data are often unavailable. For example, voluntary incident reporting systems are often used to capture adverse events, but result in undercounting. In one study, the measured incidence of adverse drug events was approximately 20 times that noted through voluntary reporting. Other methods used to estimate adverse event incidence (eg, malpractice claims data) are also susceptible to undercounting. Thus, the effects of hospitallevel initiatives on many patient safety outcomes have been difficult to quantify. In their retrospective cohort study, Bates and colleagues sought to understand the frequency and types of patient harm in 11 hospitals (ranging from <100 bed capacity to >700) in Massachusetts, USA. A random sample of approximately 250 patients admitted and discharged in 2018 were included from each participating hospital, with oversampling of smaller hospitals. Admissions for hospice, rehabilitation, psychiatric care, addiction treatment or observation care were excluded. Nine nurses reviewed admissions to identify potential adverse events using a standardised protocol. Acts of omission (eg, failure to diagnose or treat) and acts of commission (eg, incorrect diagnosis or treatment or poor performance) were evaluated. The nurse reviewers searched for prespecified triggers and were permitted to review all data prior to the admission and for 30 days after discharge. Healthcare quality and safety span multiple topics across the spectrum of academic and clinical disciplines. Keeping abreast of the rapidly growing body of work can be challenging. In this series, we provide succinct summaries of selected relevant studies published in the last several months. Some articles will focus on a particular theme, whereas others will highlight unique publications from highimpact medical journals.
Hydroxyurea (HU) is an effective but underused disease-modifying therapy for patients with sickle cell anaemia (SCA). EMBRACE SCD, a sickle cell disease treatment demonstration project, aimed to improve access to HU by increasing prescription (Rx) rates by at least 10% from baseline in children with SCA.The Model for Improvement was used as the quality improvement framework. HU Rx was assessed from clinical databases in three paediatric haematology centres. Children aged 9 months-18 years with SCA not on chronic transfusions were eligible for HU treatment. The health belief model was the conceptual framework to discuss with patients and promote HU acceptance. A visual aid showing erythrocytes under the effect of HU and the American Society of Hematology HU brochure were used as educational tools. At least 6 months after offering HU, a Barrier Assessment Questionnaire was given to assess reasons for HU acceptance and refusals. If HU was declined, the providers discussed with family again. We conducted chart audits to find missed opportunities to prescribe HU as one plan-do-study-act cycle.At initial measurement, 50.2% of 524 eligible patients had HU prescribed. During the testing and initial implementation phase, the mean performance after 10 data points was 53%. After 2 years, the mean performance was 59%, achieving an 11% increase in mean performance and a 29% increase from initial to the last measurement (64.8% HU Rx). During a 15-month period, 32.1% (N=168) of the eligible patients who were offered HU completed the barrier questionnaire with 19% (N=32) refusing HU, mostly based on not perceiving enough severity of their children's SCA or fearing side effects.Reviewing patient charts for missed opportunity of offering HU with feedback and evaluating the reasons of declining HU via a questionnaire were key components in increasing HU Rx in our population.
Background Diagnostic error (DE) is a common problem in clinical practice, particularly in the emergency department (ED) setting. Among ED patients presenting with cardiovascular or cerebrovascular/neurological symptoms, a delay in diagnosis or failure to hospitalise may be most impactful in terms of adverse outcomes. Minorities and other vulnerable populations may be at higher risk of DE. We aimed to systematically review studies reporting the frequency and causes of DE in under-resourced patients presenting to the ED with cardiovascular or cerebrovascular/neurological symptoms. Methods We searched EBM Reviews, Embase, Medline, Scopus and Web of Science from 2000 through 14 August 2022. Data were abstracted by two independent reviewers using a standardised form. The risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Results Of the 7342 studies screened, we included 20 studies evaluating 7436,737 patients. Most studies were conducted in the USA, and one study was multicountry. 11 studies evaluated DE in patients with cerebrovascular/neurological symptoms, 8 studies with cardiovascular symptoms and 1 study examined both types of symptoms. 13 studies investigated missed diagnoses and 7 studies explored delayed diagnoses. There was significant clinical and methodological variability, including heterogeneity of DE definitions and predictor variable definitions as well as methods of DE assessment, study design and reporting. Among the studies evaluating cardiovascular symptoms, black race was significantly associated with higher odds of DE in 4/6 studies evaluating missed acute myocardial infarction (AMI)/acute coronary syndrome (ACS) diagnosis compared with white race (OR from 1.18 (1.12–1.24) to 4.5 (1.8–11.8)). The association between other analysed factors (ethnicity, insurance and limited English proficiency) and DE in this domain varied from study to study and was inconclusive. Among the studies evaluating DE in patients with cerebrovascular/neurological symptoms, no consistent association was found indicating higher or lower odds of DE. Although some studies showed significant differences, these were not consistently in the same direction. The overall ROB was low for most included studies; however, the certainty of evidence was very low, mostly due to serious inconsistency in definitions and measurement approaches across studies. Conclusions This systematic review demonstrated consistent increased odds of missed AMI/ACS diagnosis among black patients presenting to the ED compared with white patients in most studies. No consistent associations between demographic groups and DE related to cerebrovascular/neurological diagnoses were identified. More standardised approaches to study design, measurement of DE and outcomes assessment are needed to understand this problem among vulnerable populations. Trial registration number The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020178885 and is available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020178885.
