Towards interprofessional medication safety risk management: a qualitative interview study for physicians in primary and secondary care

Abstract

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.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY.

• The chosen qualitative interview method is well suited for exploring phenomena that lack extensive prior research. This approach enables a comprehensive understanding of physicians’ perspectives, particularly on the present sensitive research topic.

• The involvement of several independent researchers in the analysis enhanced the study credibility by minimising potential researcher bias.

• A key limitation is the purposive sampling and the inclusion of interviewees from a single organisation, which may limit the transferability of the results.

Introduction

Ensuring patient safety, defined as the prevention of patient harm during medical treatment, constitutes a central objective within health and social care services. Promoting patient safety requires collaboration between all health and social care providers, patients, their relatives and society.^{1 2} One of the key components of patient safety is medication safety.³ Medication safety refers to measures aimed at improving the safety of medication management and use (MMU) processes comprising all phases from prescribing to treatment monitoring. Medication safety deficiencies are global and entail significant costs for healthcare systems.⁴ Medication safety can be improved by multiple means, such as developing technology, unifying guidelines and increasing interprofessional collaboration.⁵,⁷ Indeed, interprofessional collaboration has been found to be one of the most important factors in improving medication safety.⁸,¹²

In interprofessional collaboration, healthcare workers from different professional backgrounds work together with patients, families, caregivers and communities towards the goal of achieving better healthcare outcomes.^{13 14} Although many countries have recognised the importance of medication safety to overall care quality, there remains a strong need for improving the practices of interprofessional collaboration.^{5 15} Research indicates that nurses and pharmacists often engage more actively in interprofessional medication safety risk management compared with physicians.¹² The reasons behind this have been suggested to relate to differences in role expectations and organisational culture.¹²

The participation of physicians in interprofessional medication safety risk management is essential, as they hold primary responsibility for medication therapy decisions.⁵¹⁶,¹⁸ With this responsibility comes a significant authority regarding tasks related to the patient’s MMU process. Despite this central position, it has been observed that physicians’ engagement with medication safety risk management in their organisations may sometimes be limited, which can hinder the successful implementation of the safety measures.⁷ Research indicates that some physicians may not view medication safety as integral to their professional duties and that there can be reservations about adopting new safety measures.^{9 12} Traditional hierarchies in social and healthcare can also discourage physicians from participating in interprofessional collaboration.^{19 20}

Understanding healthcare professionals’ engagement in care processes can be further enhanced through theories of professional identity and intergroup relations, such as the Social Identity Theory.²¹ According to this theory, identification with in-groups (eg, physicians) and out-groups (nurses, pharmacists) can influence how individuals perceive themselves and relate to others. Adopting the behaviour model of one’s own social group (in-group) can affect communication with people belonging to the out-group and thus the performance of the work community. Despite the importance of these issues, research investigating the underlying causes of limited physician participation remains scarce. Gaining a deeper understanding of the barriers is crucial for designing targeted interventions that support high-quality care through the comprehensive engagement of all key professional groups and their expertise. As health and social care systems face increasing resource constraints, emphasising medication safety risk management and fostering interprofessional collaboration models will become vital in advancing patient safety in the future.¹

The aim of this study was to investigate factors influencing physician participation in medication safety risk management. Specifically, the study seeks to understand physicians’ perceptions of their own role in developing medication safety, identify barriers to their active participation and explore potential strategies to promote their engagement in interprofessional practices.

Study context

The present study uses Finland as a case country of investigation. In Finland, social and health services are publicly organised and financed by the state.²² The private sector and occupational health services complement these services.²³ The responsibility for producing healthcare, social welfare and rescue services lies on 21 wellbeing services counties, the City of Helsinki and the HUS Group.²² The well-being services counties operate as independent organisations responsible for providing both primary and specialised healthcare within their respective geographical areas. These services include both outpatient care and inpatient hospital care.

According to Finnish legislation, a licensed physician is responsible for the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment and prescription of medication for a patient (Act on Healthcare Professionals 1994/559/4). This practice aligns with the standards in most other countries. In Finland, each healthcare operating unit is required to have a responsible physician who oversees and manages health and medical care (healthcare Act 1326/2010). Although physicians occupy the responsible role as mandated by legislation, nurses and pharmacists are closely involved in implementing medication process.

