A cost-benefit analysis of hospital-wide medication reviews: a period prevalence study

Practice Guidelines for the Value Evaluation of Clinical Pharmacy Services (version 2)

Objective

To optimize the construction of pharmaceutical services in medical institutions, advance the development of clinical pharmacy as a discipline, enhance the level of clinical pharmacy services, systematically implement and evaluate clinical pharmacy practices, and improve patient therapeutic outcomes, we have developed the Practice Guidelines for the Value Evaluation of Clinical Pharmacy Services (Version 2).

Methods

This guideline was designed following the World Health Organization (WHO) Guideline Development Manual. The Delphi method was employed to identify clinical questions. A comprehensive systematic search was conducted to collect existing evidence on relevant issues, and the systematic reviews, evidence grading, and evidence summaries were subsequently compiled. The guideline employs the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) evidence level system from Australia and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system introduced by WHO in 2004 to classify the quality of evidence. Consensus on the recommendations and evidence levels was achieved through the Delphi method, resulting in the formation of the Practice Guidelines for the Value Evaluation of Clinical Pharmacy Services (Version 2).

Results

Through a questionnaire survey of over 100 experts and the Delphi method voting, 23 preliminary indicators for evaluating the value of clinical pharmacy services were identified. The content of these included indicators was searched according to the PICO principle, followed by systematic reviews, meta-analyses, network meta-analyses, and related original research. Each search strategy was reviewed and approved by the guidelines steering committee. Ultimately, three dimensions for evaluating the value of clinical pharmacy were identified, encompassing 15 indicators, resulting in 20 recommendations.

Conclusion

This guideline presents a set of metrics to assess the quality and effectiveness of clinical pharmacy services, which is crucial for enhancing and elevating clinical pharmacy services in healthcare institutions.

Systematic review registration

http://www.guidelines-registry.org/guide/28502a74-7038-439c-bdee-d355747e2a9d, identifier: PREPARE-2022CN756.

Clinical impact of an individualised clinical pharmacy programme into the memory care pathway of older people: an observational study

BACKGROUND

In older patients, medication exposure [i.e. polypharmacy, potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), medications with anticholinergic and/or sedative properties] is a modifiable risk factor associated with cognitive iatrogenic risk and dementia.

AIM

To assess the potential clinical impact of the implementation of an individualised clinical pharmacy programme at the initiation of the Memory care pathway in older patients with a cognitive complaint.

METHOD

This prospective observational study included older patients with high-risk of adverse drug event (HR) admitted in a French geriatric university hospital to explore the cognitive complaint or the cognitive disorder between January and November 2021. Drug-related problems (DRPs) were identified during a medication review performed in HR patients, and pharmaceutical interventions (PIs) notified in the patient's hospitalisation report were collected. The clinical impact of PIs was assessed by an expert panel (geriatricians and clinical pharmacists) using the Clinical, Economic, and Organisational (CLEO) tool.

RESULTS

Overall, 326 patients were eligible and 207 (63.5%) were considered as HR patients. Among HR patients, 88.9% (n = 184) were treated using at least 5 medications (polypharmacy), and 36.7% (n = 76) received at least one PIM with cognitive iatrogenic risk. During the medication review, 490 PIs were provided and their clinical impact was rated as minor for 57.3% (n = 281), moderate for 26.7% (n = 131), and major for 2.5% (n = 12).

CONCLUSION

The integration of clinical pharmacist secured the Memory care pathway of older patients with a cognitive complaint by identifying an important number of DRPs and PIMs with potential cognitive iatrogenic risk.

Developing Medication Reviews to Improve the Aruban Healthcare System: A Mixed-Methods Pilot Study

