Pharmacist prescribing within a UK NHS hospital trust: nature and extent of prescribing, and prevalence of errors

A qualitative, theory-based exploration of facilitators and barriers for implementation of pharmacist prescribing in chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

While there is an accumulation of evidence that pharmacist prescribing is safe and effective, there is a lack of research on processes of implementation into practice, particularly for patients with complex clinical conditions such as chronic kidney disease (CKD).

AIM

The aim was to explore the facilitators and barriers to the implementation of pharmacist prescribing for patients with CKD in the United Kingdom (UK).

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with UK Renal Pharmacy Group members who were independent prescribers. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) underpinned the interview schedule. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and independently coded by two researchers. A thematic approach was used for analysis, with data generation continuing until saturation of themes. Ethical approval was granted.

RESULTS

Data saturation was achieved following 14 interviews. Most interviewees were female (n = 11), all had secondary care as their main practice setting, and were highly experienced prescribers with 8 having 11 or more years of prescribing practice. Interviewees were positive regarding the development of their prescribing practice. Facilitators and barriers emerged across all 5 of the CFIR domains. Key facilitators were aspects of inner setting (e.g., organisational support and communication) while key barriers were also related to inner setting, specifically the need for adequate structural and financial resources.

CONCLUSION

This theory-based study has illuminated the facilitators and barriers for the implementation of pharmacist prescribing in CKD. There is a need to consider the resources required for implementation of prescribing practice at an early stage of planning and development.

Implementing an innovative, patient-centered approach to day case arthroplasty: improving patient outcomes through remote preoperative pharmacist consultations

OBJECTIVE

Elective surgery suffered significant loss of capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic. To address this, hip and knee arthroplasties are being conducted as day case procedures. Pre-admission pharmacist consultations were introduced (the intervention) for these patients. This consultation aimed to address perioperative medicines issues, promote patient empowerment, improve prescribing quality and contribute to reduction in length of stay (LoS).

METHODS

All patients listed for a total/unicompartmental knee replacement (TKR/UKR) or total hip replacement (THR) at an ambulatory care hospital were identified by a pharmacist prescriber 1-2 weeks before the operation. Pharmacist consultations were conducted remotely with discharge prescriptions written electronically and dispensed before admission. Prescribing data were collected for both pre-intervention (n=80) and post-intervention (n=129) groups along with all interventions undertaken during consultations. Staff opinion was sought via online questionnaire and patient opinion was gathered via post-discharge telephone calls.

RESULTS

A total of 115 interventions took place during 129 patient consultations and >75% of interventions were of a significance expected to improve patient care. Prescribing standards were improved in the intervention group compared with patients whose arthroplasty was before the introduction of this service. The pharmacy service would have produced a different prescription in 38.8% of the pre-intervention group. Staff and patient feedback was extremely positive and all patients with previous surgical experience in the health board reported an improved experience. There was a statistically significant reduction in post-discharge healthcare encounters (such as general practitioner (GP) visits) in the intervention group.

CONCLUSION

This novel remote preoperative pharmacist consultation improved prescribing standards, enhanced the patient's surgical experience and reduced the burden on post-discharge healthcare systems.

Comparison of the scope of practice of physician associates with that of healthcare professions with prescribing responsibility from point of registration

Physician associates (PAs) have been practising in the UK since the mid-2000s and are due to be regulated by the General Medical Council (GMC) after summer 2024. Presently, PAs are not able to prescribe prescription-only medication (POM), but this is anticipated to change following GMC regulation. This research compared the scope of practice (SoP) of PAs with other healthcare professionals who have some level of prescribing authority from the point of registration, to establish the need for PAs to prescribe POM and to explore which of the prescribing authority options would fit the PA role. The comparison demonstrates that PA SoP would suggest the need to prescribe POM, and that any prescribing authority should not be limited to a set clinical speciality or patient population. Additional research is needed to explore PA clinical practice further and identify the range of POM for which PAs need prescribing authority.

Overcoming Barriers in Nurse-Pharmacist Collaborations on Wards - Qualitative Expert Interviews with Nurses and Pharmacists

Purpose

Interprofessional collaboration in healthcare is an essential element in promoting patient safety. However, little research is available on the collaboration between nurses and pharmacists. To optimize processes, mutual understanding is needed, which can be gained by examining the perspectives of those collaborating professional groups. We aimed to identify barriers to the interprofessional collaboration of nurses and pharmacists as well as preconditions and solution strategies to devise approaches for optimizing teamwork in inpatient settings.

