Qualitative Insights Into Patients' and Family Members' Experiences of In-Hospital Medication Management After a Critical Care Episode.

Background: Patient recovery after a critical illness can be protracted, requiring a care continuum that extends along a patient pathway from the critical care unit, hospital ward, and into the community care setting. High-quality care on patient transfer from critical care, including medication safety, is facilitated by education for patients and families, family engagement, support systems, and health care professional (HCP)-patient communication. Currently, uncertainty exists regarding how HCPs can and should engage with critical care patients and family members about their medication. Research Question: What are the views and experiences of critical care patients and family members about their involvement in, communication about, understanding of, and decision-making related to their medication after transfer from critical care to the hospital ward? Study Design and Methods: This qualitative study used semistructured interviews, conducted with critical care patients and family members after transfer from critical care to a hospital ward in a large National Health Service hospital trust. Anonymized transcripts of interviews were analyzed thematically using a coding framework developed from understandings of patient and family engagement in medication administration. Results: Twenty-seven participants (15 patients and 12 family members of patients) completed the interviews. We identified five themes and 15 subthemes, providing an overview of patients' and family members' views on medication management during acute illness and ongoing recovery. Themes identified were: impact of acute illness and treatment burden on preexisting illness, preexisting knowledge and capability, beliefs about persons roles and expectations, care continuity and individualized information exchange, and engagement in practice. Interpretation: This study demonstrated that critical care patients and family members want to engage with HCPs about medication administration. HCPs must take an individualized approach to communication and timing, acknowledging the dynamic interplay between patients and family members, using multimodal forms of communication.

Psychotropic prescribing after hospital discharge in survivors of critical illness, a retrospective cohort study (2012-2019).

Background: Many people survive critical illness with the burden of new or worsened mental health issues and sleep disturbances. We examined the frequency of psychotropic prescribing after critical illness, comparing critical care to non-critical care hospitalised survivors, and whether this varied in important subgroups. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 23,340 critical care and 367,185 non-critical care hospitalised adults from 2012 through 2019 in Lothian, Scotland, who survived to discharge. Results: One-third of critical care survivors (32%; 7527/23,340) received a psychotropic prescription within 90 days after hospital discharge (25% antidepressants; 14% anxiolytics/hypnotics; 4% antipsychotics/mania medicines). In contrast, 15% (54,589/367,185) of non-critical care survivors received a psychotropic prescription (12% antidepressants; 5% anxiolytics/hypnotics; 2% antipsychotics/mania medicines). Among patients without psychotropic prescriptions within 180 days prior to hospitalisation, after hospital discharge, the critical care group had a higher incidence of psychotropic prescription (10.3%; 1610/15,609) compared with the non-critical care group (3.2%; 9743/307,429); unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) 3.39, 95% CI: 3.22-3.57. After adjustment for potential confounders, the risk remained elevated (adjusted HR 2.03, 95% CI: 1.91-2.16), persisted later in follow-up (90-365 days; adjusted HR 1.38, 95% CI: 1.30-1.46), and was more pronounced in those without recorded comorbidities (adjusted HR 3.49, 95% CI: 3.22-3.78). Conclusions: Critical care survivors have a higher risk of receiving psychotropic prescriptions than hospitalised patients, with a significant proportion receiving benzodiazepines and other hypnotics. Future research should focus on the requirement for and safety of psychotropic medicines in survivors of critical illness, to help guide policy for clinical practice.

Economic evaluations of adult critical care pharmacy services: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To summarise the extent and type of evidence available regarding economic evaluations of adult critical care pharmacy services in the context of UK practice. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in eight electronic databases and hand searching of full-text reference lists. Of 2409 journal articles initially identified, 38 were included in the final review. Independent literature review was undertaken by two investigators in a two-step process against the inclusion and exclusion criteria; title and abstract screening were followed by full-text screening. Included studies were taken from high-income economy countries that contained economic data evaluating any key aspect of adult critical care pharmacy services. Grey literature and studies that could not be translated into the English language were excluded. RESULTS: The majority were before-and-after studies (18, 47%) or other observational studies (17, 45%), and conducted in North America (25, 66%). None of the included studies were undertaken in the UK. Seven studies (18%) included cost-benefit analysis; all demonstrated positive cost-benefit values for clinical pharmacist activities. CONCLUSIONS: Further high-quality primary research focussing on the economic evaluation of UK adult critical care pharmacy services is needed, before undertaking a future systematic review. There is an indication of a cost-benefit value for critical care pharmacist activities. The lack of UK-based economic evaluations is a limitation to further development and standardisation of critical care pharmacy services nationally.

