Adoption of antithrombotic stewardship and utilization of clinical decision support systems-A questionnaire-based survey in Dutch hospitals.

Antithrombotics require careful monitoring to prevent adverse events. Safe use can be promoted through so-called antithrombotic stewardship. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) can be used to monitor safe use of antithrombotics, supporting antithrombotic stewardship efforts. Yet, previous research shows that despite these interventions, antithrombotics continue to cause harm. Insufficient adoption of antithrombotic stewardship and suboptimal use of CDSSs may provide and explanation. However, it is currently unknown to what extent hospitals adopted antithrombotic stewardship and utilize CDSSs to support safe use of antithrombotics. A semi-structured questionnaire-based survey was disseminated to 12 hospital pharmacists from different hospital types and regions in the Netherlands. The primary outcome was the degree of antithrombotic stewardship adoption, expressed as the number of tasks adopted per hospital and the degree of adoption per task. Secondary outcomes included characteristics of CDSS alerts used to monitor safe use of antithrombotics. All 12 hospital pharmacists completed the survey and report to have adopted antithrombotic stewardship in their hospital to a certain degree. The median adoption of tasks was two of five tasks (range 1-3). The tasks with the highest uptake were: drafting and maintenance of protocols (100%) and professional's education (58%), while care transition optimization (25%), medication reviews (8%) and patient counseling (8%) had the lowest uptake. All hospitals used a CDSS to monitor safe use of antithrombotics, mainly via basic alerts and less frequently via advanced alerts. The most frequently employed alerts were: identification of patients using a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) or a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) with one or more other antithrombotics (n = 6) and patients using a VKA to evaluate correct use (n = 6), both reflecting basic CDSS. All participating hospitals adopted antithrombotic stewardship, but the adopted tasks vary. CDSS alerts used are mainly basic in their logic.

Antithrombotic Questionnaire Tool for Evaluation of Combined Antithrombotic Therapy in Community Pharmacies.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to assess the diagnostic value of an antithrombotic questionnaire tool compared with the hospital's medical record information tool. The hypothesis of this study was that the antithrombotic questionnaire tool could identify patients with potentially incorrect antithrombotic therapy. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted in eight community pharmacies in the Netherlands. A standardized questionnaire was developed as antithrombotic questionnaire tool. The pharmacist assessed whether the antithrombotic therapy was correct or potentially incorrect based on answers given by patients and based on the medical record. The primary outcome of the study was the sensitivity and specificity of the antithrombotic questionnaire tool to identify patients with potentially incorrect antithrombotic therapy. RESULTS: For 95 patients, the pharmacist assessed that in 81 (85%) the antithrombotic therapy was correct and in 14 (15%) potentially incorrect. Based on the medical record, 86 patients (91%) were assessed as correct and 9 (9%) as potentially incorrect. The sensitivity of the tool was 100% and the specificity 94%. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the antithrombotic questionnaire tool is a suitable tool to assess whether the patient's antithrombotic therapy is potentially incorrect. It can be applied to identify patients with potentially incorrect antithrombotic therapy.

The use of artificial intelligence to optimize medication alerts generated by clinical decision support systems: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: Current Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) generate medication alerts that are of limited clinical value, causing alert fatigue. Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based methods may help in optimizing medication alerts. Therefore, we conducted a scoping review on the current state of the use of AI to optimize medication alerts in a hospital setting. Specifically, we aimed to identify the applied AI methods used together with their performance measures and main outcome measures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library database on May 25, 2023 for studies of any quantitative design, in which the use of AI-based methods was investigated to optimize medication alerts generated by CDSSs in a hospital setting. The screening process was supported by ASReview software. RESULTS: Out of 5625 citations screened for eligibility, 10 studies were included. Three studies (30%) reported on both statistical performance and clinical outcomes. The most often reported performance measure was positive predictive value ranging from 9% to 100%. Regarding main outcome measures, alerts optimized using AI-based methods resulted in a decreased alert burden, increased identification of inappropriate or atypical prescriptions, and enabled prediction of user responses. In only 2 studies the AI-based alerts were implemented in hospital practice, and none of the studies conducted external validation. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: AI-based methods can be used to optimize medication alerts in a hospital setting. However, reporting on models' development and validation should be improved, and external validation and implementation in hospital practice should be encouraged.

