Qualitative interview study highlights leadership for enhancing medication management in primary and secondary care, indicating intrinsic motivation may alleviate barriers.
Objectives Investigate interprofessional medication safety risk management from the perspective of physicians in healthcare settings. Design Qualitative, semistructured interview study. Data analysed with an inductive content analysis. Setting Wellbeing Services County in Central Finland. Participants 17 physicians working in different healthcare settings or specialties. Results Physicians’ overall perception of interprofessional medication safety risk management was generally positive. They considered their own responsibility for medication safety as both comprehensive, encompassing the safety of the entire unit and limited, focused primarily on prescribing the correct medication. Organisational barriers to participating in medication safety promotion comprised insufficient healthcare resources and unclear distribution of tasks and responsibilities. Personal barriers included prioritisation of clinical work, considering medication safety as an administrative task and experiencing the process to be slow and complex. Strong leadership, increased visibility of medication safety, framing the topic positively, targeted education and fostering physicians’ intrinsic motivation were identified as means to increase physicians’ participation in medication safety risk management. Conclusions This study emphasises the importance of integrating physicians into interprofessional, systems-based medication safety risk management as a core element of high-quality care. Despite recognising their broad role, physicians face barriers such as organisational constraints and limited identification with medication safety advocacy. Addressing these challenges requires enhancing their understanding of the medication management and use process and fostering shared responsibility through time allocation and interprofessional leadership structures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saavalainen et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: