"Doctor, would it surprise you if there were prescribing errors in this patient's medication?" Identifying eligible patients for in-hospital pharmacotherapeutic stewardship: A matched case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Evaluating a patient's medication list is critical to reduce prescribing errors (PEs), but is a labour- and time-intensive process. Identification of patients at risk of PEs could improve the allocation of scarce time and resources, but currently available prediction tools are not effective. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether ward doctors can identify patients at risk of PEs. METHODS: This prospective matched case-control study was conducted on three clinical wards in an academic hospital. Otolaryngology and oncology ward doctors used clinical intuition to select patients requiring a clinical medication review (CMR) (cases). These patients were then matched 1:1 on age (±10 years) and number (±1) of prescriptions with patients not selected for CMRs on the internal medicine and upper gastrointestinal surgery ward (controls). A multidisciplinary in-hospital pharmacotherapeutic stewardship team assessed the prevalence of PEs. RESULTS: A total of 387 patients with 5191 prescriptions were included. Overall, 799 PEs affecting 279 patients (72.1%) were identified. Most PEs (58.8%) occurred during hospitalization. There were no significant differences in age, number of prescriptions, sex, renal function or documented allergies or intolerances between the cases and controls or between controls and other patients who did not receive a CMR. The incidence of PEs was higher in cases than in controls (97.5% vs 72.5%, odds ratio = 14.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8-121.1, P = .002)). The rate of PEs was three times higher in cases than in controls (incidence rate ratio = 3.0, 95% CI 2.3-4.0, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Ward doctors can effectively identify patients with PEs, and thus at risk of medication-related harm, using clinical intuition.

Quality indicators for appropriate in-hospital pharmacotherapeutic stewardship: An international modified Delphi study.

AIMS: In-hospital prescribing errors may result in patient harm, such as prolonged hospitalisation and hospital (re)admission, and may be an emotional burden for the prescribers and healthcare professionals involved. Despite efforts, in-hospital prescribing errors and related harm still occur, necessitating an innovative approach. We therefore propose a novel approach, in-hospital pharmacotherapeutic stewardship (IPS). The aim of this study was to reach consensus on a set of quality indicators (QIs) as a basis for IPS. METHODS: A three-round modified Delphi procedure was performed. Potential QIs were retrieved from two systematic searches of the literature, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. In two written questionnaires and a focus meeting (held between the written questionnaire rounds), potential QIs were appraised by an international, multidisciplinary expert panel composed of members of the European Association for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (EACPT). RESULTS: The expert panel rated 59 QIs and four general statements, of which 35 QIs were accepted with consensus rates ranging between 79% and 97%. These QIs describe the activities of an IPS programme, the team delivering IPS, the patients eligible for the programme and the outcome measures that should be used to evaluate the care delivered. CONCLUSIONS: A framework of 35 QIs for an IPS programme was systematically developed. These QIs can guide hospitals in setting up a pharmacotherapeutic stewardship programme to reduce in-hospital prescribing errors and improve in-hospital medication safety.

Factors influencing in-hospital prescribing errors: A systematic review.

AIM: In-hospital prescribing errors (PEs) may result in patient harm, prolonged hospitalization and hospital (re)admission. These events are associated with pressure on healthcare services and significant healthcare costs. To develop targeted interventions to prevent or reduce in-hospital PEs, identification and understanding of facilitating and protective factors influencing in-hospital PEs in current daily practice is necessary, adopting a Safety-II perspective. The aim of this systematic review was to create an overview of all factors reported in the literature, both protective and facilitating, as influencing in-hospital PEs. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE.com and the Cochrane Library (via Wiley) were searched, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement, for studies that identified factors influencing in-hospital PEs. Both qualitative and quantitative study designs were included. RESULTS: Overall, 19 articles (6 qualitative and 13 quantitative studies) were included and 40 unique factors influencing in-hospital PEs were identified. These factors were categorized into five domains according to the Eindhoven classification ('organization-related', 'prescriber-related', 'prescription-related', 'technology-related' and 'unclassified') and visualized in an Ishikawa (Fishbone) diagram. Most of the identified factors (87.5%; n = 40) facilitated in-hospital PEs. The most frequently identified facilitating factor (39.6%; n = 19) was 'insufficient (drug) knowledge, prescribing skills and/or experience of prescribers'. CONCLUSION: The findings of this review could be used to identify points of engagement for future intervention studies and help hospitals determine how to optimize prescribing. A multifaceted intervention, targeting multiple factors might help to circumvent the complex challenge of in-hospital PEs.