In Finland, every health and social care unit is required to develop a unit-based safe MMU protocol (Act on Supervision of Social and Health Care 741/2023). The protocol describes the MMU process of the unit, the division of responsibilities between different professionals and the identified risks and methods for managing them.²⁴ The development should be conducted in an interprofessional collaboration and the physician responsible for the unit must approve the final protocol.

Method

The study was conducted as a qualitative interview study. Data was collected with semistructured individual interviews of physicians from March to May 2024 in Wellbeing Services County of Central Finland. The interview guide was developed using previous research on interprofessional medication safety risk management^{16 25} and the expertise of the research team.

The inclusion criterion for participation was holding a medical licentiate degree and being currently employed. This was to ensure sufficient work experience, and hence the participant’s ability to reflect on the investigated phenomenon. Purposive sampling was used, but the sampling was targeted to comprehensively consider the various social and healthcare sectors as well as medical specialties. Participants were recruited by one of the researchers (AS) via an email including written information, a privacy statement and consent form. Following the email, the recipients were contacted by telephone or face-to-face as necessary. With those who expressed their interest in participating in the study, an interview was arranged.

One of the researchers (AS) conducted and audio-recorded the individual interviews either face-to-face or through the Microsoft Teams application. Another researcher (HS) took notes of interviews and transcribed them verbatim.

At the beginning of the interviews, the participants were shown a stimulus picture (online supplemental file 1) to ensure the common use of the terminology related to safe pharmacotherapy (eg, difference between drug safety and medication safety). The participants were then asked about their experiences with medication safety risk management and the interprofessional nature of these practices, their perspectives on less frequent participation of physicians in medication safety risk management tasks and their conceptions on unit-based safe MMU protocols as part of the work of a physician. The interview guide was piloted by three physicians. These interviews were included in the final study data as there was no need for any modifications to the interview guide based on the pilot. The consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research guidelines were applied in the study.²⁶

Patient and public involvement

This study did not include patient or public involvement in its planning, data collection or analysis.

Data analysis

The research material was analysed with inductive, data-driven content analysis²⁷ using Atlas.ti (V.25, ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development, Berlin, Germany) and Microsoft Excel (V.2505, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, USA). In the first analysis phase, the quotes were identified and coded in Atlas.ti. Similar codes were further used to form subcategories, main categories and themes in Microsoft Excel.

One researcher (HS) conducted the first phase of coding, which was verified by another researcher (AS). In the cases of discrepancies, the researchers performed a consensus discussion. The sub and main categories, as well as themes, were formed collaboratively between three researchers (AS, HS, ARH). The research group engaged in continuous discussion throughout the development of categories and themes, and the final analysis was approved by all members. Social Identity Theory was applied to interpret the findings, particularly the interview discourses related to professional identity of the participating physicians.²¹

Results

The average duration of interviews was 35 min, with a range of 24–49 min. Data saturation was observed at the 14th interview, after which three more interviews were conducted to ensure the saturation point was reached.

A total of 17 physicians participated in the study, with 65% being women (n=11) and 76% holding the title of senior physician (n=13). Participants’ characteristics are described in table 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of participants (n=17).

Characteristics	N (%)
Gender
Female	11(65)
Male	6(35)
Age (years)
41–50	8(47)
51–60	6(35)
>61	3(18)
Length of working career (years)
<15	1(6)
16–25	9(53)
26–35	6(35)
>36	1(6)
Work profile
Clinical	2(12)
Administrative	15(88)
Working sector
Primary care	9(35)
Secondary care	8(47)

A total of 226 codes were extracted from the data. The codes were further formed into subcategories (n=21), main categories (n=7) and themes (n=3). The formation of themes and main categories is illustrated in figure 1. An exemplary formation of the main and subcategories of each theme is described in online supplemental file 2.

Figure 1. Themes and main categories of the results.