Methods

We recruited pairs of collaborating nurses and pharmacists from different hospitals in German-speaking countries and conducted qualitative expert interviews by phone with each of them individually. Transcribed interviews were assessed using qualitative content analysis.

Results

We conducted 12 interviews each with the collaborating nurses and pharmacists. The most frequently mentioned barriers to optimal collaboration were "skepticism due to perception as controller" (reported mainly by pharmacists), "organizational implementation", and "limited (possibilities of) presence" (reported by both professional groups). A solution strategy proposed to overcome such barriers was "explaining added value". This added value was found in "clinical-pharmaceutical activities as complement by additional perspective" and "reducing workload in tasks distant from the patient".

Conclusion

Nurses, pharmacists and hospital management should recognize the added value of intensifying their collaboration regarding patient-related services. A combination of logistical and clinical-pharmaceutical activities should be established at the level of drug application since interviewees endorsed collaboration. A stepwise process must be anticipated to address existing barriers, including some redefinition of professional roles.

The role of pharmacist in guiding the pharmacy clients towards pharmaceutical preparations use

Objectives

Pharmacist-client communication is one of the most significant relationships in the healthcare delivery system. Our study aims to assess the active role of the pharmacist in educating and guiding pharmacy clients who are receiving over-the-counter and/or pharmaceutical preparations properly and safely.

Methods

This study follows the descriptive and analytical approach by adapting the questionnaire instrument; the questionnaire was distributed through the Internet and the online survey using Google Forms was based on a quantitative measurement to estimate the independent and the dependent variables.

Key findings

The obtained data confirmed that there are statistically significant effects related to the pharmacist interaction skills (pharmacist’s trust, integrity, responsiveness and empathy) on guiding the consumers in taking medicines and pharmaceutical preparations effectively and safely.

Conclusions

The pharmacist’s role as a medications expert and member of multidisciplinary healthcare professional team must work in tandem with other healthcare professionals to guard the client’s safety and achieve good therapeutic outcomes.

Exploring the barriers and facilitators to non-medical prescribing experienced by pharmacists and physiotherapists, using focus groups

BACKGROUND

Non-medical prescribing (NMP) was introduced into the United Kingdom to enhance patient care and improve access to medicines. Early research indicated that not all non-medical prescribers utilised their qualification. A systematic review described 15 factors influencing NMP implementation. Findings from a recent linked Delphi study with independent physiotherapist and pharmacist prescribers achieved consensus for 1 barrier and 28 facilitators. However, item ranking differed for pharmacist and physiotherapist groups, suggesting facilitators and barriers to NMP differ depending on profession. The aim of this study was to further explore the lived experiences of NMP by pharmacists and physiotherapists.

METHOD

Study design and analytical approach were guided by Interpretative Phenomenology Analysis principles. Focus groups (November and December 2020) used the 'Zoom®' virtual platform with pharmacist and physiotherapist prescribers. Each focus group followed a topic guide, developed a priori based on the Delphi study results, and was audio recorded digitally. Transcripts underwent thematic analysis and data were visualised using a concept map and sunburst graph, and a table of illustrative quotes produced. Research trustworthiness was enhanced through critical discussion of the topic guide and study findings by the research group and by author reflexivity. The study is reported in line with COREQ guidelines.

RESULTS

Participants comprised three physiotherapists and seven pharmacists. Five themes were identified. The most frequently mentioned theme was 'Staff', and the subtheme 'Clinical team', describing the working relationship between participants and team members. The other themes were 'Self', 'Governance', 'Practical aspects' and 'Patient care'. Important inter-dependencies were described between themes and subthemes, for example between 'Governance' and 'Quality and Safety'. Differences were highlighted between the professions, some relating to the way each profession practises (for example decision making), others to the way the prescribing role had been established (for example administration support).

CONCLUSIONS

The key finding of collaborative working with the clinical team emphasises its impact on successful implementation of NMP. Themes may be inter-dependent, and inter-profession differences were identified. Specifically designed prescribing roles were beneficial for participants. For full NMP benefits to be realised all aspects of such roles must be fully scoped, before recruiting or training non-medical prescribers.