Prescribing errors in post - COVID-19 patients: prevalence, severity, and risk factors in patients visiting a post - COVID-19 outpatient clinic.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has challenged healthcare globally. An acute increase in the number of hospitalized patients has necessitated a rigorous reorganization of hospital care, thereby creating circumstances that previously have been identified as facilitating prescribing errors (PEs), e.g. a demanding work environment, a high turnover of doctors, and prescribing beyond expertise. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients may be at risk of PEs, potentially resulting in patient harm. We determined the prevalence, severity, and risk factors for PEs in post-COVID-19 patients, hospitalized during the first wave of COVID-19 in the Netherlands, 3 months after discharge. METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study recruited patients who visited a post-COVID-19 outpatient clinic of an academic hospital in the Netherlands, 3 months after COVID-19 hospitalization, between June 1 and October 1 2020. All patients with appointments were eligible for inclusion. The prevalence and severity of PEs were assessed in a multidisciplinary consensus meeting. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated by univariate and multivariate analysis to identify independent risk factors for PEs. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were included, of whom 92% had ≥1 PE and 8% experienced medication-related harm requiring an immediate change in medication therapy to prevent detoriation. Overall, 68% of all identified PEs were made during or after the COVID-19 related hospitalization. Multivariate analyses identified ICU admission (OR 6.08, 95% CI 2.16-17.09) and a medical history of COPD / asthma (OR 5.36, 95% CI 1.34-21.5) as independent risk factors for PEs. CONCLUSIONS: PEs occurred frequently during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Patients admitted to an ICU during COVID-19 hospitalization or who had a medical history of COPD / asthma were at risk of PEs. These risk factors can be used to identify high-risk patients and to implement targeted interventions. Awareness of prescribing safely is crucial to prevent harm in this new patient population.

The pharmacotherapy team: A novel strategy to improve appropriate in-hospital prescribing using a participatory intervention action method.

AIMS: Prescribing medication is a complex process that, when done inappropriately, can lead to adverse drug events, resulting in patient harm and hospital admissions. Worldwide cost is estimated at 42 billion USD each year. Despite several efforts in the past years, medication-related harm has not declined. The aim was to determine whether a prescriber-focussed participatory action intervention, initiated by a multidisciplinary pharmacotherapy team, is able to reduce the number of in-hospital prescriptions containing ≥1 prescribing error (PE), by identifying and reducing challenges in appropriate prescribing. METHODS: A prospective single-centre before- and after study was conducted in an academic hospital in the Netherlands. Twelve clinical wards (medical, surgical, mixed and paediatric) were recruited. RESULTS: Overall, 321 patients with a total of 2978 prescriptions at baseline were compared with 201 patients with 2438 prescriptions postintervention. Of these, m456 prescriptions contained ≥1 PE (15.3%) at baseline and 357 prescriptions contained ≥1 PEs (14.6%) postintervention. PEs were determined in multidisciplinary consensus. On some study wards, a trend toward a decreasing number of PEs was observed. The intervention was associated with a nonsignificant difference in PEs (incidence rate ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.83-1.10), which was unaltered after correction. The most important identified challenges were insufficient knowledge beyond own expertise, unawareness of guidelines and a heavy workload. CONCLUSION: The tailored interventions developed with and implemented by stakeholders led to a statistically nonsignificant reduction in inappropriate in-hospital prescribing after a 6-month intervention period. Our prescriber-focussed participatory action intervention identified challenges in appropriate in-hospital prescribing on prescriber- and organizational level.

[Medication review 2.0]. / Medicatiebeoordeling 2.0.

Almost half of medication-related hospital admissions are preventable. In the primary care setting structured medication reviews (SMRs) are an effective tool to detect and prevent medication errors that may cause harm to patients. Increasingly, SMRs are also being carried out in the clinical setting. SMRs are usually carried out by pharmacists who are well trained in pharmacology and in detecting medication errors. However, the implementation rate of the pharmaceutical interventions that result from SMRs is too low. We have introduced a multidisciplinary pharmacotherapy team of pharmacists and medical doctors into the clinic to carry out Medication review 2.0. The team performs SMRs to detect and prevent medication errors in hospital patients, improves the implementation rate of pharmaceutical interventions by enhancing transmural communication, and gives training and support to clinical prescribers in doing an SMR.