Best practice strategies to safeguard drug prescribing and drug administration: an anthology of expert views and opinions.

BACKGROUND: While evidence on implementation of medication safety strategies is increasing, reasons for selecting and relinquishing distinct strategies and details on implementation are typically not shared in published literature. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to collect and structure expert information resulting from implementing medication safety strategies to provide advice for decision-makers. SETTING: Medication safety experts with clinical expertise from thirteen hospitals throughout twelve European and North American countries shared their experience in workshop meetings, on-site-visits and remote structured interviews. METHODS: We performed an expert-based, in-depth assessment of implementation of best-practice strategies to improve drug prescribing and drug administration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Workflow, variability and recommended medication safety strategies in drug prescribing and drug administration processes. RESULTS: According to the experts, institutions chose strategies that targeted process steps known to be particularly error-prone in the respective setting. Often, the selection was channeled by local constraints such as the e-health equipment and critically modulated by national context factors. In our study, the experts favored electronic prescribing with clinical decision support and medication reconciliation as most promising interventions. They agreed that self-assessment and introduction of medication safety boards were crucial to satisfy the setting-specific differences and foster successful implementation. CONCLUSION: While general evidence for implementation of strategies to improve medication safety exists, successful selection and adaptation of a distinct strategy requires a thorough knowledge of the institute-specific constraints and an ongoing monitoring and adjustment of the implemented measures.

Implementation of practice guidelines for antifungal therapy in a surgical intensive care unit and its impact on use and costs.

BACKGROUND: Considering the complexity of diagnosis, high costs of therapy and high morbidity and mortality of systemic fungal infections, antifungal therapy of intensive care patients should follow clearly defined guidelines. We outline the impact of a standardised practice of antifungal treatment in an interdisciplinary surgical intensive care unit of a university hospital. METHODS: Therapy was intended to be optimised by implementation of standardised practice guidelines supported by the clinical pharmacist. Costs for antifungal agents during a period of 18 months before and after implementation of the practice guidelines were compared, respectively. RESULTS: The intervention was associated with a significant decrease in use of antifungal agents. Analysis of data revealed a reduction in costs by 50%. This could substantially be attributed to the implementation of the practice guidelines. CONCLUSION: The implementation of standardised practice guidelines for antifungal therapy in intensive care units decreased the use of selected antifungal agents and resulted in substantial reduction in expenditure on antifungal agents.