A qualitative exploration of the enablers and barriers to the provision of outpatient clinics by hospital pharmacists

BACKGROUND

With increasing demands on the National Health Service (NHS), Scottish Government-led pharmacy strategy has prioritised the development and expansion of outpatient services. Pharmacist-led outpatient clinics have been shown to reduce hospital admissions and improve patient outcomes. However, expanding these contemporary models of care has proved challenging, and there are few qualitative data about the factors affecting the provision of these.

AIM

This study aimed to explore the enablers and barriers to hospital pharmacists providing outpatient clinics within the largest health authority in Scotland, NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde (NHSGGC).

METHOD

Between August and October 2020, one-to-one semi-structured interviews were conducted virtually using the videoconferencing platform Microsoft Teams^®, with NHSGGC hospital pharmacists who did or did not provide clinics. Audio- and video-recordings of the interviews were transcribed verbatim and underwent thematic analysis.

RESULTS

16 hospital pharmacists were interviewed; 50% were clinic providers and 50% were not. Analysis generated seven themes: clinical or service need, individual factors, clinic structure and processes, additional clinical skills and training, competing priorities, macro-level pharmacy working, and external stakeholder relationships. Many of these were interdependent and had the potential to be an enabler or a barrier to clinic provision, depending on the context or individual.

CONCLUSION

The enablers and barriers to hospital pharmacists providing outpatient clinics are multifaceted, incorporating individual, systematic and professional factors. The implementation of new national professional curricula may help address many of these factors, however prospective research needs to accompany this vision.

Identifying New Zealand Public Preferences for Pharmacist Prescribers in Primary Care: A Discrete Choice Experiment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Given increasing patient populations, general practitioner workforce constraints and the growing demand for health services in New Zealand (NZ), the development and provision of pharmacist prescribing services could be used to improve people's access to medicines. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was utilised to determine NZ public preferences for pharmacist prescribing services in primary care in NZ.

METHODS

A D-efficient DCE design generated 20 choice questions in four blocks of five questions with three labelled alternatives per choice question. The online DCE used a NZ general public online research panel administered by an external organisation (SurveyEngine). The DCE included six attributes with two attributes each with two levels (location of consultation and consultation type), three levels (type of service and operating hours) and four levels (waiting time and cost).

RESULTS

Nine hundred and twenty-four respondents completed the survey with 4620 observations available for analyses. Respondents preferred pharmacist prescribing services with the following characteristics: optimisation of medicines and changes to only current medicine service types (relative to repeat prescribing); lower consultation costs, shorter waiting times, longer operating hours and consultation by appointment (relative to walk-in and wait clinic).

CONCLUSIONS

Prescribing policy could incorporate these public preferences to help develop accessible and effective primary care prescribing services utilising the skills of pharmacist prescribers to improve and reduce inequities in access to medicines in NZ. These results suggest the NZ public see pharmacists as part of the primary care prescribing team and are willing to utilise them if these services are implemented.

Community pharmacist prescribing of antimicrobials: A systematic review from an antimicrobial stewardship perspective

Background:

Pharmacist prescribing authority is expanding, while antimicrobial resistance is an increasing global concern. We sought to synthesize the evidence for antimicrobial prescribing by community pharmacists to identify opportunities to advance antimicrobial stewardship in this setting.

Methods:

We conducted a systematic review to characterize the existing literature on community pharmacist prescribing of systemic antimicrobials. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts for English-language articles published between 1999 and June 20, 2019, as well as hand-searched reference lists of included articles and incorporated expert suggestions.

Results:

Of 3793 articles identified, 14 met inclusion criteria. Pharmacists are most often prescribing for uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI), acute pharyngitis and cold sores using independent and supplementary prescribing models. This was associated with high rates of clinical improvement (4 studies), low rates of retreatment and adverse effects (3 studies) and decreased health care utilization (7 studies). Patients were highly satisfied (8 studies) and accessed care sooner or more easily (7 studies). Seven studies incorporated antimicrobial stewardship into study design, and there was overlap between study outcomes and those relevant to outpatient antimicrobial stewardship. Pharmacist intervention reduced unnecessary prescribing for acute pharyngitis (2 studies) and increased the appropriateness of prescribing for UTI (3 studies).

Conclusion:

There is growing evidence to support the role of community pharmacists in antimicrobial prescribing. Future research should explore additional opportunities for pharmacist antimicrobial prescribing and ways to further integrate advanced antimicrobial stewardship strategies in the community setting. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2021;154:xx-xx.

