This is in part because medical training does not seem to include relevant exposure to the pharmacists’; role and function, and also prescribing responsibilities selleck chemicals are part of a packed curriculum. The impact of the Trust’s existing induction programme on prescribing practices and understanding the pharmacist role was considered of

limited use. Although the national competency exam may be reassuring evidence of prescribing competency, it is unlikely it will improve this relationship. We acknowledge the limitations of conducting this study in a single hospital with a relatively small sample size. 1. Dornan T, Ashcroft D, Heathfield H, et al. An in-depth investigation into the causes of prescribing errors by foundation trainees in relation to their medical education: EQUIP study. 2009. Final report to the General Medical Council, University of Manchester: School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical medicine and School of Medicine. 2. Ross S et al. Perceived causes of prescribing errors by junior doctors in hospital inpatients: a study from the PROTECT programme. BMJ Qual Saf 2013; 22: 97–102. M. Patel, O. Eradiri Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust, Colchester, Essex, UK SAM potentially prevents harm from delays

and omissions of medicines. SAM significantly reduced omitted doses (9%, v 13% in the non-SAM group). SAM, by this evidence, is a justified safety tool against omissions. The National Patient Safety Agency has identified Sotrastaurin omitted and delayed doses as the second highest cause of medication incidents, resulting in significant harm to hospital patients.1 Our Trust adopted assorted measures to address this, culminating in annual trust-wide omission rates of only 14% and 13% in 2011 and 2012, respectively. SAM is a national medicines management strategy2, encouraging patients, if competent, to administer their own medicines, brought into hospital

or from SAM (pre-labelled) mafosfamide packs. SAM is an established practice at our 600-bed Trust. Aim: To assess the contribution of SAM to reducing omitted doses. A prospective audit was conducted by clinical pharmacists and technicians (using a previously piloted tool that identified SAM patients, the medicines omitted and the reasons for omission) on non-SAM patients on their respective wards, over two days. Following the return of completed audit tools, the authors personally collected data, at random, for the corresponding number of SAM patients on each ward. Data were recorded on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for statistical analysis. Ethics approval was not required. Audit standards were derived from our Trust SAM policy, and set to 100% for the following: a) SAM patients should be asked if they have taken their medicines; b) omitted doses should have reasons documented. Data were collected from 14 wards that had SAM patients, of the 21 wards at our Trust. The total sample size was 86 patients (43 each of SAM and non-SAM).