ObjectivesTo compare secondary prevention care for patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke, exploring particularly the influences due to frequency and regularity of primary care visits.SettingSecondary prevention for patients (≥18 years) in the National Prescription Service administrative electronic health record database collated from 458 Australian general practice sites across all states and territories.DesignRetrospective cross-sectional and panel study. Patient and care-level characteristics were compared for differing CHD/stroke diagnoses. Associations between the type of cardiovascular diagnosis and medication prescription as well as risk factor assessment were examined using multivariable logistic regression.ParticipantsPatients with three or more general practice encounters within 2 years of their latest visit during 2016–2020.Outcome measuresProportions and odds ratios (ORs) for (1) prescription of antihypertensives, antilipidaemics and antiplatelets and (2) assessment of blood pressure (BP) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in patients with stroke only compared against those with CHD only and those with both conditions.ResultsThere were 111 892 patients with CHD only, 27 863 with stroke only and 9791 with both conditions. Relative to patients with CHD, patients with stroke were underprescribed antihypertensives (70.8% vs 82.8%), antilipidaemics (63.1% vs 78.7%) and antiplatelets (42.2% vs 45.7%). With sociodemographic factors, comorbidities and level of care considered as covariates, the odds of non-prescription of any recommended secondary prevention medications were higher in patients with stroke only (adjusted OR 1.37; 95% CI (1.31, 1.44)) compared with patients with CHD only. Patients with stroke only were also more likely to have neither BP nor LDL-C monitored (adjusted OR 1.26; 95% CI (1.18, 1.34)). Frequent and regular general practitioner encounters were independently associated with the prescription of secondary prevention medications (p<0.001).ConclusionsSecondary prevention management is suboptimal in cardiovascular disease patients and worse post-stroke compared with post-CHD. More frequent and regular primary care encounters were associated with improved secondary prevention.
Background Informed consent for medical interventions is ethically and legally required; an important aspect of quality and safety in healthcare; and essential to person-centred care. During labour and birth, respecting consent requirements, including respecting refusal, can contribute to a higher sense of choice and control for labouring women. This study examines (1) to what extent and for which procedures during labour and birth women report that consent requirements were not met and/or inadequate information was provided, (2) how frequently women consider consent requirements not being met upsetting and (3) which personal characteristics are associated with the latter. Methods A national cross-sectional survey was conducted in the Netherlands among women who gave birth up to 5 years previously. Respondents were recruited through social media with the help of influencers and organisations. The survey focused on 10 common procedures during labour and birth, investigating for each procedure if respondents were offered the procedure, if they consented or refused, if the information provision was sufficient and if they underwent unconsented procedures, whether they found this upsetting. Results 13 359 women started the survey and 11 418 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Consent not asked was most often reported by respondents who underwent postpartum oxytocin (47.5%) and episiotomy (41.7%). Refusal was most often over-ruled when performing augmentation of labour (2.2%) and episiotomy (1.9%). Information provision was reported inadequate more often when consent requirements were not met compared with when they were met. Multiparous women had decreased odds of reporting unmet consent requirements compared with primiparous (adjusted ORs 0.54–0.85). There was considerable variation across procedures in how frequently not meeting consent requirements was considered upsetting. Conclusions Consent for performing a procedure is frequently absent in Dutch maternity care. In some instances, procedures were performed in spite of the woman’s refusal. More awareness is needed on meeting necessary consent requirements in order to achieve person-centred and high-quality care during labour and birth.