A Rapid Review of Prescribing Education Interventions

INTRODUCTION

Many studies conducted on the causes and nature of prescribing errors have highlighted the inadequacy of teaching and training of prescribers. Subsequently, a rapid review was undertaken to update on the nature and effectiveness of educational interventions aimed at improving the prescribing skills and competencies.

METHODS

Twenty-two studies taking place between 2009 and 2019 were identified across nine databases.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This review reinforced the importance of the WHO Guide to Good Prescribing to prescribing curriculum design as well as the effectiveness of small group teaching. However, it also highlighted the lack of innovation in prescribing education and lack of longitudinal follow-up regarding the effectiveness of prescribing education interventions.

Pharmacy and medical students' competence and confidence with prescribing: A cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Previous research has shown that prescribing competence is weakly correlated with prescribing confidence. This questions whether undergraduate programs adequately prepare students and junior practitioners for safe and rational prescribing. The goal of this project was to investigate whether there are differences in prescribing competence and confidence between fourth year pharmacy and medical students at the University of Alberta.

METHODS

A cross-sectional design measured prescribing competence using five case scenarios and prescribing confidence with a survey. All fourth-year pharmacy and medical students at the University of Alberta were eligible to participate. Answers to the cases were graded based on therapeutic appropriateness and inclusion of all legal requirements. The confidence survey assessed self-rated confidence of both assessment and prescribing skills. Chi-square tests were used to compare frequencies of prescribing errors and self-rated confidence. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to explore the correlation between prescribing competence and confidence for both cohorts independently.

RESULTS

Thirty-one pharmacy students and 16 medical students (response rate 24% and 10%, respectively) completed the assessment between December 2018 and March 2019. Pharmacy students had significantly more appropriate prescriptions and fewer inappropriate prescriptions than medical students. Both rated themselves as confident or very confident with prescribing, however neither group consistently included all the legal requirements of a prescription. There were no significant correlations between competence and confidence.

CONCLUSIONS

There are differences in prescribing competence and confidence between pharmacy and medical students. This assessment identified deficits in prescribing skills that could be targeted by future educational initiatives.

Health-related stakeholders' perceptions of clinical pharmacy services in Qatar

Background In Qatar, the National Vision 2030 and the National Health Strategy 2018–2022 articulate the need to improve healthcare delivery by better utilisation of the skilled workforce. In this regard, pharmacy practice is rapidly advancing and several extended pharmacy services are now available in institutionalised settings. Objective This study aimed to determine health-related stakeholders’ perceptions of current clinical pharmacy services in Qatar, and the potential development and implementation of further patient-centred roles. Setting All major organisations and institutions relating to the practice, education, regulation, and governance of pharmacy in Qatar. Method Qualitative, face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals in key strategic positions of policy development and influence (i.e. health-related academic leaders, healthcare policy developers, directors of medicine/pharmacy/nursing, and patient safety leaders). Participants were recruited via a combination of purposeful and snowball sampling, until the point of data saturation was reached. The interview guide was grounded in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains of innovation characteristics, outer and inner setting, characteristics of individuals, and implementation process. The interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed and independently analysed by two researchers using the Framework approach. Main outcome measure Perceptions of stakeholders regarding current and potential for future clinical pharmacy services in Qatar. Results Thirty-seven interviews were conducted with stakeholders of policy influence in healthcare. The interviewees reported a variety of clinical pharmacy services available in Qatar, which they perceived as positively impacting patient care outcomes, pharmacists’ professional autonomy, and the healthcare system in general (innovation characteristics). However, they perceived that these services were mainly performed in hospitals and less in community pharmacy setting (inner setting) and were undervalued by patients and the public (outer setting). Expansion of pharmacists’ clinical activities was supported, with recognition of facilitators such as the skillset and training of pharmacists, potential time release due to automation and well-considered implementation processes (characteristics of individuals, inner setting, process). Conclusion Health-related stakeholders in Qatar have positive perceptions of current clinical pharmacy services and support the expansion of pharmacist’s roles. However, service development needs to consider the issues of patient and public awareness and initially target institutionalised healthcare settings.

Competence and confidence with prescribing in pharmacy and medicine: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Prescribing is a growing scope of practice for pharmacists. The objective of this scoping review is to explore themes within the literature related to prescribing competence and confidence in the disciplines of pharmacy and medicine.