Smaller nadroparin dose reductions required for patients with renal impairment: A multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines advise 50 % and 25 % dose reduction of the therapeutic nadroparin dose (86 IU/kg) in patients with eGFR 15-29 and 30-60 ml/min respectively. For monitoring, peak anti-Xa levels are suggested. Data lack whether this results in therapeutic anti-Xa levels or in anti-Xa levels that are comparable to those of patients without renal impairment. AIMS: To determine dose ranges in patients with renal impairment that result in therapeutic anti-Xa levels and to determine the percentage of the 86 IU/kg dose that results in anti-Xa levels normally occurring in patients without renal impairment. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in five hospitals. Patients ≥18 years of age, with an eGFR ≥ 15 ml/min were included. The first correctly sampled peak (i.e. 3-5 h after ≥ third administration, regardless of dose per patient) was included. Simulated prediction models were developed using multiple linear regression. RESULTS: 770 patients were included. eGFR and hospital affected the association between dose and anti-Xa level. The doses for peak anti-Xa levels of 0.75 IU/ml differed substantially between hospitals and ranged from 55 to 91, 65-359 and 68-168 IU/kg in eGFR 15-29, 30-60 and > 60 ml/min/1.73m2, respectively. In eGFR 15-29 and 30-60 ml/min/1.73m2, doses of 75 % and 91 % of 86 IU/kg respectively, were needed for anti-Xa levels normally occurring in patients with eGFR > 60 ml/min. CONCLUSION: We advise against anti-Xa based dose-adjustments as long as anti-Xa assays between laboratories are not harmonized and an anti-Xa target range is not validated. A better approach might be to target levels similar to eGFR > 60 ml/min/1.73m2, which are achieved by smaller dose reductions.

Documentation of the Patient Characteristics Morbid Obesity and Bariatric Surgery in the Hospital Information System and the Influence on the Number of Medication-Related Problems.

BACKGROUND: As a result of pharmacokinetic changes, individuals with morbid obesity and/or with bariatric surgery may require dose adjustments, additional monitoring or medication should be avoided. Clinical decision support (CDS) may provide automated alerts enabling correct prescribing but requires documentation of these patient characteristics in the Hospital Information System (HIS) to prevent medication-related problems (MRPs). OBJECTIVE: The primary objective is to determine the proportion of patients with documentation of the patient characteristics morbid obesity and bariatric surgery in the HIS. The secondary objective is to compare the proportion of patients with an MRP in the group with versus without documentation. Also, the type and severity of MRPs and the medication involved are determined. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was performed. Patients admitted to the hospital were identified as morbidly obese and/or with bariatric surgery. In the identified patients, the proportion of patients with documentation of the patient characteristics in the HIS was evaluated as primary outcome. Subsequently, patient records were reviewed for MRPs, which were categorized and associated medication was registered. For the primary objective, descriptive statistics was used. For the secondary outcome, the Fisher's exact test was used. RESULTS: In 43 (21.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.7%-27.1%) of 201 included patient (113 morbid obesity, 70 bariatric surgery and 18 both), the patient characteristics were documented. An MRP occurred in 2.3% versus 13.9% (P = 0.032) of patients with and without documentation, respectively. The most common MRP was underdosing in morbid obesity, while in patients with bariatric surgery it was prescription of contra-indicated medication. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: The proportion of patients with documentation of the patient characteristics bariatric surgery and/or morbid obesity in the HIS is low, which appears to be associated with more MRPs. To improve medication safety, it is important to document these patient characteristics.

