Background: Older persons with polypharmacy are at increased risk of harm from medications, and this issue is a global patient safety challenge. Harm may arise at all stages of medication use and may cause hospital admission, additional resource uti ‐lization and lower patient satisfaction. Older persons’ participation in their own care may increase patient safety. Their views on the evaluation of their medication treat ‐ment, and their own involvement in it, are crucial yet poorly understood.

Objectives: To identify opportunities to make the medication use process safer, we explored and described older persons’ experiences of evaluation of their medicationtreatment.

Design: Semi‐structured interviews were performed with 20 community‐dwelling older persons (age 75‐91 years) in Sweden. Data were analysed using inductive quali ‐tative content analysis.

Results: These older persons reported having a responsibility to engage in their med ‐ication evaluations, although some felt unable to do so or considered themselves un ‐concerned. Evaluation, in their experience, was facilitated by continuity of care and an invitation to participate. However, some older persons experienced not receivinga comprehensive medication evaluation.

Discussion and conclusion: Older persons want to be actively involved in their medi ‐cation evaluations, and this may represent an underutilized resource in the pursuit of patient safety. Their trust in physicians to undertake evaluations on a regular basis, although that does not necessarily occur, may cause harm. Patient safety could benefit from a co‐production approach to medication evaluations, with health‐care professionals explicitly sharing information with older persons and agreeing on re ‐sponsibilities related to on‐going medication treatment.

BACKGROUND: Older persons with polypharmacy are at increased risk of harm from medications. Therefore, it is important that physicians and nurses, together with the persons, evaluate medications to avoid hazardous polypharmacy. It remains unclear how healthcare professionals experience such evaluations. This study aimed to explore physicians' and nurses' experiences from evaluations of older persons' medications, and their related actions to manage concerns related to the evaluations.

METHOD: Individual interview data from 29 physicians and nurses were collected and analysed according to the critical incident technique.

RESULTS: The medication evaluation for older persons was influenced by the working conditions (e.g. healthcare professionals' clinical knowledge, experiences, and situational conditions) and working in partnership (e.g. cooperating around and with the older person). Actions taken to manage these evaluations were related to working with a plan (e.g. performing day-to-day work and planning for continued treatment) and collaborative problem-solving (e.g. finding a solution, involving the older person, and communicating with colleagues).

CONCLUSION: Working conditions and cooperation with colleagues, the older persons and their formal or informal caregivers, emerged as important factors related to the medication evaluation. By adjusting their performance to variations in these conditions, healthcare professionals contributed to the resilience of the healthcare system by its capacity to prevent, notice and mitigate medication problems. Based on these findings, we hypothesize that a joint plan for continued treatment could facilitate such resilience, if it articulates what to observe, when to act, who should act and what actions to take in case of deviations from what is expected.

BACKGROUND: Harm from medications is a major patient safety challenge among older persons. Adverse drug events tend to arise when prescribing or evaluating medications; therefore, interventions targeting these may promote patient safety. Guidelines highlight the value of a joint plan for continued treatment. If such a plan includes medications, a medication plan promoting patient safety is advised. There is growing evidence for the benefits of including patients and health care professionals in initiatives for improving health care products and services through co-design.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify participants' needs and requirements for a medication plan and explore their reasoning for different design choices.

METHODS: Using a case study design, we collected and analyzed qualitative and quantitative data and compared them side by side. We explored the needs and requirements for a medication plan expressed by 14 participants (older persons, nurses, and physicians) during a co-design initiative in a regional health system in Sweden. We performed a directed content analysis of qualitative data gathered from co-design sessions and interviews. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the quantitative data from survey answers.

RESULTS: A medication plan must provide an added everyday value related to safety, effort, and engagement. The physicians addressed challenges in setting aside time to apply a medication plan, whereas the older persons raised the potential for increased patient involvement. According to the participants, a medication plan needs to support communication, continuity, and interaction. The nurses specifically addressed the need for a plan that was easy to gain an overview of. Important function requirements included providing instant access, automation, and attention. Content requirements included providing detailed information about the medication treatment. Having the plan linked to the medication list and instantly obtainable information was also requested.

CONCLUSIONS: After discussing the needs and requirements for a medication plan, the participants agreed on an iteratively developed medication plan prototype linked to the medication list within the existing electronic health record. According to the participants, the medication plan prototype may promote patient safety and enable patient engagement, but concerns were raised about its use in daily clinical practice. The last step in the co-design framework is testing the intervention to explore how it works and connects with users. Therefore, testing the medication plan prototype in clinical practice would be a future step.

BACKGROUND: Harm from medications is a major patient safety challenge. Most adverse drug events arise when a medication is prescribed or reevaluated. Therefore, interventions in this area may improve patient safety. A medication plan, that is, a plan for continued treatment with medications, may support patient safety. Participation of patients in the design of health care products or services may improve patient safety. Co-design, as in the Double Diamond framework from the Design Council, England, can emphasize patient involvement. As the COVID-19 pandemic brought restrictions to face-to-face co-design approaches, interest in remote approaches increased. However, it is uncertain how best to perform remote co-design. Therefore, we explored a remote approach, which brought together older persons and health care professionals to co-design a medication plan prototype in the electronic health record, aiming to support patient safety.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe how remote co-design was applied to create a medication plan prototype and to explore participants' experiences with this approach.

METHODS: Within a case study design, we explored the experiences of a remote co-design initiative with 14 participants in a regional health care system in southern Sweden. Using descriptive statistics, quantitative data from questionnaires and web-based workshop timestamps were analyzed. A thematic analysis of the qualitative data gathered from workshops, interviews, and free-text responses to the survey questions was performed. Qualitative and quantitative data were compared side by side in the discussion.

RESULTS: The analysis of the questionnaires revealed that the participants rated the experiences of the co-design initiative very high. In addition, the balance between how much involved persons expressed their wishes and were listened to was considered very good. Marked timestamps from audio recordings showed that the workshops proceeded according to the plan. The thematic analysis yielded the following main themes: Everyone's perspective matters, Learning by sharing, and Mastering a digital space. The themes encompassed what helped to establish a permissive environment that allowed the participants to be involved and share viewpoints. There was a dynamic process of learning and understanding, realizing that despite different backgrounds, there was consensus about the requirements for a medication plan. The remote co-design process seemed appealing, by balancing opportunities and challenges and building an inviting, creative, and tolerant environment.

CONCLUSIONS: Participants experienced that the remote co-design initiative was inclusive of their perspectives and facilitated learning by sharing experiences. The Double Diamond framework was applicable in a digital context and supported the co-design process of the medication plan prototype. Remote co-design is still novel, but with attentiveness to power relations between all involved, this approach may increase opportunities for older persons and health care professionals to collaboratively design products or services that can improve patient safety.