METHODS

Online databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and Global Health were used to identify articles from inception to October 2018. Articles describing either the competence or confidence of physician, pharmacist or student prescribing, including inappropriate prescribing and prescribing errors were included.

KEY FINDINGS

After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 33 eligible articles remained. Many studies demonstrate that medical students and junior doctors are not competent in prescribing when they enter practice, and their perceived confidence is often higher than their assessed competence. There were fewer studies about pharmacist competence and confidence with prescribing; however, they described pharmacists that felt competent to prescribe but lacked confidence. Themes from the review included self-awareness, lack of education and educational improvements, prescribing errors and resources, prescribing culture and barriers to prescribing, gender differences and benefits to prescribing.

CONCLUSIONS

There is little consensus from the outcomes of these studies related to prescribing competence or confidence. While some reflect positively on prescribing competence and confidence, others show major deficits in competence and lack of confidence. Further research needs to be done to evaluate pharmacist competence and confidence with respect to prescribing.

The description and definition of Emergency Department Pharmacist Practitioners in the United Kingdom (the ENDPAPER study)

Background Due to a shortage of emergency department doctors and nurses, hospitals have started to employ pharmacists who have additional clinical skills, known as Emergency Department Pharmacist Practitioners, to help deliver services. Objective To describe, compare and define the Emergency Department Pharmacist Practitioner role. Setting UK emergency departments. Method Using a purpose developed questionnaire hosted on a tablet computer, Emergency Department Pharmacist Practitioners were asked to report their contribution to patient care and the wider emergency department over 10 work days. Main outcome measure Emergency Department Pharmacist Practitioners’ work. Results Twenty Emergency Department Pharmacist Practitioners from 15 UK hospitals were recruited. Of 682 patients cared for, 4.8% (n=33) were of blue triage category (least urgent) and 4.1% (n=28) red (immediate need). Specific activities to inform patient diagnosis included clinical examinations (264/682 patients, 38.7%) and the review of investigation/test/procedure results (270, 39.6%). For treatment, EDPPs prescribed a total of 603 medicines (for administration in the ED) to 266 patients (39.0%) and performed procedures for 63 (9.2%). Eleven of the practitioners also took on the role of designated care provider (i.e. the healthcare professional with overall clinical responsibility) for at least some of their patients. From application of the care typology, all 20 practitioners carried out both ‘traditional’ and ‘practitioner’ activity and 9/20 of them sometimes provided more ‘practitioner’ than ‘traditional’ care to individual patients. Seven key role attributes were identified including how these pharmacists support patients with medical complaints and injuries of any severity and at any stage of their visit. Conclusion Emergency Department Pharmacist Practitioners combine traditional clinical pharmacy activities with more hands-on medical practise including being designated care provider. The role is versatile in that care and support provided to patients and the wider emergency department professional team is varied and therefore somewhat adaptable to situations which present.

Pharmacist prescribing in critical care: an evaluation of the introduction of pharmacist prescribing in a single large UK teaching hospital

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the introduction of pharmacist independent prescribing activity across three general critical care units within a single large UK teaching hospital. To identify the prescribing demographics including total of all prescriptions, number prescribed by pharmacists, reason for pharmacist prescription, range of medications prescribed, pharmacist prescribing error rate and the extent of pharmacist second 'clinical check'.

METHODS

Retrospective evaluation of e-prescribing across all general critical care units of a single large UK teaching hospital. All prescribing data were downloaded over a 1-month period (May to June 2016) with analysis of pharmacist prescribing activity including rate, indication, therapeutic class and error rate.

RESULTS

In total, 5374 medicines were prescribed in 193 patients during the evaluated period. Prescribing pharmacists were available on the units on 60.4% (58/96) of days, during their working hours and accounted for 576/5374 (10.7%) of medicines prescribed in 65.2% (126/193) of patients. The majority (342/576) of pharmacist prescriptions were for new medicines. Infections, central nervous system, and nutrition/blood were the top three British National Formulary (BNF) therapeutic categories, accounting for 63.4% (349/576) of all pharmacist prescriptions. The critical care pharmacist prescribing error rate was 0.18% (1/550).

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacist independent prescribers demonstrated a high degree and wide-ranging scope of prescribing activity in general critical care patients. Pharmacists contributed a significant proportion of total prescribing, despite less than full service coverage. Prescribing activity was also safe with a very low error rate recorded.