Understanding medication safety involving patient transfer from intensive care to hospital ward: a qualitative sociotechnical factor study.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the sociotechnical factors affecting medication safety when intensive care patients are transferred to a hospital ward. Consideration of these medication safety factors would provide a theoretical basis, on which future interventions can be developed and evaluated to improve patient care. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews of intensive care and hospital ward-based healthcare professionals. Transcripts were anonymised prior to thematic analysis using the London Protocol and Systems Engineering in Patient Safety V.3.0 model frameworks. SETTING: Four north of England National Health Service hospitals. All hospitals used electronic prescribing in intensive care and hospital ward settings. PARTICIPANTS: Intensive care and hospital ward healthcare professionals (intensive care medical staff, advanced practitioners, pharmacists and outreach team members; ward-based medical staff and clinical pharmacists). RESULTS: Twenty-two healthcare professionals were interviewed. We identified 13 factors within five broad themes, describing the interactions that most strongly influenced the performance of the intensive care to hospital ward system interface. The themes were: Complexity of process performance and interactions; Time pressures and considerations; Communication processes and challenges; Technology and systems and Beliefs about consequences for the patient and organisation. CONCLUSIONS: The complexity of the interactions on the system performance and time dependency was clear. We make several recommendations for policy change and further research based on improving: availability of hospital-wide integrated and functional electronic prescribing systems, patient flow systems, sufficient multiprofessional critical care staffing, knowledge and skills of staff, team performance, communication and collaboration and patient and family engagement.

Critical care pharmacy workforce: a 2020 re-evaluation of the UK deployment and characteristics.

INTRODUCTION: Critical care pharmacists improve the quality and efficiency of medication therapy whilst reducing treatment costs where they are available. UK critical care pharmacist deployment was described in 2015, highlighting a deficit in numbers, experience level, and critical care access to pharmacy services over the 7-day week. Since then, national workforce standards have been emphasised, quality indicators published, and service commissioning documents produced, reinforced by care quality assessments. Whether these initiatives have resulted in further development of the UK critical care pharmacy workforce is unknown. This evaluation provides a 2020 status update. METHODS: The 2015 electronic data entry tool was updated and circulated for completion by UK critical care pharmacists. The tool captured workforce data disposition as it was just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, at critical care unit level. MAIN FINDINGS: Data were received for 334 critical care units from 203 organisations (96% of UK critical care units). Overall, 98.2% of UK critical care units had specific clinical pharmacist time dedicated to the unit. The median weekday pharmacist input to each level 3 equivalent bed was 0.066 (0.043-0.088) whole time equivalents, a significant increase from the median position in 2015 (+ 0.021, p < 0.0001). Despite this progress, pharmacist availability remains below national minimum standards (0.1/level 3 equivalent bed). Most units (71.9%) had access to prescribing pharmacists. Geographical variation in pharmacist staffing levels were evident, and weekend services remain extremely limited. CONCLUSIONS: Availability of clinical pharmacists in UK adult critical care units is improving. However, national standards are not routinely met despite widely publicised quality indicators, commissioning specifications, and assessments. Additional measures are needed to address persistent deficits and realise gains in organisational and patient-level outcomes. These measures must include promotion of cross-professional collaborative working, adjusted funding models, and a nationally recognised training pathway for critical care pharmacists.

Critical care pharmacist research activity, experience and interests: a 2021 United Kingdom survey.

BACKGROUND: Research and innovation are essential for effective healthcare service delivery, leading to improvements in patient health and wellbeing. National policy dictates that research delivery is embedded into daily practice of United Kingdom (UK) healthcare professionals, including pharmacists. There is a limited understanding of critical care pharmacist research activities, experiences and interests. It is, therefore, important to describe current practice including barriers and facilitators to enable increased engagement. OBJECTIVES: To describe UK critical care pharmacist research activity, experiences, interests and barriers to better engagement. METHOD: An electronic survey was developed, piloted and distributed (June to October 2021) to all critical care pharmacists via UK professional organisations. KEY FINDINGS: The survey was completed by 126 pharmacists, providing a 54% response rate. Few pharmacists reported research capability (postgraduate qualification with a research component, 31% (39/126)) and opportunity (dedicated research time, 28.6% (36/126)), only 12.7% (16/126) have both these influencers. Those that did, produced significantly more research outputs (median 4 (0,9) versus 0 (0,1), P = 0.023) and undertook grant funding applications (X2 (1, n = 126) = 25.8, P < 0.001), compared to those without. The most frequently reported barrier to research was the time (opportunity), (71.4%, 90/126). Few pharmacists reported having a research mentor (13.3%, 16/120). Most pharmacists reported an interest in collaborating on research projects across a broad range of areas. CONCLUSIONS: Critical care pharmacists are motivated to participate in the evaluation continuum including research, although most report capability and opportunity barriers to delivery. We suggest policy recommendations to address limitations and increase pharmacist research involvement.