Experiences of physicians with interprofessional medication safety risk management

Physicians generally reported positive experiences with interprofessional collaboration in managing medication safety risks and perceived such collaboration as mostly feasible. The interviewees emphasised that all team members should understand the fundamental concepts of interprofessional medication safety promotion and internalise safe MMU practices. According to physicians, their participation in interprofessional risk management depends on the extent to which involvement in the medication process is included in their work description.

…physicians spend very little of their working time on it [medication safety risk management], and physicians’ working time is filled with an awful lot of other things. When it comes to medication treatment, they probably participate in the proportion in which it is part of the overall work picture for them. Especially for surgeons, there is variation in this and by specialty, but for surgeons it is a very small part of that job description. In a way, those interests are then distributed around so many other things. (Interview 9)

The interviewed physicians emphasised that all professional groups play an important role in managing medication safety risks. While they viewed their own role as comprehensive and responsible, they also described it as simultaneously limited. All but one interviewee stated that physicians hold overall responsibility for patients’ medication treatment for the medication safety of the entire unit. For instance, several physicians expressed that they follow adverse event reports from their respective units. However, at the same time, almost all of them felt that their responsibility was limited to issuing the correct prescription; a perspective that was emphasised repeatedly during interviews. Nurses were seen as responsible for the practical implementation of pharmacotherapy (eg, medication administration), for working alongside physicians in patient background information (reasons for admission) and for monitoring treatment. On the contrary, the role of the pharmacists was perceived as more variable. Some interviewees highlighted their clinical role, while others emphasised their technical or logistical role. Regarding clinical tasks, pharmacists were seen as offering a valuable new perspective to the MMU process, reducing medication errors and effectively managing complex medication regimens.

According to the interviewees, interpersonal dynamics were perceived to significantly influence the ease of collaboration in medication safety risk management. One of the physicians pointed out that, during their own studies, interprofessional communication was not taught in undergraduate medical education and emphasised that this remains as an important area for development even today. Views on the effect of hierarchy on interprofessional collaboration were divided. Half of the interviewees perceived hierarchies as non-existent, while the corresponding half estimated that hierarchical problems at least occasionally affect collaboration. Some of the physicians experienced that the authority of physicians is feared, potentially hindering open communication of all relevant issues by other professionals.

The traditional management structure in healthcare, where different professional groups have their own managers, was seen as a challenge for interprofessional medication safety management. Additionally, managing physicians was considered particularly difficult due to their strong professional identity. Physicians may perceive advice from others as a threat to their autonomy or as ‘stepping on their toes’. Differences in educational background and knowledge bases among professional groups were also seen as potential barriers to feasible collaboration.

An important aspect that emerged during the interviews was the notion of physician infallibility. This self-perception was seen to begin forming already in basic medical education. The belief in physicians as infallible professionals was perceived to create uncertainty and performance pressure, making it difficult to acknowledge and address one’s own mistakes. These pressures were also reported to sometimes manifest as rude or dismissive communication, which can undermine collaboration in interprofessional medication safety risk management.

Factors contributing to physicians’ limited participation in medication safety initiatives

The interviewed physicians identified insufficient healthcare resources, such as lack of time, large workload and a disproportionate number of patients relative to staff, as the most significant organisational barrier to participating in medication safety work. Staff shortages were identified as a key reason why available resources are focused exclusively on direct patient care, leaving no time for medication safety risk management.

…at the moment, there is a shortage of nurses, there is a shortage of physicians, and we work in a small team, so maybe it (medication safety work) isn’t either the first or the main thing. Although on the other hand, it is a very important area. (Interview 6)

Another organisational challenge was the division of tasks and responsibilities. The interviewees pointed out that only physicians in managerial positions have time allocated for administrative tasks, which were seen to comprise activities in medication safety promotion. As a result, physicians primarily engaged in clinical work were perceived to be unable to participate in medication safety efforts due to the lack of dedicated time in their schedules.

