title: Receptionist input to quality and safety in repeat prescribing in UK general practice: ethnographic case study.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To describe, explore, and compare organisational routines for repeat prescribing in general practice to identify contributors and barriers to safety and quality.
  
  
  METHODS
  Ethnographic case study.
  
  
  METHODS
  Four urban UK general practices with diverse organisational characteristics using electronic patient records that supported semi-automation of repeat prescribing.
  
  
  METHODS
  395 hours of ethnographic observation of staff (25 doctors, 16 nurses, 4 healthcare assistants, 6 managers, and 56 reception or administrative staff), and 28 documents and other artefacts relating to repeat prescribing locally and nationally.
  
  
  METHODS
  Potential threats to patient safety and characteristics of good practice.
  
  
  METHODS
  Observation of how doctors, receptionists, and other administrative staff contributed to, and collaborated on, the repeat prescribing routine. Analysis included mapping prescribing routines, building a rich description of organisational practices, and drawing these together through narrative synthesis. This was informed by a sociological model of how organisational routines shape and are shaped by information and communications technologies. Results Repeat prescribing was a complex, technology-supported social practice requiring collaboration between clinical and administrative staff, with important implications for patient safety. More than half of requests for repeat prescriptions were classed as "exceptions" by receptionists (most commonly because the drug, dose, or timing differed from what was on the electronic repeat list). They managed these exceptions by making situated judgments that enabled them (sometimes but not always) to bridge the gap between the idealised assumptions about tasks, roles, and interactions that were built into the electronic patient record and formal protocols, and the actual repeat prescribing routine as it played out in practice. This work was creative and demanded both explicit and tacit knowledge. Clinicians were often unaware of this input and it did not feature in policy documents or previous research. Yet it was sometimes critical to getting the job done and contributed in subtle ways to safeguarding patients. Conclusion Receptionists and administrative staff make important "hidden" contributions to quality and safety in repeat prescribing in general practice, regarding themselves accountable to patients for these contributions. Studying technology-supported work routines that seem mundane, standardised, and automated, but which in reality require a high degree of local tailoring and judgment from frontline staff, opens up a new agenda for the study of patient safety.
authors: Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London E1 2AT, UK. d.swinglehurst@qmul.ac.uk
authors: Deborah
authors: D
authors: Swinglehurst
authors: Trisha
authors: T
authors: Greenhalgh
authors: Jill
authors: J
authors: Russell
authors: Michelle
authors: M
authors: Myall
mesh_terms: D011307:Drug Prescriptions; D055695:Electronic Prescribing; D058006:General Practice; D006801:Humans; D008496:Medical Receptionists; D016347:Medical Records Systems, Computerized; D008508:Medication Errors / Q000517:prevention & control*; D015279:Organizational Culture; D006113:United Kingdom