Clinical frailty and polypharmacy in older emergency critical care patients: a single-centre retrospective case series.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Admission of complex and frail patients to critical care units is common. Little is known about the relationship between clinical frailty and polypharmacy measures in critical care patients or how a critical care admission affects polypharmacy.We sought to: (1) Describe the extent and relationship between clinical frailty and polypharmacy in a cohort of older emergency general critical care patients, and to (2) Describe the effect of the critical care pathway on patient polypharmacy measures. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation was undertaken in all patients ≥70 years of age, admitted as emergencies to the general critical care units of a single large UK academic hospital, over a 2-year period (March 2016 to February 2018) (n=762). Patient Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and polypharmacy measures on admission were described and association was tested. Medication changes and documentation on care transitions were analysed in a randomly selected convenience cohort of critical care survivors (n=77). RESULTS: On admission patients had a median of 9 (5;12) medicines, of which a median of 3 (2;5) were high-risk medicines. Polypharmacy (5-9 medicines) and hyperpolypharmacy (≥10 medicines) occurred in 80.7% (615/762) and 43.2% (329/762) of patients, respectively. A degree of frailty was the standard (median CFS 4 (3;5)) with 45.7% (348/762) CFS 4-5 and 20% (153/762) CFS ≥6. The patient median CFS increased by 1 with polypharmacy classification increments (p<0.001). In the survivor cohort, a median of 6 (4;8) and 5 (4;8) medication changes occurred on critical care and hospital discharges, respectively. A minority of patients had detailed medication continuity plans on care transitions. CONCLUSIONS: Polypharmacy and frailty were very common in this UK single-centre cohort of older emergency critical care patients. There was a significant association between the degree of polypharmacy and frailty score. The critical care pathway created extensive changes in patient medication therapy. Medication changes on care transitions often lacked detailed documentation.

A Delphi consensus study to identify priorities for improving and measuring medication safety for intensive care patients on transfer to a hospital ward.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care patients surviving to transfer to a lower-acuity hospital ward experience ongoing challenges to their recovery and lack a well-defined and developed care pathway. The transfer process to a hospital ward exposes intensive care patients to high rates of medication errors, which increase their risk of adverse drug events. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to identify priorities for medication-related intervention components and outcome measures for improving medication safety for intensive care patients transferring to a hospital ward. METHODS: Three panels involving 129 participants covering (i) intensive care, (ii) hospital ward health-care professionals and (iii) public representatives completed an electronic Delphi survey conducted over three phases. The Delphi process comprised three sections (medication-related intervention components, medication outcomes and patient outcomes). Items were graded in their level of importance, with predefined important criteria. Item agreement required consensus across all three panels. Intervention barriers and facilitators identified in participant comments were categorized according to a socio-technical systems approach to the patient journey and patient safety (Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety 3.0 model). RESULTS: Of the 129 (84.5%) participants, 109 completed all three Delphi phases. Consensus was achieved for 48 intervention components, 13 medication outcome measures and 11 patient outcome measures. Phase 1 provided 158 comments comprising >200 individual barriers and facilitators to intervention delivery. Frequently cited facilitators included clearly specified roles and responsibilities (10.7% (organizational conditions)), patient and family as agents (8.8% (care team)), medicines-related information easily accessible (7.8% (tools and technologies)) and clear medication plan and communication (7.3% (tasks)). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide identification of priorities for medication-related intervention components to improve medication safety for intensive care patients transferring to a hospital ward. Prioritization is complemented by the identification and socio-technical categorization of barriers and facilitators to intervention delivery. The identified important medication and patient outcomes to measure will inform the design of a future patient medication safety intervention study.