Among the personal factors contributing to physicians’ limited participation, the most prominent was the perception that their primary responsibility lies in accurate prescribing. Many interviewees noted that tasks related to promoting medication safety are not included in their official job descriptions. Several physicians also admitted having an incomplete understanding of how medications are administered following their prescriptions. Some felt that nurses have a higher risk of adverse events at different phases of the MMU process compared with physicians, whose role is primarily prescriptive. Consequently, they believed that physicians do not need to focus as much on medication safety as do nurses.

Clinical patient care was consistently identified as their core responsibility, while other tasks were often viewed as personally less meaningful or rewarding. Although the importance of medication safety was recognised, physicians were generally unwilling to allocate time to it at the expense of their clinical duties.

…[Physicians] like to focus on patient care and clinical work, and then everything else is perceived as a bit of the same unnecessary background noise. Even though its importance is understood, but then were are not-so-ready to give working time to it. (Interview 2)

Motivation and competence also emerged as key personal factors in the interviews. Physicians perceived medication safety work as slow and exhaustingly complicated, which weakened their motivation to participate. The interviewees described physicians as a professional group that values fast-paced and straightforward work. Less than half of the physicians attributed low participation to a lack of competence, although they still felt that the basic medical education does not provide adequate skills for medication safety tasks.

…these are very long, long, long things, and then the fact that you might be able to commit people to them—so it can be a bit difficult. But perhaps physicians would prefer similar, faster, shorter, clearly focused targets—like, a clear goal we are aiming for and the steps to get there. That kind of straightforward, cut-and-dried approach might be more desirable. Physicians are good at making decisions—that’s what it [clinical work] is based on—and when decision-making is so long, you often end up feeling worn out by the inaction and the slowness of the process. (Interview 4)

Means to increase participation of physicians in medication safety work

Almost all the interviewed physicians emphasised the importance of leadership in improving physician participation. The general opinion was that the operational practices and organisational culture are shaped by management. Therefore, if leadership were to prioritise and invest in medication safety, it would likely lead to increased engagement among physicians.

Well, of course, the kind of attitude that is maintained has quite a big impact. I mean, if the issue [medication safety] is reminded and communicated and people feel it’s important—and if management also supports—then of course it has an effect: more attention is paid to it. But if the manager, for example, thinks it’s not that important and says so out loud, then of course that message gets across and the atmosphere follows. And that’s it—otherwise, the issue remains the responsibility of others. (Interview 11)

Physicians felt that increasing awareness and the visibility of medication safety were key factors in improving active participation. They expressed a desire for medication safety to be presented in a positive light. Many interviewees felt that focusing solely on adverse event reports tends to emphasise the negative aspects, which can be discouraging. However, some also stressed the importance of handling adverse events. Without bringing these issues to staff attention, and if everything appears to function flawlessly, it can be challenging to motivate physicians to engage in medication safety efforts.

Increasing resources was also seen to improve the participation of physicians. Particularly, increasing human resources was highlighted as a means to spare time from clinical duties, allowing more focus on medication safety tasks. Distributing medication safety responsibilities more evenly among physicians was also suggested. Additionally, simplifying patient information systems was seen as a way to increase both the time available for medication safety work and physicians’ interest in the topic.

Orientation and continuing education were also considered to influence increased physician involvement. It was deemed important to introduce new physicians to the unit’s medication safety practices and to emphasise their role in the interprofessional MMU process. In continuing education, especially internal training sessions were viewed as valuable opportunities to raise awareness and encourage participation in medication safety initiatives.

Several interviewees emphasised the need to spark intrinsic interest among physicians and to actively engage them in medication safety efforts. Physicians acknowledged that their professional group has a role to play in driving this engagement. A few noted that younger generations of physicians tend to be more focused on medication safety and more proactive in contributing to its advancement.