This study investigated whether and how medication reviews (MRs) conducted by pharmacists and general practitioners (GPs) with patient involvement can be performed on the island of Aruba (Dutch Caribbean). In this mixed-methods pilot study (both qualitative and quantitative), constructive and observational methodologies were combined. Healthcare providers' and patients' views on MRs and aspects of Aruban healthcare and culture relevant to MRs were examined. These insights were used to develop a protocol for conducting and implementing MRs in Aruba. Surveys were distributed and semi-structured interviews were held among Aruban community pharmacists and GPs, and a pilot program was created in which MRs were carried out with four Aruban patients and their GPs. According to the included healthcare providers, the main purpose of MRs is to optimize the patient experience and achieve concordance. Even though pharmacists and GPs consider their partnership equal, they have different views as to who should bear which responsibility in the MR process in matters regarding patient selection and follow-up. Common Aruban themes that were mentioned by the healthcare providers and deemed relevant for conducting MRs included behaviour/culture, healthcare, lifestyle, and therapy compliance. Anamnesis should be concise during the MR, and questions about medication storage, concerns, beliefs, and practical problems, as well as checks for limited health literacy, were considered important. In the pilot, at least three to, maximally, eight pharmacotherapy-related problems (PRPs) were detected per MR consultation, such as an incorrect dosage of acetylsalicylic acid, an inappropriate combination tablet for blood pressure regulation, and the absence of important laboratory values. All patients considered their consultation to be positive and of added value. In addition, it was observed that an MR can potentially generate cost savings. The information obtained from the healthcare providers and patients, together with the basic principles for MRs, as applied in the Netherlands, led to a definitive and promising MR format with practical recommendations for community pharmacists in Aruba: in comparison with the Dutch MR approach, GPs and pharmacists in Aruba could collaborate more on patient selection for MRs and their follow-up, because of their specific knowledge regarding the medications patients are taking chronically (pharmacists), and possible low levels of health literacy (GPs). Taking into account the Aruban culture, pharmacists could ask extra questions during MRs, referring to lifestyle (high prevalence of obesity), readability of medication labels (limited literacy), and herbal product use (Latin American culture). GPs and medical specialists sometimes experience miscommunication regarding the prescription of medication, which means that pharmacists must carefully take into account possible duplicate medications or interactions.

Do junior doctors make more prescribing errors than experienced doctors when prescribing electronically using a computerised physician order entry system combined with a clinical decision support system? A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

Prescribing errors can lead to inconvenience, morbidity and mortality. It is therefore crucial to educate doctors to prescribe safely, efficiently and effectively. To create an effective educational programme, it is essential to understand which errors are made and by whom. The aim of this study is to explore if the experience level of the doctor influences how many and which prescribing errors are made in a European academic teaching hospital, where a computerised physician order entry system (CPOE) with a clinical decision support system (CDSS) is exclusively used.

METHODS

Prescriptions for all inpatients in an academic teaching hospital were collected in June 2021. All prescriptions with an alert generated by the CDSS which could not be handled by a pharmacy technician according to local protocol were checked for errors. Identified errors were categorised by type and severity.

RESULTS

A total of 130 538 prescriptions were newly made or altered by doctors. Of these prescriptions, 1914 (1.5%) were retained for a check by the pharmacist. These contained 430 prescribing errors (0.3% of total prescriptions). Doctors not in specialty training and those in specialty training made more prescribing errors than consultants (0.5% and 0.5% vs 0.1%; p<0.001). Doctors in specialty training made relatively more drug-drug interaction errors than consultants (n=31 (16%) vs n=3 (3%), p<0.05). No significant difference was found regarding the severity of the errors.

CONCLUSIONS

Doctors not in specialty training and doctors in specialty training, who are the less experienced doctors, make more prescribing errors than consultants, even with the use of a CPOE combined with CDSS. The type of errors differ between doctors of different experience levels. This finding provides a solid basis for specific additional education to medical students, doctors not in specialty training and doctors in specialty training.

Discrepancies in patients' medication lists from pharmacies in Sweden: an interview study before the implementation of the Swedish National Medication List

BACKGROUND

Discrepancies in medication lists are common and can contribute to drug-related problems. This study was performed before the implementation of the National Medication List in Sweden, an intervention expected to improve the accuracy of medication lists.

AIM

The aim of the study was to examine the number and type of discrepancies in the medication list from pharmacies in Sweden. The secondary aim was to describe the information sources Swedish patients used as their medication lists and how confident they were with the information.

METHOD

Structured interviews were conducted with patients at 13 community pharmacies in Sweden during the period October 5, 2020, to April 16, 2021. The printed medication list was reviewed together with the patient to identify any discrepancies and missing information.

RESULTS

A total of 327 patients were included in the study (response rate 51%). The printed medication list from pharmacies was the most common information source for patients to know which medications to use. Two thirds (n  =  215) of the patients had at least one discrepancy among their prescriptions and 32% (n  =  106) were missing at least one prescription medication. Among all prescriptions (n  =  2567) 10% (n  =  264) were non-current prescriptions, 9% (n  =  238) were duplicates and 3% (n  =  88) had the wrong dose. The proportion of prescriptions with discrepancies differed between drug-groups.

CONCLUSION

The discrepancies described in this study can have serious consequences, and results provide a baseline for studies after the implementation of the National Medication List.