Reducing medication errors in critical care patients: pharmacist key resources and relationship with medicines optimisation

BACKGROUND

Medication errors are the most common type of medical errors critical care patients experience. Critical care units utilise a variety of resources to reduce medication errors; it is unknown which resources or combinations thereof are most effective in improving medication safety.

OBJECTIVES

To obtain UK critical care pharmacist group consensus on the most important interventions/resources that reduce medication errors. To then classify units that participated in the PROTECTED UK study to investigate if there were significant differences in the reported pharmacist prescription intervention type, clinical impact and rates according to unit resource classification.

METHODS

An e-Delphi process (three rounds) obtained pharmacist consensus on which interventions/resources were most important in the reduction of medication errors in critical care patients. The 21 units involved in the PROTECTED UK study (multicentre study of UK critical care pharmacist medicines interventions), were categorised as high-, medium- and low-resource units based on routine delivery of the final Top 5 interventions/ resources. High and low units were compared according to type, clinical impact and rate of medication interventions reported during the PROTECTED UK study.

KEY FINDINGS

Consensus on the Top 5 combined medication error reduction resources was established: advanced-level clinical pharmacist embedded in critical care being ranked most important. Pharmacists working on units with high resources made significantly more clinically significant medicines optimisations compared to those on low-resourced units (OR 3.09; P = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

Critical care pharmacist group consensus on the most important medication error reduction resources was established. Pharmacists working on high-resourced units made more clinically significant medicines optimisations.

Economic value of pharmacy-led medicines reconciliation at admission to hospital: an observational, UK-based study

OBJECTIVE

To describe the cost-benefits of pharmacy-led medicines reconciliation (MR) on admission by applying a theoretical model (University of Sheffield School of Health and Related Research-SCHARR model) to real-world data.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, single-centre study. Setting 1000-bedded teaching hospital in London, UK. Clinical pharmacy contributions related to unintended medication discrepancies (averted preventable adverse drug events, pADEs), documented by pharmacy staff on prearranged days during 2012, were assessed for clinical significance by a panel of senior clinical pharmacists using the SCHARR model. Costs avoided were allocated according to the SCHARR model. Pharmacy staff carrying out admission MR were timed. Net cost avoidance was calculated by subtracting cost of time taken to carry out MR from the costs avoided by averting pADEs. Sensitivity analyses were carried out.

RESULTS

118 pADEs averted as a result of MR were recorded over the 6 reporting days. 116 were rated for clinical significance. Gross costs avoided were £36 135-£75 249 (€44 446-€92 556). The admission MR process was timed for 48 patients. The mean time to complete MR for one patient was 14 min (range 1-40 min). The cost of carrying out one MR, based on the cost of employing a first-level post-foundation clinical pharmacist was £7.56 (€9.30). The net benefit of one MR was £34-£80 (€42-€98). The benefit:cost ratio was 5.53:1-11.51:1.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacy-led MR on admission has significant economic, as well as clinical benefits. Further work is required for full economic evaluations of MR.

The incidence and severity of errors in pharmacist-written discharge medication orders

Background Errors in discharge prescriptions are problematic. When hospital pharmacists write discharge prescriptions improvements are seen in the quality and efficiency of discharge. There is limited information on the incidence of errors in pharmacists’ medication orders. Objective To investigate the extent and clinical significance of errors in pharmacist-written discharge medication orders. Setting 1000-bed teaching hospital in London, UK. Method Pharmacists in this London hospital routinely write discharge medication orders as part of the clinical pharmacy service. Convenient days, based on researcher availability, between October 2013 and January 2014 were selected. Pre-registration pharmacists reviewed all discharge medication orders written by pharmacists on these days and identified discrepancies between the medication history, inpatient chart, patient records and discharge summary. A senior clinical pharmacist confirmed the presence of an error. Each error was assigned a potential clinical significance rating (based on the NCCMERP scale) by a physician and an independent senior clinical pharmacist, working separately. Main outcome measure Incidence of errors in pharmacist-written discharge medication orders. Results 509 prescriptions, written by 51 pharmacists, containing 4258 discharge medication orders were assessed (8.4 orders per prescription). Ten prescriptions (2%), contained a total of ten erroneous orders (order error rate—0.2%). The pharmacist considered that one error had the potential to cause temporary harm (0.02% of all orders). The physician did not rate any of the errors with the potential to cause harm. Conclusion The incidence of errors in pharmacists’ discharge medication orders was low. The quality, safety and policy implications of pharmacists routinely writing discharge medication orders should be further explored.

Future perspectives on nonmedical prescribing

Many countries have implemented nonmedical prescribing (NMP) and many others are scoping prescribing practices with a view to developing NMP. This paper provides a future perspective on NMP in light of findings of an umbrella review of aspects of NMP. This is followed by coverage of the Scottish Government strategy of pharmacist prescribing and finally, consideration of two key challenges. The review identified seven systematic reviews of influences on prescribing decision-making, processes of prescribing, and barriers and facilitators to implementation. Decision making was reported as complex with many, and often conflicting, influences. Facilitators of NMP included perceived improved patient care and professional autonomy, while barriers included lack of defined roles and resource pressures. Three systematic reviews explored patient outcomes that were noted to be equivalent or better to physician prescribing. In particular, a Cochrane review of 46 studies of clinical, patient-reported, and resource-use outcomes of NMP compared with medical prescribing showed positive intervention-group effects. Despite positive findings, authors highlighted high bias, poor definition and description of 'prescribing' and the 'prescribing process' and difficulty in separating NMP effects from the contributions of other healthcare team members. While evidence of benefit and safety is essential to inform practice, for NMP to be implemented and sustained on a large scale, there needs to be clear commitment at the highest level. The approach being taken by the Scottish Government to pharmacist prescribing implementation may inform developments in other professions and countries. The vision is that by 2023, all pharmacists providing pharmaceutical care will be pharmacist-independent prescribers. There are, however, challenges to implementing NMP into working practice; two key challenges are the need for sustainable models of care and evaluation research. These challenges could be met by considering the theoretical basis for implementation, and robust and rigorous evaluation.

Piloting the United Kingdom 'Prescribing Safety Assessment' with pharmacist prescribers in Scotland

BACKGROUND

Prescribing is a complex task requiring considerable knowledge and skills. The Prescribing Safety Assessment (PSA) was developed by the British Pharmacological Society and the United Kingdom (UK) Medical Schools Council. Between February and June 2014, over 7000 final year medical students undertook the PSA, with an overall pass rate of 94%. Independent prescribing for suitably trained pharmacists was introduced in the UK in 2006. To date there has been little focus on any objective measures of prescribing safety.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the PSA performance of a pilot group of pharmacist prescribers in Scotland relative to medical students and to test the feasibility and acceptability of running the PSA.

METHODS

A group of 59 pharmacist prescribers took part in ten events. The PSA consisted of 30 questions to be completed over 60 min. All questions had been used in the 2014 assessments for final year medical students. The PSA was undertaken online under invigilated conditions, mirroring the medical student assessment. One month later, participants were invited to complete an online evaluation questionnaire.

RESULTS

The mean overall PSA scores (±SD) were 87.5% ± 8.7 (range 52-98) compared to a 88.5% for medical students. Based on an Angoff passmark of 76.0%, 53 pharmacists (89.8%) passed compared to an overall pass rate in PSA 2014 of 94%. Pharmacists performed equivalently to medical students in all assessment areas, with a slightly lower performance in the prescribing, drug monitoring and data interpretation questions offset by better performance in prescription review and adverse drug reactions. Feedback was positive in relation to appropriateness, relevance and level of difficulty of the PSA although several commented that they were practicing in very specific clinical areas.

CONCLUSION

These pilot events have benchmarked the PSA performance of pharmacist prescribers with final year medical students, and feedback confirmed feasibility and acceptability.

Pharmacist independent prescribing in secondary care: opportunities and challenges

In recent years a number of countries have extended prescribing rights to pharmacists in a variety of formats. The latter includes independent prescribing, which is a developing area of practice for pharmacists in secondary care. Potential opportunities presented by wide scale implementation of pharmacist prescribing in secondary care include improved prescribing safety, more efficient pharmacist medication reviews, increased scope of practice with greater pharmacist integration into acute patient care pathways and enhanced professional or job satisfaction. However, notable challenges remain and these need to be acknowledged and addressed if a pharmacist prescribing is to develop sufficiently within developing healthcare systems. These barriers can be broadly categorised as lack of support (financial and time resources), medical staff acceptance and the pharmacy profession itself (adoption, implementation strategy, research resources, second pharmacist clinical check). Larger multicentre studies that investigate the contribution of hospital-based pharmacist prescribers to medicines optimisation and patient-related outcomes are still needed. Furthermore, a strategic approach from the pharmacy profession and leadership is required to ensure that pharmacist prescribers are fully integrated into future healthcare service and workforce strategies.

Influences on prescribing decision-making among non-medical prescribers in the United Kingdom: systematic review

BACKGROUND

Suitably qualified non-medical healthcare professionals may now prescribe medicines. Prescribing decision-making can be complex and challenging; a number of influences have been identified among medical prescribers but little appears to be known about influences among non-medical prescribers (NMPs).

OBJECTIVE

To critically appraise, synthesize and present evidence on the influences on prescribing decision-making among supplementary and independent NMPs in the UK.

METHODS

The systematic review included all studies between 2003 and June 2013. Included studies researched the prescribing decision-making of supplementary and independent NMPs practising in the UK; all primary and secondary study designs were considered. Studies were assessed for quality and data extracted independently by two researchers, and findings synthesized using a narrative approach.

RESULTS

Following duplicates exclusion, 886 titles, 349 abstracts and 40 full studies were screened. Thirty-seven were excluded leaving three for quality assessment and data extraction. While all studies reported aspects of prescribing decision-making, this was not the primary research aim for any. Studies were carried out in primary care almost exclusively among nurse prescribers (n = 67). Complex influences were evident such as experience in the role, the use of evidence-based guidelines and peer support and encouragement from doctors; these helped participants to feel more knowledgeable and confident about their prescribing decisions. Opposing influences included prioritization of experience and concern about complications over evidence base, and peer conflict.

CONCLUSION

While there is a limited evidence base on NMPs' prescribing decision-making, it appears that this is complex with NMPs influenced by many and often opposing factors.

Nonmedical prescribing: where are we now?

Nonmedical prescribing has been allowed in the United Kingdom (UK) since 1992. Its development over the past 24 years has been marked by changes in legislation, enabling the progression towards independent prescribing for nurses, pharmacists and a range of allied health professionals. Although the UK has led the way regarding the introduction of nonmedical prescribing, it is now seen in a number of other Western-European and Anglophone countries although the models of application vary widely between countries. The programme of study to become a nonmedical prescriber (NMP) within the UK is rigorous, and involves a combination of taught curricula and practice-based learning. Prescribing is a complex skill that is high risk and error prone, with many influencing factors. Literature reports regarding the impact of nonmedical prescribing are sparse, with the majority of prescribing research tending to focus instead on prescribing by doctors. The impact of nonmedical prescribing however is important to evaluate, and can be carried out from several perspectives. This review takes a brief look back at the history of nonmedical prescribing, and compares this with the international situation. It also describes the processes required to qualify as a NMP in the UK, potential influences on nonmedical prescribing and the impact of nonmedical prescribing on patient opinions and outcomes and the opinions of doctors and other healthcare professionals.

Pharmacist independent prescribing in critical care: results of a national questionnaire to establish the 2014 UK position

OBJECTIVES

Clinical pharmacist practice is well established in the safe and effective use of medicines in the critically ill patient. In the UK, independent pharmacist prescribers are generally recognised as a valuable and desirable resource. However, currently, there are only anecdotal reports of pharmacist-independent prescribing in critical care. The aim of this questionnaire was to determine the current and proposed future independent prescribing practice of UK clinical pharmacists working in adult critical care.

METHODS

The questionnaire was distributed electronically to UK Clinical Pharmacy Association members (closed August 2014).

KEY FINDINGS

There were 134 responses to the questionnaire (response rate at least 33%). Over a third of critical care pharmacists were practising independent prescribers in the specialty, and 70% intended to be prescribers within the next 3 years. Pharmacists with ≥5 years critical care experience (P < 0.001) or worked in a team (P = 0.005) were more likely to be practising independent prescribers. Pharmacists reported significant positives to the use of independent prescribing in critical care both in patient care and job satisfaction. Independently, prescribing was routine in: dose adjustment for multi-organ failure, change in route or formulation, correction prescribing errors, therapeutic drug monitoring and chronic medication. The majority of pharmacist prescribers reported they spent ≤5% of their clinical time prescribing and accounted for ≤5% of new prescriptions in critical care patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Most critical care pharmacists intend to be practising as independent prescribers within the next 3 years. The extent and scope of critical care pharmacist prescribing appear to be of relatively low volume and within niche prescribing areas.