Yes, yes, there would definitely be a place for activation… a need for it. We have physicians as a professional group, and I think it’s just like that—for example, now that these unit-based safe MMU protocols are being developed, of course I was involved in it as a part of my own position. (Interview 3)

Discussion

The interviewed physicians considered interprofessional collaboration to be a fundamental component of patient care and a key factor in ensuring medication safety. These findings align with previous studies that have explored the advantages of interprofessional collaboration.^{19 20 28}

Despite the positive experiences reported by the interviewed physicians, they appeared to perceive medication safety risk management processes as external and themselves as almost autonomous actors. Physicians primarily viewed their roles in risk management as centred on prescribing medications and managing adverse event reports, with less emphasis on other stages of the process, such as the safety of administering or monitoring medication treatment. The results suggest that physicians may not have fully integrated their professional identity as advocates of medication safety but instead are exhibiting a strong social identification with clinical work. This observation is consistent with some previous studies^{12 29} and may explain the experienced contradiction by physicians in the present study; they acknowledge their overall legal responsibility for medication safety yet they tended to focus their role primarily on patient work and medication prescribing. These findings indicate that there might be a gap between the recognition of responsibility and its consistent application in practice, which may reflect a still developing awareness of the role of medication safety in supporting patient care. Nonetheless, there is an opportunity to address this by promoting physicians’ greater understanding of the entire interprofessional MMU process within their own units. Highlighting the value of their engagement in risk management decision making could help to reduce the described conflicts. Enhancing physicians’ insight into how their understanding of and actions in risk management influence the broader medication use process, as well as the work of other healthcare professionals, may support more cohesive and effective physician engagement in medication safety.

Based on the interviews and in line with Social Identity Theory,²¹ physicians tended to identify more closely with their own professional in-group, while perceiving other healthcare professionals, such as nurses and pharmacy professionals, as contributing to different aspects of the MMU process. Similar identification has been observed in previous studies.^{11 19 30 31} The interviews revealed that responsibilities associated with medication safety were predominantly perceived as administrative background functions. Consequently, these responsibilities were primarily seen to fall on managers and other professionals. The interviews highlighted that systems-based medication safety work has traditionally not been considered as a part of the physicians’ work profile, which may further complicate the physicians’ social identification as strong actors in medication safety risk management.¹² The interviews and previous research also indicate that hierarchical structures and a pronounced division of labour among healthcare professionals may present challenges for effective interprofessional teamwork.²⁰ In this study, physicians expressed differing views on the presence and influence of hierarchy on interprofessional cooperation. Such variation in perceptions is not uncommon, even among individuals working within the same professional community.^{32 33} In health and social care organisations, it remains imperative to address hierarchical structures and professional silos by actively promoting equitable interprofessional cooperation in risk management. Fostering cooperation among different professional groups should be embedded within the organisational framework at all levels. This can be supported through structures such as interprofessional medication safety working groups or other similar interprofessional forums. It is also important to ensure that these groups remain closely connected with daily clinical practice as such interconnection is likely to reduce hierarchical barriers and enhance overall safety outcomes.³³

Staff shortages and the growing patient load were identified as key organisational factors contributing to physicians’ low participation, leading to the perception that there is no time for activities beyond patient care. These results were somewhat anticipated, given that the Finnish healthcare system has been undergoing continuous changes for an extended period, with constrained resources. This has led to considerable challenges in staffing and work management, highlighting a similar situation in health services systems in many other western countries.³⁴,³⁶ The situation is indicative of the actual opportunities available to physicians for engaging in interprofessional medication safety risk management, as the hindering organisational factors may be largely beyond the control of individual physicians. In the present study, such factors constituted, for example, differentiated management across professional groups, which led to a fragmented view of the need to develop medication safety and undermine interprofessional cooperation. In future, it would be important for organisational and administrative efforts to focus on integrating medication safety more effectively into patient care, ensuring that it is not merely treated as an administrative responsibility. It is also imperative to strengthen the dialogue between the management of the different professional groups and to develop collaborative safety interventions. This would support the development of practices with an understanding of the entire MMU process, rather than engaging in sub-optimisation from the perspective of only one professional group (eg, introducing changes to one phase of the MMU process without considering their potential impact or new risks in subsequent stages).

