A centralized automated-dispensing system in a French teaching hospital: return on investment and quality improvement.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the return on investment (ROI) and quality improvement after implementation of a centralized automated-dispensing system after 8 years of use. DESIGN: Prospective evaluation of ROI; before and after study to evaluate dispensing errors; user satisfaction questionnaire after 8 years of use. SETTING: The study was conducted at a French teaching hospital in the pharmacy department, which is equipped with decentralized automated medication cabinets in the wards. PARTICIPANTS: Pharmacy staff (technicians and residents). INTERVENTION(S): Implementation of a centralized automated-dispensing robot. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The true ROI was prospectively and annually compared to estimated returns calculated after implementation and upgrade of the robot; dispensing errors determined by observation of global deliveries and the satisfaction of users based on a validated questionnaire were evaluated. RESULTS: Following the upgrade, we found little difference for the ROI (+1.86%). The payback period increased by almost 3 years. There was a significant reduction of dispensing errors, from 2.9% to 1.7% (P < 0.001). User satisfaction of the robot by the pharmacy staff was reported (score of 5.52 ± 1.20 out of 7). CONCLUSIONS: These systems are worthwhile investments and largely contribute to improving the quality and safety of the medication process.

Providing physicians with feedback on medication adherence for people with chronic diseases taking long-term medication.

BACKGROUND: Poor medication adherence decreases treatment efficacy and worsens clinical outcomes, but average rates of adherence to long-term pharmacological treatments for chronic illnesses are only about 50%. Interventions for improving medication adherence largely focus on patients rather than on physicians; however, the strategies shown to be effective are complex and difficult to implement in clinical practice. There is a need for new care models addressing the problem of medication adherence, integrating this problem into the patient care process. Physicians tend to overestimate how well patients take their medication as prescribed. This can lead to missed opportunities to change medications, solve adverse effects, or propose the use of reminders in order to improve patients' adherence. Thus, providing physicians with feedback on medication adherence has the potential to prompt changes that improve their patients' adherence to prescribed medications. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of providing physicians with feedback about their patients' medication adherence for improving adherence. We also assessed the effects of the intervention on patient outcomes, health resource use, and processes of care. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase, all from database inception to December 2016 and without any language restriction. We also searched ISI Web of Science, two trials registers, and grey literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series studies that compared the effects of providing feedback to physicians about their patients' adherence to prescribed long-term medications for chronic diseases versus usual care. We included published or unpublished studies in any language. Participants included any physician and any patient prescribed with long-term medication for chronic disease. We included interventions providing the prescribing physician with information about patient adherence to medication. Only studies in which feedback to the physician was the sole intervention or the essential component of a multifaceted intervention were eligible. In the comparison groups, the physicians should not have had access to information about their patients' adherence to medication. We considered the following outcomes: medication adherence, patient outcomes, health resource use, processes of care, and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors extracted and analysed all data using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group. Due to heterogeneity in study methodology, comparison groups, intervention settings, and measurements of outcomes, we did not carry out meta-analysis. We describe the impact of interventions on outcomes in tabular form and make a qualitative assessment of the effects of studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies (23,255 patient participants): eight randomised trials and one interrupted time series analysis. The studies took place in primary care and other outpatient settings in the USA and Canada. Seven interventions involved the systematic provision of feedback to physicians concerning all their patients' adherence to medication, and two interventions involved issuing an alert for non-adherent patients only. Seven studies used pharmacy refill data to assess medication adherence, and two used an electronic device or self-reporting. The definition of adherence differed across studies, making comparisons difficult. Eight studies were at high risk of bias, and one study was at unclear risk of bias. The most frequent source of bias was lack of protection against contamination.Providing physicians with feedback may lead to little or no difference in medication adherence (seven studies, 22,924 patients), patient outcomes (two studies, 1292 patients), or health resource use (two studies, 4181 patients). Providing physicians with feedback on medication adherence may improve processes of care (e.g. more medication changes, dialogue with patient, management of uncontrolled hypertension) compared to usual care (four studies, 2780 patients). None of the studies reported an adverse event due to the intervention. The certainty of evidence was low for all outcomes, mainly due to high risk of bias, high heterogeneity across studies, and indirectness of evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Across nine studies, we observed little or no evidence that provision of feedback to physicians regarding their patients adherence to prescribed medication improved medication adherence, patient outcomes, or health resource use. Feedback about medication adherence may improve processes of care, but due to the small number of studies assessing this outcome and high risk of bias, we cannot draw firm conclusions on the effect of feedback on this outcome. Future research should use a clear, standardised definition of medication adherence and cluster-randomisation to avoid the risk of contamination.

[Improving health care practices and organization: methodology for intervention studies]. / Améliorer les pratiques et l'organisation des soins?: méthodologie des études d'interventions.

Interventions designed to improve professional practices and healthcare organization are regularly implemented in all health systems. Their effectiveness on quality of care should be properly evaluated prior to their widespread implementation. Intervention studies can be conducted for this purpose according to a rigorous methodology in order to provide results with a good level of evidence. This article describes the main phases of an intervention study, including definition of the intervention, choice of study design, outcomes assessment, and writing of the report. It also addresses methodological issues of intervention studies designed to improve quality of care, such as cluster-randomization or the use of quasi-experimental designs. One of the specific features of these studies is that professionals are the targets, while patients are the beneficiaries of the intervention. A good knowledge of the specific features of studies designed to improve quality of care is essential to conduct research, or to evaluate the quality of the evidence from published studies.

[Improving practice and organisation of care: methodology for systematic reviews]. / Améliorer les pratiques et l'organisation des soins?: méthodologie des revues systématiques.

The number of intervention studies designed to improve quality of care is increasing exponentially, making it difficult to access all available information on a given subject. Systematic reviews are tools that provide health professionals with comprehensive and objective information. This article describes the main phases of a systematic review: formulating the research question, search and selection of studies, data extraction and analysis, assessment of the methodological quality of studies, and synthesis of the results. Interventions designed to improve professional practices and organisation of care have specific characteristics that determine the methodology of systematic reviews. For example, the often substantial heterogeneity between populations, organisations, and intervention settings among studies must be taken into account, which makes meta-analysis more difficult. Knowledge on specific features of systematic reviews designed to improve quality of care is essential to ensure a good review of the literature, or to evaluate the level of evidence of published systematic reviews.