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial reuse. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. Equity is one of the six core healthcare quality domains in ‘Crossing the Quality Chasm’, published by the Institute of Medicine in 2001. While substantial quality measurement and improvement work has focused on improving safety, patientcentredness, timeliness, efficiency and efficacy (the other five domains), far less has focused on health equity measurement and improvement. This is in part due to limited adoption of standardised definitions of racial and ethnicities and therefore limited availability of highquality data on race and ethnicity. Having accurate data is a key first step in addressing health inequities, since what is measured influences what is done. There are substantial efforts to improve these data availability and quality by healthcare systems, nationally and internationally. Currently, adequate efforts require several steps: the decision to collect data, ensuring the quality of data being collected, and reconciliation of race and ethnicity data across frequently nonstandardised data collection systems. The study by Lyren and colleagues in this issue of BMJ Quality & Safety focuses on the third step, providing a replicable method to use race and ethnicity data while data standardisation efforts continue. Data collection and analytics are a core principle of advancing health equity, positioned within a larger framework to ultimately improve individual and populationlevel health.
BackgroundAccurate and timely diagnosis relies on sharing perspectives among team members and avoiding information asymmetries. Patients/Families hold unique diagnostic process (DxP) information, including knowledge of diagnostic safety blindspots-information that patients/families know, but may be invisible to clinicians. To improve information sharing, we co-developed with patients/families an online tool called 'Our Diagnosis (OurDX)'. We aimed to characterise patient/family contributions in OurDX and how they differed between individuals with and without diagnostic concerns. MethodWe implemented OurDX in two academic organisations serving patients/families living with chronic conditions in three subspecialty clinics and one primary care clinic. Prior to each visit, patients/families were invited to contribute visit priorities, recent histories and potential diagnostic concerns. Responses were available in the electronic health record and could be incorporated by clinicians into visit notes. We randomly sampled OurDX reports with and without diagnostic concerns for chart review and used inductive and deductive qualitative analysis to assess patient/family contributions. Results7075 (39%) OurDX reports were submitted at 18 129 paediatric subspecialty clinic visits and 460 (65%) reports were submitted among 706 eligible adult primary care visits. Qualitative analysis of OurDX reports in the chart review sample (n=450) revealed that participants contributed DxP information across 10 categories, most commonly: clinical symptoms/medical history (82%), tests/referrals (54%) and diagnosis/next steps (51%). Participants with diagnostic concerns were more likely to contribute information on DxP risks including access barriers, recent visits for the same problem, problems with tests/referrals or care coordination and communication breakdowns, some of which may represent diagnostic blindspots. ConclusionPartnering with patients and families living with chronic conditions through OurDX may help clinicians gain a broader perspective of the DxP, including unique information to coproduce diagnostic safety.
Background Relatively little is known about the cognitive processes of healthcare workers that mediate between performance-shaping factors (eg, workload, time pressure) and adherence to infection prevention and control (IPC) practices. We taxonomised the cognitive work involved in IPC practices and assessed its role in how pathogens spread. Methods Forty-two registered nurses performed patient care tasks in a standardised high-fidelity simulation. Afterwards, participants watched a video of their simulation and described what they were thinking, which we analysed to obtain frequencies of macrocognitive functions (MCFs) in the context of different IPC practices. Performance in the simulation was the frequency at which participants spread harmless surrogates for pathogens (bacteriophages). Using a tertiary split, participants were categorised into a performance group: high, medium or low. To identify associations between the three variables—performance groups, MCFs and IPC practices—we used multiblock discriminant correspondence analysis (MUDICA). Results MUDICA extracted two factors discriminating between performance groups. Factor 1 captured differences between high and medium performers. High performers monitored the situation for contamination events and mitigated risks by applying formal and informal rules or managing their uncertainty, particularly for sterile technique and cleaning. Medium performers engaged more in future-oriented cognition, anticipating contamination events and planning their workflow, across many IPC practices. Factor 2 distinguished the low performers from the medium and high performers who mitigated risks with informal rules and sacrificed IPC practices when managing tradeoffs, all in the context of minimising cross-contamination from physical touch. Conclusions To reduce pathogen transmission, new approaches to training IPC (eg, cognitive skills training) and system design are needed. Interventions should help nurses apply their knowledge of IPC fluidly during patient care, prioritising and monitoring situations for risks and deciding how to mitigate risks. Planning IPC into one’s workflow is beneficial but may not account for the unpredictability of patient care.