Prescription Sequence Symmetry Analysis (PSSA) to assess prescribing cascades: a step-by-step guide.

Prescribing cascades occur when patients are prescribed medication to treat the adverse drug reaction of previously prescribed medication. Prescription sequence symmetry analysis (PSSA) can be used to assess the association between two medications in prescription or dispensing databases and thus the potential occurrence of prescribing cascades. In this article, a step-by-step guide is presented for conducting PSSA to assess prescribing cascades. We describe considerations for medication data collection and setting time periods for relevant parameters, including washout window, exposure window, continued exposure interval and blackout period. With two examples, we illustrate the impact of changes in these parameters on the strengths of associations observed. Given the impact seen, we recommend that researchers clearly specify and explain all considerations regarding medication included and time windows set when studying prescribing cascades with PSSA, and conduct subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

A quality improvement study on the effect of electronic transmission of a basic discharge medication report on medication discrepancies in patients discharged from the hospital.

BACKGROUND: Medication discrepancies can occur in transitions of care because of a lack of communication between hospitals and community pharmacies. These discrepancies can lead to preventable adverse drug events (ADEs). AIM: To investigate the effect of electronic transmission of the basic discharge medication report on unintentional medication discrepancies observed between this report and the 28-day post-discharge status in the community pharmacy. METHOD: The study took place in a Dutch teaching hospital and 8 community pharmacies. A quality improvement study with a nonrandomized, historically controlled intervention design was performed. The intervention consisted of the electronic transmission of a basic discharge medication report to the community pharmacies. Unintentional medication discrepancies were identified by comparing the basic discharge medication report to the 28-day post-discharge medication record in community pharmacies. The main outcome measure was the proportion of drugs with one or more unintentional discrepancies compared between the historical control group and intervention group, using the chi-square test. Secondary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with one or more unintentional discrepancies. RESULTS: The participants used a total of 1078 drugs in the control group and 862 in the intervention group. The intervention significantly reduced the proportion of drugs with an unintentional discrepancy from 230 out of 1078 in the control group (21.3%) to 149 out of 862 drugs in the intervention group (17.3%; p = 0.025). At patient level, a non-significant increase was seen (62.4-78.8%; p = 0.41). CONCLUSION: The electronic transmission of the basic discharge medication report reduced the proportion of drugs with an unintentional discrepancy after discharge, but not the proportion of patients.

Prescribing Cascades with Recommendations to Prevent or Reverse Them: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: To reduce prescribing cascades occurring in clinical practice, healthcare providers require information on the prescribing cascades they can recognize and prevent. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to provide an overview of prescribing cascades, including dose-dependency information and recommendations that healthcare providers can use to prevent or reverse them. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was followed. Relevant literature was identified through searches in OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, OVID CINAHL, and Cochrane. Additionally, Web of Science and Scopus were consulted to analyze reference lists and citations. Publications in English were included if they analyzed the occurrence of prescribing cascades. Prescribing cascades were included if at least one study demonstrated a significant association and were excluded when the adverse drug reaction could not be confirmed in the Summary of Product Characteristics. Two reviewers independently extracted and grouped similar prescribing cascades. Descriptive summaries were provided regarding dose-dependency analyses and recommendations to prevent or reverse these prescribing cascades. RESULTS: A total of 95 publications were included, resulting in 115 prescribing cascades with confirmed adverse drug reactions for which at least one significant association was found. For 52 of these prescribing cascades, information regarding dose dependency or recommendations to prevent or reverse prescribing cascades was found. Dose dependency was analyzed and confirmed for 12 prescribing cascades. For example, antipsychotics that may cause extrapyramidal syndrome followed by anti-parkinson drugs. Recommendations focused on dosage lowering, discontinuing medication, and medication switching. Explicit recommendations regarding alternative options were given for three prescribing cascades. One example was switching to ondansetron or granisetron when extrapyramidal syndrome is experienced using metoclopramide. CONCLUSIONS: In total, 115 prescribing cascades were identified and an overview of 52 of them was generated for which recommendations to prevent or reverse them were provided. Nonetheless, information regarding alternative options for managing prescribing cascades was scarce.