Regarding personal factors, some physicians perceived their limited competence in medication safety as an obstacle to participating in related tasks. Alongside resource and time pressures, this factor may contribute to physicians focusing on tasks in which they already feel competent. This behaviour can be explained by the psychological phenomenon known as the mere exposure effect,³⁷ which suggests that repeated exposure to a task increases its pleasantness and the individuals’ willingness to engage in it. Social Identity Theory further supports this interpretation, suggesting that physicians’ strong identification with their professional in-group and clinical expertise may lead them to prioritise tasks that affirm this identity while placing less emphasis on those perceived as outside their core role.^{21 38} Consequently, physicians who feel less confident in their medication safety competencies may be more inclined to prioritise tasks where they perceive their expertise to be stronger. However, such actions can hinder continuous learning and prevent the development of medication safety risk management within the units, as facing uncertainty and identifying risks are crucial for promoting an open safety culture.³⁹

According to the interviewees, physicians’ participation in medication safety could be improved through targeted training and an active, systems-based management role. Training in patient and medication safety has been shown to significantly enhance such competences.^{40 41} It is also important to integrate interprofessional patient and medication safety education into undergraduate curricula across healthcare professionals. The WHO has long supported this approach through a recommendation on core contents of interprofessional patient safety education.⁴² Early exposure to interprofessional collaboration and a systems-based approach helps in building a strong foundation from the beginning of a healthcare professional’s career.²⁸⁴²,⁴⁴ Interprofessional education and collaborative forums can foster a shared identity centred on patient safety, thereby reducing identity-based barriers and promoting engagement in medication safety activities.^{21 38} They can also diminish identification with the professional in-group and encourage participation in tasks that might otherwise be considered peripheral to the core role. Additionally, continuing education provided by the work organisation is crucial, particularly for professionals whose undergraduate education did not include patient and medication safety.⁴⁵ Both undergraduate education and continuing professional development can enhance readiness to manage medication safety risks and promote a culture of safety.^{5 8 20 30 40 46} Moreover, managers have a central role in actively monitoring the level of competence and promoting medication safety in daily practice. Raising awareness promotes the participation and motivation of healthcare professionals in activities that enhance medication safety, thereby creating a work environment that supports inclusion and interprofessional collaboration.^{39 47}

Strengths, limitations and future research

The study demonstrates several strengths. Employing a qualitative interview approach enabled an indepth exploration of a topic with limited prior research, providing rich and contextually grounded insights. In addition, the credibility of the analysis was strengthened by the involvement of two independent researchers, which helped mitigate potential bias and ensure a more reliable interpretation of the data.

Given the purposive sampling within a single organisational setting and a limited sample size (n=17),⁴⁸ the findings should be generalised to other contexts with caution, as cultural factors, hierarchical structures, professional role distributions and variations in MMU practices across organisations may also influence their transferability. Nevertheless, the results indicate possible areas of development that require further investigation in other organisational contexts.

Most interviewed physicians held administrative positions and possessed extensive professional experience, which may have introduced some bias, particularly regarding leadership and managerial responsibilities. During the interviewees’ time in medical school, medication safety was a relatively new concept in Finland and was likely absent from their undergraduate curricula. However, administrative roles and extensive work experience can also strengthen the findings, as many had direct involvement in promoting medication safety and could provide informed insights on its challenges and development areas.

To enhance the robustness of future studies, it would be beneficial to incorporate observational data or include interprofessional perspective, thereby strengthening methodological and data triangulation. This approach would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomena under investigation. Future research should investigate the perspective of physicians who are primarily engaged in clinical work. In addition, it would be important to explore how management practices and organisational culture influence physicians’ participation in interprofessional medication safety promotion.

Conclusions

The present study highlights the need to enhance physicians’ understanding of interprofessional, systems-based medication safety risk management as an integrated part of high-quality care rather than viewing it solely as an administrative domain. Although physicians perceive their role as broad and important, their active engagement is hindered by organisational barriers, a strong social identification as primarily prescribers and a lack of identification as advocates for medication safety. To overcome these challenges, it is essential to strengthen physicians’ comprehension of the entire MMU process and to promote organisational recognition of medication safety as a shared, interprofessional responsibility. This includes allocating time for medication safety activities across all key professional groups, as well as establishing structures for interprofessional leadership in medication safety to support physicians’ engagement at all levels of their organisation.

Data availability statement

No data are available.