Medication-related interventions to improve medication safety and patient outcomes on transition from adult intensive care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients recovering from an episode in an intensive care unit (ICU) frequently experience medication errors on transition to the hospital ward. Structured handover recommendations often underestimate the challenges and complexity of ICU patient transitions. For adult ICU patients transitioning to a hospital ward, it is currently unclear what interventions reduce the risks of medication errors.The aims were to examine the impact of medication-related interventions on medication and patient outcomes on transition from adult ICU settings and identify barriers and facilitators to implementation. METHODS: The systematic review protocol was preregistered on PROSPERO. Six electronic databases were searched until October 2020 for controlled and uncontrolled study designs that reported medication-related (ie, de-prescribing; medication errors) or patient-related outcomes (ie, mortality; length of stay). Risk of bias (RoB) assessment used V.2.0 and ROBINS-I Cochrane tools. Where feasible, random-effects meta-analysis was used for pooling the OR across studies. The quality of evidence was assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were eligible, 15 (88%) were uncontrolled before-after studies. The intervention components included education of staff (n=8 studies), medication review (n=7), guidelines (n=6), electronic transfer/handover tool or letter (n=4) and medicines reconciliation (n=4). Overall, pooled analysis of all interventions reduced risk of inappropriate medication continuation at ICU discharge (OR=0.45 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.63), I2=55%, n=9) and hospital discharge (OR=0.39 (95% CI 0.2 to 0.76), I2=75%, n=9). Multicomponent interventions, based on education of staff and guidelines, demonstrated no significant difference in inappropriate medication continuation at the ICU discharge point (OR 0.5 (95% CI 0.22 to 1.11), I2=62%, n=4), but were very effective in increasing de-prescribing outcomes on hospital discharge (OR 0.26 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.55), I2=67%, n=6)). Facilitators to intervention delivery included ICU clinical pharmacist availability and participation in multiprofessional ward rounds, while barriers included increased workload associated with the discharge intervention process. CONCLUSIONS: Multicomponent interventions based on education of staff and guidelines were effective at achieving almost four times more de-prescribing of inappropriate medication by the time of patient hospital discharge. Based on the findings, practice and policy recommendations are made and guidance is provided on the need for, and design of theory informed interventions in this area, including the requirement for process and economic evaluations.

Are treatment effects consistent with hypothesized mechanisms of action proposed for postoperative delirium interventions? Reanalysis of systematic reviews.

Aim: Postoperative delirium (POD) is associated with increased morbidity and is poorly understood. The aim of this review was to identify putative mechanisms through re-analysis of randomized trials on treatment or prevention of POD. Materials & methods: A systematic review was performed to identify systematic reviews of treatments for POD. Constituent randomized controlled trials were identified, and interventions were grouped according to hypothesized mechanisms of action. Effects were meta-analyzed by hypothesized mechanism and timing of intervention. Results: A total of 116 randomized controlled trials described 47 individual interventions for POD, with nine mechanisms identified. The largest effects were observed for postoperative inflammation reduction, and preoperative reinforcement of sleep-wake cycle. Conclusion: This approach identifies treatments focused on mechanisms of action that may be front runners for future trials and interventions.

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.

Critical care pharmacy workforce: UK deployment and characteristics in 2015.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical pharmacists reduce medication errors and optimize the use of medication in critically ill patients, although actual staffing level and deployment of UK pharmacists is unknown. The primary aim was to investigate the UK deployment of the clinical pharmacy workforce in critical care and compare this with published standards. METHODS: An electronic data entry tool was created and distributed for UK critical care pharmacy services to record their critical care workforce deployment data. KEY FINDINGS: Data were received for 279 critical care units in 171 organizations. Clinical pharmacist input was identified for 98.6% of critical care units. The median weekday pharmacist input to critical care was 0.045 whole time equivalents per Level 3 (ICU) bed with significant interregional variation. Weekend services were sparse. Pharmacists spent 24.5% of time on the multidisciplinary team ward round, 58.5% of time on independent patient review and 17% of time on other critical care professional support activities. There is significant variation in staffing levels when services are stratified by highest level of competence of critical care pharmacist within an organization (P = 0.03), with significant differences in time spent on the multi-disciplinary ward round (P = 0.010) and on other critical care activities (P = 0.009), but not on independent patient review. CONCLUSIONS: Investment in pharmacy services is required to improve access to clinical pharmacy expertise at weekends, on MDT ward rounds and for other critical care activities.

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.

How Do Pharmacists Develop into Advanced Level Practitioners? Learning from the Experiences of Critical Care Pharmacists.