Implementation of a Patient Questionnaire in Community Pharmacies to Improve Care for Patients Using Combined Antithrombotic Therapy: A Qualitative Study.

For several indications or combinations of indications the use of more than one antithrombotic agent is required. The duration of combined antithrombotic therapy depends on indication and patient characteristics. This study investigated the use of an antithrombotic questionnaire tool that had been developed for pharmacists to detect patients with possible incorrect combined antithrombotic therapy. The objective of this study was to identify potential barriers and facilitators that could influence the implementation of the developed antithrombotic questionnaire tool in daily community pharmacy practice. A qualitative study was conducted at 10 Dutch community pharmacies in which the antithrombotic questionnaire tool had been used with 82 patients. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with pharmacy staff who used the antithrombotic questionnaire tool. The interview questions to identify barriers and facilitators were based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. The interview data were analysed using a deductive thematic analysis. Ten staff members from nine different pharmacies were interviewed. Facilitators for implementation were that the questionnaire was easily adaptable and easy to use, as well as the relative short duration to administer the questionnaire. A possible barrier for using the questionnaire was a lower priority for using the questionnaire at moments when the workload was high. The pharmacists estimated that the questionnaire could be used for 70-80% of the patient population and they thought that it was a useful addition to regular medication surveillance. The antithrombotic questionnaire tool can be easily implemented in pharmacy practice. To implement the tool, the focus should be on integrating its use into daily activities. Pharmacists can use this tool in addition to regular medication surveillance to improve medication safety in patients who use combined antithrombotic therapy.

Adherence to coprescribing of laxatives with opioids and associated characteristics in general practices in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend to prescribe a laxative with an opioid to prevent constipation. We aimed to determine the adherence by general practitioners (GPs) to this recommendation and to explore which GP- and patient related factors were associated with it from the perspective of the GP.  METHODS: We conducted an observational study using GPs' prescription data from the Nivel Primary Care Database combined with a questionnaire asking for reasons of non-adherence. The proportion of first opioid prescriptions prescribed together with a laxative was determined as primary outcome. Possible explanatory factors such as the quality of registration, the level of collaboration with the pharmacy, familiarity with the recommendation and use of a clinical decision support system were explored, as were the self-reported reasons for non-adherence (classified as either GP-related or patient-related). We assessed the association of factors with the primary outcome using univariable multilevel logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The recommendation was measured in 195 general practices. The median proportion of first opioid prescriptions prescribed together with a laxative in these practices was 54% (practice range 18-88%). None of the determinants was consistently associated with the primary outcome. GPs from 211 practices filled out the questionnaire and the most frequently mentioned reason not to prescribe a laxative was that the patient has laxatives in stock, followed by that the patient doesn't want a laxative; both were patient-related factors. CONCLUSION: There was room for improvement in following the guideline on laxative prescribing in opioid use. A main reason seemed to be that the patient refuses a laxative. Improvement measures should therefore focus on communication between GPs and patients on the relevance of co-using a laxative with opioids. Future studies need to establish the effect of such improvement measures, and determine whether reasons for non-adherence to the guideline changed over time.

Feasibility of a protocol for deprescribing antihypertensive medication in older patients in Dutch general practices.

BACKGROUND: Older patients using antihypertensive medication may experience Adverse Drug Events (ADEs), and thus benefit from deprescribing. The lack of a practical protocol may hamper deprescribing. Therefore, we aimed to develop a deprescribing protocol, based on a review of literature, combined with a feasibility test in a small number of patients. METHODS: A deprescribing protocol for general practitioners was drafted and tested in older patients using multiple antihypertensive medication in a single arm intervention. Patients were included if they were 75 years or older, were using two or more antihypertensives, had at least one ADE linked to antihypertensive medication and deprescribing was considered to be safe by their general practitioner. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients for whom one or more antihypertensive drugs were stopped or reduced in dose after 12 months of follow up while maintaining safe blood pressures. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients reporting no ADEs after 12 months and the number of deprescribed antihypertensives. Patient's opinions on deprescribing and enablers and barriers for study participation were also collected. RESULTS: Nine general practitioners included 14 patients to deprescribe antihypertensive medication using the deprescribing protocol. After 12 months antihypertensive drug use was lowered in 11 patients (79%). These patients had a mean systolic blood pressure increase of 16 mmHg and a mean diastolic blood pressure increase of 8 mmHg. Nine patients (64%) reported experiencing no ADEs anymore after twelve months. The mean number of deprescribed antihypertensives was 1.1 in all patients and 1.4 (range: 0.5 to 3.5) in patients who successfully lowered their medication. At baseline, being able to use less medication was the most frequently mentioned enabler to participate in this study. The most frequently mentioned positive experience at the end of the study was using less medication, which was in line with the most mentioned enabler to participate in this study. CONCLUSION: A protocol for deprescribing antihypertensives in older patients was considered feasible, as it resulted in a substantial degree of safe deprescribing in this pilot study. Larger studies are needed to demonstrate the effect and safety of deprescribing antihypertensives in older patients.

The Effect of Self-Administration of Medication During Hospitalization on Patient's Self-Efficacy and Medication Adherence After Discharge.

Purpose: The effect of self-administration of medication (SAM), in which capable hospitalized patients administer medication themselves on medication self-efficacy is inconclusive. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of SAM on medication self-efficacy, adherence and patient satisfaction. Patients and Methods: A prospective pre-post intervention study on the orthopedic ward of the Sint Maartenskliniek (Nijmegen) was conducted from January 2020 to July 2021. All adults admitted to this ward were eligible for participation. The primary outcome was the level of medication self-efficacy measured by the Self-Efficacy for Appropriate Medication Use Scale (SEAMS) one week after discharge. Secondary outcomes were SEAMS-score three months after hospitalization, medication adherence measured by the Medication Adherence Rating Scale (MARS) one week and three months after hospitalization and patient satisfaction expressed on a five-point Likert scale in patients who experienced SAM. The differences in median SEAMS-scores and non-adherence pre- versus post-implementation of SAM were statistically analyzed. Patients' agreement regarding satisfaction with SAM was calculated as proportion per Likert scale answer. Results: Of the 197 patients participating in the study, 96 were included pre- and 101 post-implementation of SAM. Median SEAMS-scores one week after discharge were 35 [IQR 31-38] and 34 [IQR 30-36] pre- and post-intervention respectively (p = 0.08). There was no difference in the proportion of non-adherent patients at one week and three months after discharge pre- and post-intervention, 52.4%, 53.2%, 57.9% and 64.4% respectively. Of the patients that experienced SAM 32% agreed and 49% strongly agreed that they would like to self-manage medication again during a future hospitalization. Conclusion: In this orthopedic population with high medication self-efficacy scores at discharge, SAM did not affect patients' medication self-efficacy nor medication adherence after hospitalization. Most patients preferred SAM. Additional studies should focus on the effect of SAM in other patient populations.

Optimising the Nadroparin Dose for Thromboprophylaxis During Hemodialysis by Developing a Population Pharmacodynamic Model Using Anti-Xa Levels.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal nadroparin dose in patients undergoing hemodialysis is difficult to determine in clinical practice. Anti-Xa levels ≥ 0.4 IU/mL and < 2.0 IU/mL are suggested to prevent thrombus formation within the extracorporeal circuit whilst minimizing bleeding risk. We aimed to characterize the variability in the association between dose and anti-Xa levels, identify patient and dialysis characteristics that explained this variability, and optimize nadroparin dosing based on the identified characteristics. METHODS: Anti-Xa samples were collected in patients who received intravenous nadroparin as thromboprophylaxis during routine dialysis sessions. A population pharmacodynamic model was developed using non-linear mixed-effects modelling. The percentage of patients ≥ 0.4 IU/mL (efficacy) and < 2.0 IU/mL (safety) was simulated for different doses, patient and dialysis characteristics. RESULTS: Patients (n = 137) were predominantly receiving standard hemodialysis (84.7% vs. hemodiafiltration 15.3%) and had a mean bodyweight of 76.3 kg (± 16.9). Lean body mass (LBM), mode of dialysis, and dialyzer partially explained between-subject variability in anti-Xa levels. Patients on hemodiafiltration and those receiving hemodialysis with a high LBM (≥ 80 kg) had a low probability (< 29%) of anti-Xa levels ≥ 0.4 IU/mL during the entire dialysis session. All patients, except hemodialysis patients with a low LBM (< 50 kg), had a high probability (> 70%) of peak anti-Xa levels < 2.0 IU/mL. CONCLUSION: Mainly patients receiving hemodiafiltration and those receiving hemodialysis with a high LBM can benefit from a higher nadroparin dose than currently used in clinical practice, while having anti-Xa levels < 2.0 IU/mL.

Effect of a Pharmacy-based Centralized Intravenous Admixture Service on the Prevalence of Medication Errors: A Before-and-After Study.

OBJECTIVES: Intravenous admixture preparation errors (IAPEs) may lead to patient harm. The primary aim of this study was to assess the effect of a pharmacy-based centralized intravenous admixture service (CIVAS) on IAPEs. METHODS: We conducted a before-and-after study in 3 clinical wards before CIVAS implementation and in the CIVAS unit 18 months after implementation. Intravenous admixture preparation error data were collected by disguised observation. The primary outcome was the proportion of admixtures with 1 or more IAPEs. Secondary outcomes were the type and potential severity of IAPEs, noncompliance to hygiene procedures, and nursing staff satisfaction with the CIVAS. The primary outcome was analyzed using a multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression model. RESULTS: One or more IAPEs were identified in 14 of 543 admixtures (2.6%) in the CIVAS unit and in 148 of 282 admixtures (52.5%) in the clinical wards (odds ratio, 0.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.004-0.05). The most common IAPE types were wrong solvent or diluent (n = 95) and wrong volume of infusion fluid (n = 45). No potentially harmful IAPEs occurred in the CIVAS unit as opposed to 22 (7.8%) in the clinical wards. Disinfection procedures were better adhered to in the CIVAS unit. Overall nurse satisfaction with the CIVAS increased from a median of 70 (n = 166) 5 months after intervention to 77 (n = 115) 18 months after intervention ( P < 0.001) on a 100-point scale. CONCLUSIONS: Centralized intravenous admixture service performed notably better than the clinical wards with regard to IAPEs and noncompliance to hygiene procedures. Nurses were satisfied with the CIVAS. Hence, the implementation of CIVAS is an important strategy to improve medication safety in hospitals.

Prolonged oxycodone use and potential risk factors in postoperative patients: a case control study.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged exposure to opioids has a negative influence on the physical and mental health of a person. Currently, little is known about the risk of prolonging opioids after first postoperative use. AIM: A study was conducted to define the proportion of postoperative patients that use oxycodone longer than prescribed to determine risk factors of prolonged use. METHOD: This retrospective single-center nested case-control study was performed in the Elisabeth Tweesteden Hospital. The study population consisted of postoperative adult patients who received an oxycodone prescription at discharge between April 2018 and June 2020. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with at least one refill of oxycodone during a follow-up period of 30 days. The secondary outcome was the association of potential risk factors with oxycodone refills. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the association between the variables and outcome. RESULTS: 1203 patients were included of which 280 (23.3%) received one or more refill. Age (adjusted odds ratio 1.01 [95% confidence interval 1.00-1.02]), length of stay (1.10 [1.06-1.14], a Numeric Rating Scale pain score of four or higher (1.52 [1.14-2.01]), use of the continuous release form only (2.15 [1.60-2.89]) and admission to various hospital departments were associated with a refill of oxycodone . CONCLUSION: The proportion of patients with a refill of oxycodone is 23.3%. This could result in chronic oxycodone use and potential misuse. Patients with the determined risk factors may be a suitable population for future interventions to minimize prolonged use.

The effect of Patient's Own Medication use on patient's self-reported medication knowledge during hospitalisation: a pre-post intervention study.

BACKGROUND: Improving patient's medication knowledge and consequently medication use is essential for optimal treatment outcomes. As patient knowledge about medication is currently suboptimal, interventions to optimise medication knowledge are necessary. Implementation of Patient's Own Medication (POM) in which patients bring their outpatient medication to the hospital, and nurses administer these during admission, may increase medication knowledge. The aim of this study is to explore the impact of POM use on self-reported medication knowledge of hospitalised patients compared to standard care. Patient's sense of medication safety, attitude to the provision of information, and to inpatient medication use were studied in both standard care and during POM use too. METHOD: In this nationwide intervention study perceived medication knowledge was assessed with a questionnaire pre and post implementing POM use. The questionnaire assessed perceived medication knowledge at admission and discharge, medication safety during hospitalisation, the provision of information during hospitalisation and at discharge, and inpatient medication use during hospitalisation. Patients' answers were categorised into positive and negative/neutral. The proportion of patients with adequate medication knowledge, in the standard care and POM use group at hospital admission and discharge, were calculated and compared with adjustment for potential confounders. RESULTS: Among the 731 patients (393 received standard care and 338 POM) who completed the questionnaire (80.2%), POM use seemed to be positively associated with self-reported knowledge on how to use medication at discharge (adjusted OR: 3.22 [95% CI 2.01-5.16]). However, for the other two knowledge related statements POM use was not associated. Medication knowledge at admission was the most important variable associated with perceived medication knowledge at discharge. The majority perceived POM use to be safer (52.9% of standard care patients versus 74.0% POM users; P <  0.01), POM users knew better which medicines they still used during hospitalisation (85.8% versus 92.3% resp.; P = 0.01), and most patients preferred POM use regardless of having experienced it (68.2% versus 82.2% resp.; P <  0.01). CONCLUSION: POM use positively affects patient's medication knowledge about how to use medication and patients' perception of medication safety. With POM use more patients have a positive attitude towards the provision of information. The majority of patients prefer POM use. In conclusion, POM use seems a valuable intervention and requires further investigation.

Implementation of a pharmacist-led transitional pharmaceutical care programme: Process evaluation of Medication Actions to Reduce hospital admissions through a collaboration between Community and Hospital pharmacists (MARCH).

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: The recently conducted Medication Actions to Reduce hospital admissions through a collaboration between Community and Hospital pharmacists (MARCH) transitional care programme, which aimed to test the effectiveness of a transitional care programme on the occurrence of ADEs post-discharge, did not show a significant effect. To clarify whether this non-significant effect was due to poor implementation or due to ineffectiveness of the intervention as such, a process evaluation was conducted. The aim of the study was to gain more insight into the implementation fidelity of MARCH. METHODS: A mixed methods design and the modified Conceptual Framework for Implementation Fidelity was used. For evaluation, the implementation fidelity and moderating factors of four key MARCH intervention components (teach-back, the pharmaceutical discharge letter, the post-discharge home-visit and the transitional medication review) were assessed. Quantitative data were collected during and after the intervention. Qualitative data were collected using semi-structured interviews with MARCH healthcare professionals (community pharmacists, clinical pharmacists, pharmacy assistants and pharmaceutical consultants) and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Not all key intervention components were implemented as intended. Teach-back was not always performed. Moreover, 63% of the pharmaceutical discharge letters, 35% of the post-discharge home-visits and 44% of the transitional medication reviews were not conducted within their planned time frames. Training sessions, structured manuals and protocols with detailed descriptions facilitated implementation. Intervention complexity, time constraints and the multidisciplinary coordination were identified as barriers for the implementation. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Overall, the implementation fidelity was considered to be moderate. Not all key intervention components were carried out as planned. Therefore, the non-significant results of the MARCH programme on ADEs may at least partly be explained by poor implementation of the programme. To successfully implement transitional care programmes, healthcare professionals require full integration of these programmes in the standard work-flow including IT improvements as well as compensation for the time investment.

Application of intervention mapping to develop and evaluate a pharmaceutical discharge letter to improve information transfer between hospital and community pharmacists.

BACKGROUND: Insufficient information transfer is a major barrier in the transition from hospital to home. This study describes the systematic development and evaluation of an intervention to improve medication information transfer between hospital and community pharmacists. OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate an intervention to improve the medication information transfer between hospital and community pharmacists based on patients', community and hospital pharmacists' needs. METHODS: The intervention development and evaluation was guided by the six-step Intervention Mapping (IM) approach: (1) needs assessment to identify determinants of the problem, with a scoping review and focus groups with patients and healthcare providers, (2) formulation of intervention objectives with an expert group, (3) inventory of communication models to design the intervention, (4) using literature review and qualitative research with pharmacists and patients to develop the intervention (5) pilot-testing of the intervention in two hospitals, and (6) a qualitative evaluation of the intervention as part of a multicenter before-after study with hospital and community pharmacists. RESULTS: Barriers in the information transfer are mainly time and content related. The intervention was designed to target a complete, accurate and timely medication information transfer between hospital and community pharmacists. A pharmaceutical discharge letter was developed to improve medication information transfer. Hospital and community pharmacists were positive about the usability, content, and comprehensiveness of the pharmaceutical discharge letter, which gave community pharmacists sufficient knowledge about in-hospital medication changes. However, hospital pharmacists reported that it was time-consuming to draft the discharge letter and not always feasible to send it on time. The intervention showed that pharmacists are positive about the usability, content and comprehensiveness. CONCLUSION: This study developed an intervention systematically to improve medication information transfer, consisting of a discharge letter to be used by hospital and community pharmacists supporting continuity of care.

Prevalence and determinants of intravenous admixture preparation errors: A prospective observational study in a university hospital.

Background Intravenous admixture preparation errors (IAPEs) may lead to patient harm. Insight into the prevalence as well as the determinants associated with these IAPEs is needed to elicit preventive measures. Aim The primary aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of IAPEs. Secondary aims were to identify the type, severity, and determinants of IAPEs. Method A prospective observational study was performed in a Dutch university hospital. IAPE data were collected by disguised observation. The primary outcome was the proportion of admixtures with one or more IAPEs. Descriptive statistics were used for the prevalence, type, and severity of IAPEs. Mixed-effects logistic regression analyses were used to estimate the determinants of IAPEs. Results A total of 533 IAPEs occurred in 367 of 614 admixtures (59.8%) prepared by nursing staff. The most prevalent errors were wrong preparation technique (n = 257) and wrong volume of infusion fluid (n = 107). Fifty-nine IAPEs (11.1%) were potentially harmful. The following variables were associated with IAPEs: multistep versus single-step preparations (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj] 4.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.27-7.35); interruption versus no interruption (ORadj 2.32, CI 1.13-4.74); weekend versus weekdays (ORadj 2.12, CI 1.14-3.95); time window 2 p.m.-6 p.m. versus 7 a.m.-10 a.m. (ORadj 3.38, CI 1.60-7.15); and paediatric versus adult wards (ORadj 0.14, CI 0.06-0.37). Conclusion IAPEs, including harmful IAPEs, occurred frequently. The determinants associated with IAPEs point to factors associated with preparation complexity and working conditions. Strategies to reduce the occurrence of IAPEs and therefore patient harm should target the identified determinants.