High‑alert medications are a leading cause of preventable patient harm globally, and prior to this work Sri Lanka did not have an established high‑alert medications list or formal error prevention strategy for hospitals. This study aimed to fill that gap by developing context‑specific high‑alert medicine lists for both acute care and community settings and by pilot testing strategies to prevent medication errors in Sri Lanka.
The study employed a cross‑sectional mixed‑methods design. Initial quantitative data were collected using an interviewer‑administered questionnaire with n=315 respondents. Additional quantitative and qualitative methods were used during piloting and implementation exploration, as detailed below. All data collection procedures and participant recruitment are described in the source manuscript.
To derive the final lists, the investigators convened five stakeholder consultative meetings that included multidisciplinary clinicians; a total of n=62 participants attended these meetings to reach consensus on candidate high‑alert medicines. The consensus process combined the questionnaire findings with multidisciplinary input to identify medicines considered high‑risk within the Sri Lankan acute and community care contexts.
Following the consensus process, the study conducted further pilot testing and implementation exploration using an additional interviewer‑administered questionnaire (n=45) and three semi‑structured focus group discussions with a combined total of n=45 participants. These activities were used to pilot error prevention strategies and to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing the proposed measures in real‑world settings.
The consensus and piloting process produced two contexted lists: one for acute care settings and one for community settings. The study identified 100 medicines as high‑alert in acute care and 40 medicines as high‑alert in community settings. The complete lists are provided by the authors as S1 and S2 appendices accompanying the manuscript.
The pilot testing included evaluation of error prevention strategies and exploration of implementation barriers through focus group discussions and the follow‑up questionnaire. The source reports that these qualitative activities were used to identify practical challenges to adoption of the lists and prevention measures; specific barriers or strategy details are contained in the manuscript and supporting files. (If specific barriers or the exact prevention strategies were not described in the abstract, those details are available in the full text and appendices.)
Ethical approvals were obtained from multiple institutional review boards: the Ethics Review Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo (Reference number: 18‑008), the Ethical Review Committee of the National Hospital of Sri Lanka (Reference number: AAj/ETH/COM/2017), and the Ethical Review Committee of Colombo South Teaching Hospital (Reference number: PL/MO/2018‑2019). Approvals were renewed annually and covered the entire data collection period. The authors obtained permission to photograph hospital pharmacies and reported that no patient‑identifiable information is shown. Participation was voluntary and written informed consent was obtained from all participants.
All relevant data are stated to be included within the manuscript and its supporting information files; the anonymized survey dataset is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. The authors declared no competing interests and confirmed adherence to applicable research reporting guidelines.
This study produced the first formally developed high‑alert medicines lists for Sri Lanka and piloted associated error prevention strategies with multidisciplinary stakeholder engagement. By identifying 100 medicines for acute care and 40 medicines for community care, and by documenting pilot implementation work, the study offers practical resources (S1 and S2 appendices) and early implementation insights relevant to hospital and community pharmacy practice in Sri Lanka.
The manuscript and appendices serve as a basis for local policy development, clinician education, and targeted error prevention interventions. The anonymized data are available on request from the corresponding author for further evaluation or replication.
The abstract and article metadata report the main methods, participant numbers, consensus meetings, and ethical approvals. Specific granular details on individual error prevention interventions, exact barrier descriptions from focus groups, and itemized contents of the high‑alert lists are provided in the full manuscript and S1/S2 appendices; where those specifics are not fully reported in the abstract, readers should consult the supporting files for complete implementation details.