The national UK standards for critical care highlight the need for clinical pharmacists to practise at an advanced level (equivalent to Royal Pharmaceutical Society, Great Britain, Faculty Advanced Stage II (MFRPSII)) and above. Currently the UK is unable to meet the workforce capacity requirements set out in the national standards in terms of numbers of pharmacist working at advanced level and above. The aim of this study was to identify the strategies, barriers and challenges to achieving Advanced Level Practice (ALP) by learning from the experiences of advanced level critical care pharmacists within the UK. Eight participants were recruited to complete semi-structured interviews on their views and experiences of ALP. The interviews were analysed thematically and three overarching themes were identified; support, work-based learning and reflective practice. The results of this study highlight that to increase the number of MFRPSII level practitioners within critical care support for their ALP development is required. This support involves developing face-to-face access to expert critical care pharmacists within a national training programme. Additionally, chief pharmacists need to implement drivers including in house mentorship and peer review programmes and the need to align job descriptions and appraisals to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, Great Britain, Advanced Practice Framework (APF).

Reliability of clinical impact grading by healthcare professionals of common prescribing error and optimisation cases in critical care patients.

OBJECTIVE: To identify between and within profession-rater reliability of clinical impact grading for common critical care prescribing error and optimisation cases. To identify representative clinical impact grades for each individual case. DESIGN: Electronic questionnaire. SETTING: 5 UK NHS Trusts. PARTICIPANTS: 30 Critical care healthcare professionals (doctors, pharmacists and nurses). INTERVENTION: Participants graded severity of clinical impact (5-point categorical scale) of 50 error and 55 optimisation cases. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Case between and within profession-rater reliability and modal clinical impact grading. METHODS: Between and within profession rater reliability analysis used linear mixed model and intraclass correlation, respectively. RESULTS: The majority of error and optimisation cases (both 76%) had a modal clinical severity grade of moderate or higher. Error cases: doctors graded clinical impact significantly lower than pharmacists (-0.25; P < 0.001) and nurses (-0.53; P < 0.001), with nurses significantly higher than pharmacists (0.28; P < 0.001). Optimisation cases: doctors graded clinical impact significantly lower than nurses and pharmacists (-0.39 and -0.5; P < 0.001, respectively). Within profession reliability grading was excellent for pharmacists (0.88 and 0.89; P < 0.001) and doctors (0.79 and 0.83; P < 0.001) but only fair to good for nurses (0.43 and 0.74; P < 0.001), for optimisation and error cases, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Representative clinical impact grades for over 100 common prescribing error and optimisation cases are reported for potential clinical practice and research application. The between professional variability highlights the importance of multidisciplinary perspectives in assessment of medication error and optimisation cases in clinical practice and research.

PROTECTED-UK - Clinical pharmacist interventions in the UK critical care unit: exploration of relationship between intervention, service characteristics and experience level.

PURPOSE: Clinical pharmacist (CP) interventions from the PROTECTED-UK cohort, a multi-site critical care interventions study, were further analysed to assess effects of: time on critical care, number of interventions, CP expertise and days of week, on impact of intervention and ultimately contribution to patient care. METHODS: Intervention data were collected from 21 adult critical care units over 14 days. Interventions could be error, optimisation or consults, and were blind-coded to ensure consistency, prior to bivariate analysis. Pharmacy service demographics were further collated by investigator survey. KEY FINDINGS: Of the 20 758 prescriptions reviewed, 3375 interventions were made (intervention rate 16.1%). CPs spent 3.5 h per day (mean, ±SD 1.7) on direct patient care, reviewed 10.3 patients per day (±SD 4.2) and required 22.5 min (±SD 9.5) per review. Intervention rate had a moderate inverse correlation with the time the pharmacist spent on critical care (P = 0.05; r = 0.4). Optimisation rate had a strong inverse association with total number of prescriptions reviewed per day (P = 0.001; r = 0.7). A consultant CP had a moderate inverse correlation with number of errors identified (P = 0.008; r = 0.6). No correlation existed between the presence of electronic prescribing in critical care and any intervention rate. Few centres provided weekend services, although the intervention rate was significantly higher on weekends than weekdays. CONCLUSIONS: A CP is essential for safe and optimised patient medication therapy; an extended and developed pharmacy service is expected to reduce errors. CP services should be adequately staffed to enable adequate time for prescription review and maximal therapy optimisation.

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.

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.