BackgroundProblems in intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring with cardiotocography (CTG) remain a major area of preventable harm. Poor understanding of the range of influences on safety may have hindered improvement. Taking an interdisciplinary perspective, we sought to characterise the everyday practice of CTG monitoring and the work systems within which it takes place, with the goal of identifying potential sources of risk.MethodsHuman factors/ergonomics (HF/E) experts and social scientists conducted 325 hours of observations and 23 interviews in three maternity units in the UK, focusing on how CTG tasks were undertaken, the influences on this work and the cultural and organisational features of work settings. HF/E analysis was based on the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety 2.0 model. Social science analysis was based on the constant comparative method.ResultsCTG monitoring can be understood as a complex sociotechnical activity, with tasks, people, tools and technology, and organisational and external factors all combining to affect safety. Fetal heart rate patterns need to be recorded and interpreted correctly. Systems are also required for seeking the opinions of others, determining whether the situation warrants concern, escalating concerns and mobilising response. These processes may be inadequately designed or function suboptimally, and may be further complicated by staffing issues, equipment and ergonomics issues, and competing and frequently changing clinical guidelines. Practice may also be affected by variable standards and workflows, variations in clinical competence, teamwork and situation awareness, and the ability to communicate concerns freely.ConclusionsCTG monitoring is an inherently collective and sociotechnical practice. Improving it will require accounting for complex system interdependencies, rather than focusing solely on discrete factors such as individual technical proficiency in interpreting traces.
BackgroundThere is a critical need to identify specific causes of and tailored solutions to diagnostic error in sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations. PurposeTo identify challenges to diagnosis in SGM adults, understand the impacts of patient-reported diagnostic errors on patients' lives and elicit solutions. MethodsQualitative study using in-depth semistructured interviews. Participants were recruited using convenience and snowball sampling. Recruitment efforts targeted 22 SGM-focused organisations, academic centres and clinics across the USA. Participants were encouraged to share study details with personal contacts. Interviews were analysed using codebook thematic analysis. ResultsInterviewees (n=20) ranged from 20 to 60 years of age with diverse mental and physical health symptoms. All participants identified as sexual minorities, gender minorities or both. Thematic analysis revealed challenges to diagnosis. Provider-level challenges included pathologisation of SGM identity; dismissal of symptoms due to anti-SGM bias; communication failures due to providers being distracted by SGM identity and enforcement of cis-heteronormative assumptions. Patient-level challenges included internalised shame and stigma. Intersectional challenges included biases around factors like race and age. Patient-reported diagnostic error led to worsening relationships with providers, worsened mental and physical health and increased self-advocacy and community-activism. Solutions to reduce diagnostic disparities included SGM-specific medical education and provider training, using inclusive language, asking questions, avoiding assumptions, encouraging diagnostic coproduction, upholding high care standards and ethics, involving SGM individuals in healthcare improvement and increasing research on SGM health. ConclusionsAnti-SGM bias, queerphobia, lack of provider training and heteronormative attitudes hinder diagnostic decision-making and communication. As a result, SGM patients report significant harms. Solutions to mitigate diagnostic disparities require an intersectional approach that considers patients' gender identity, sexual orientation, race, age, economic status and system-level changes.
BACKGROUND:The Safety Case is a regulatory technique that requires organisations to demonstrate to regulators that they have systematically identified hazards in their systems and reduced risks to being as low as reasonably practicable. It is used in several high-risk sectors, but only in a very limited way in healthcare. We examined the first documented attempt to apply the Safety Case methodology to clinical pathways.METHODS:Data are drawn from a mixed-methods evaluation of the Safer Clinical Systems programme. The development of a Safety Case for a defined clinical pathway was a centrepiece of the programme. We base our analysis on 143 interviews covering all aspects of the programme and on analysis of 13 Safety Cases produced by clinical teams.RESULTS:The principles behind a proactive, systematic approach to identifying and controlling risk that could be curated in a single document were broadly welcomed by participants, but was not straightforward to deliver. Compiling Safety Cases helped teams to identify safety hazards in clinical pathways, some of which had been previously occluded. However, the work of compiling Safety Cases was demanding of scarce skill and resource. Not all problems identified through proactive methods were tractable to the efforts of front-line staff. Some persistent hazards, originating from institutional and organisational vulnerabilities, appeared also to be out of the scope of control of even the board level of organisations. A particular dilemma for organisational senior leadership was whether to prioritise fixing the risks proactively identified in Safety Cases over other pressing issues, including those that had already resulted in harm.CONCLUSIONS:The Safety Case approach was recognised by those involved in the Safer Clinical Systems programme as having potential value. However, it is also fraught with challenge, highlighting the limitations of efforts to transfer safety management practices to healthcare from other sectors.
BackgroundPoor translation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) into clinical practice is a barrier to the provision of consistent and high-quality evidence-based care. The objective was to systematically review the roles and effectiveness of knowledge brokers (KBs) for translating CPGs in health-related settings.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL Plus were searched from 2014 to June 2022. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled and uncontrolled preintervention and postintervention studies involving KBs, either alone or as part of a multicomponent intervention, that reported quantitative postintervention changes in guideline implementation in a healthcare setting were included. A KB was defined as an intermediary who facilitated knowledge translation by acting in at least two of the following core roles: knowledge manager, linkage agent or capacity builder. Specific activities undertaken by KBs were deductively coded to the three core roles, then common activities were inductively grouped. Screening, data extraction, quality assessment and coding were performed independently by two authors.Results16 studies comprising 6 RCTs, 8 uncontrolled precomparisons–postcomparisons, 1 controlled precomparison–postcomparison and 1 interrupted time series were included. 14 studies (88%) were conducted in hospital settings. Knowledge manager roles included creating and distributing guideline material. Linkage agent roles involved engaging with internal and external stakeholders. Capacity builder roles involved audit and feedback and educating staff. KBs improved guideline adherence in 10 studies (63%), had mixed impact in 2 studies (13%) and no impact in 4 studies (25%). Half of the RCTs showed KBs had no impact on guideline adherence. KBs acted as knowledge managers in 15 (94%) studies, linkage agents in 11 (69%) studies and capacity builders in all studies.ConclusionKnowledge manager and capacity builder roles were more frequently studied than linkage agent roles. KBs had mixed impact on translating CPGs into practice. Further RCTs, including those in non-hospital settings, are required.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42022340365.
Background The second Multicenter Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study demonstrated a marked reduction in medication discrepancies per patient. The aim of the current analysis was to determine the association of patient exposure to each system-level intervention and receipt of each patient-level intervention on these results. Methods This study was conducted at 17 North American Hospitals, the study period was 18 months per site, and sites typically adopted interventions after 2–5 months of preintervention data collection. We conducted an on-treatment analysis (ie, an evaluation of outcomes based on patient exposure) of system-level interventions, both at the category level and at the individual component level, based on monthly surveys of implementation site leads at each site (response rate 65%). We then conducted a similar analysis of patient-level interventions, as determined by study pharmacist review of documented activities in the medical record. We analysed the association of each intervention on the adjusted number of medication discrepancies per patient in admission and discharge orders, based on a random sample of up to 22 patients per month per site, using mixed-effects Poisson regression with hospital site as a random effect. We then used a generalised linear mixed-effects model (GLMM) decision tree to determine which patient-level interventions explained the most variance in discrepancy rates. Results Among 4947 patients, patient exposure to seven of the eight system-level component categories was associated with modest but significant reductions in discrepancy rates (adjusted rate ratios (ARR) 0.75–0.97), as were 15 of the 17 individual system-level intervention components, including hiring, reallocating and training personnel to take a best possible medication history (BPMH) and training personnel to perform discharge medication reconciliation and patient counselling. Receipt of five of seven patient-level interventions was independently associated with large reductions in discrepancy rates, including receipt of a BPMH in the emergency department (ED) by a trained clinician (ARR 0.40, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.43), admission medication reconciliation by a trained clinician (ARR 0.57, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.64) and discharge medication reconciliation by a trained clinician (ARR 0.64, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.73). In GLMM decision tree analyses, patients who received both a BPMH in the ED and discharge medication reconciliation by a trained clinician experienced the lowest discrepancy rates (0.08 per medication per patient). Conclusion and relevance Patient-level interventions most associated with reductions in discrepancies were receipt of a BPMH of admitted patients in the ED and admission and discharge medication reconciliation by a trained clinician. System-level interventions were associated with modest reduction in discrepancies for the average patient but are likely important to support patient-level interventions and may reach more patients. These findings can be used to help hospitals and health systems prioritise interventions to improve medication safety during care transitions.
