Accuracy of medication histories derived from an Australian cloud-based repository of prescribed and dispensed medication records.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining accurate medication histories at transitions of care is challenging, but important for patient safety. Prescription exchange services (PES) securely transfer electronic prescription and dispensing records between prescribers and pharmacies, which is potentially useful data for determining medication histories. AIM: To evaluate the accuracy of PES-derived medication histories. METHODS: Prospective observational study, at two Australian tertiary-referral health services. A convenience sample of adult inpatients was recruited. The main outcome measure was: proportion of patients with ≥1 errors in their PES-derived pre-admission medication histories, compared with gold-standard best-possible medication histories, including prescribed and non-prescribed medications, obtained by pharmacists using multiple sources including patient/carer interview. RESULTS: Of 154 patients (median age 76 years; interquartile range (IQR) 64-84 years; median 10.0 pre-admission medications; IQR 6.0-14.0), 153 (99.4%) had ≥1 errors in their PES-derived medication history (median 6.0 errors per patient; IQR 4.0-9.0). Excluding when-required medications, 146 (94.8%) patients had >1 errors (median 4.0 errors per patient; IQR 2.0-6.0). Omission was the most common error, affecting 549 (33.3%) of 1648 current medications (median 3.0; IQR 1.0-5.0 per patient); 396 (72.1%) omissions were over-the-counter medicines. Dose-regimen errors affected 276 (25.1%) of 1099 current medications captured in PES-derived medication histories (median 1.0 error per patient; IQR 0.0-3.0). Commission errors (medications in PES-derived histories that were not current) affected 224 (16.9%) of 1323 medications (median 1.0 error per patient; IQR 1.0-2.0). CONCLUSIONS: Medication histories derived solely from a cloud-based medication record repository had a high error rate compared with patients' actual medication use. Like all medication history sources, data from cloud-based repositories need to be verified with additional sources including the patient and/or their carer.

Medicines stewardship.

Medicines stewardship refers to coordinated strategies and interventions to optimise medicines use, usually within a specific therapeutic area. Medicines stewardship programs can reduce variations in practice and improve patient outcomes. Therapeutic domains for medicines stewardship are chosen to address frequently used drug classes associated with a high risk of adverse outcomes. Some examples include antimicrobial, opioid analgesic, anticoagulation and psychotropic stewardship. Common elements of successful stewardship programs include multidisciplinary leadership, stakeholder engagement, tailored communication strategies, behavioural changes, implementation science methodologies, and ongoing program monitoring, evaluation and reporting. Medicines stewardship is a continual quality improvement process that requires ongoing support and resources, as well as clinician and consumer engagement, to remain sustainable. It is critical for hospital-based medicines stewardship programs to consider impacts on care in the community when making and communicating changes to patient therapy. This ensures that stewardship efforts are sustained across transitions of care.

Paracetamol dosing in hospital and on discharge for older people who are frail or have low body weight.

AIMS: To describe paracetamol dosing and liver function test (LFT) monitoring in older hospital inpatients who are frail or have low body weight. METHODS: Retrospective observational study, at a 790-bed metropolitan public health service in Australia. Patients aged ≥70 years, with body weight <50 kg or frailty index based on laboratory data (FI-Lab) score ≥0.3, who were administered paracetamol during an admission with length-of-stay >72 hours, were included. Data were extracted from electronic medical records. Paracetamol doses administered in hospital, and doses prescribed on discharge, were compared against consensus guidelines that recommended ≤60 mg/kg/d for older people weighing <50 kg, and ≤3000 mg/d for frail older people. RESULTS: In total, 240 admissions (n = 229 patients, mean age 84.7 years) were analysed. During 150 (62.5%) admissions, higher than recommended paracetamol doses were prescribed. On 138 (57.5%) occasions, patients were prescribed paracetamol on discharge, and 112/138 (81.2%) doses were higher than recommended. Most discharge prescriptions (97/138, 70.3%) were for regular administration. The median daily dose on discharge for patients <50 kg was 83.7 mg/kg (interquartile range 73.6-90.9 mg/kg). For frail patients ≥50 kg, the median daily discharge dose was 3990 mg (interquartile range 3000-4000 mg). LFTs were measured in hospital for 151/200 (75.5%) and 93/166 (56.0%) patients who received paracetamol for >48 hours and >5 days, respectively. CONCLUSION: Majority of paracetamol doses prescribed for frail or low-weight older patients in hospital and on discharge were higher than recommended in consensus guidelines. LFTs were not measured for 44% patients who received paracetamol regularly for >5 days. Further studies are needed to explore long-term outcomes of this practice.

Evaluation of intravenous to oral antimicrobial switch at a hospital with a tightly regulated antimicrobial stewardship program.

Timely intravenous (IV) to oral antimicrobial switch (IV-oral-switch) is a key antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) strategy. We aimed to explore concordance with IV-oral-switch guidelines in the context of a long-standing, tightly regulated AMS program. Data was retrospectively collected for 107 adult general medical and surgical patients in an Australian hospital. Median duration of IV antimicrobial courses before switching to oral therapy was 3 days (interquartile range [IQR] 2.25-5.00). Timely IV-oral-switch occurred in 57% (n = 61) of patients. The median delay to switching was 0 days (IQR 0 to 1.25). In most courses (92/106, 86.8%), the choice of oral alternative after switching was appropriate. In 45% (47/105) of courses, total duration of therapy (IV plus oral) exceeded the recommended duration by >1.0 day. Excessive IV antimicrobial duration was uncommon at a hospital with a tightly regulated AMS program. Total duration of therapy was identified as an AMS target for improvement.

Exploring the practice, confidence and educational needs of hospital pharmacists in reviewing antimicrobial prescribing: a cross-sectional, nationwide survey.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs are usually limited in resources and scope. Therefore, wider engagement of hospital pharmacists in reviewing antimicrobial orders is necessary to ensure appropriate prescribing. We assessed hospital pharmacists' self-reported practice and confidence in reviewing antimicrobial prescribing, and their knowledge in making AMS interventions. METHODS: We conducted an Australia-wide, cross-sectional survey in October 2017. A link to the online survey was emailed to hospital pharmacists via the Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia. Factors associated with higher knowledge scores were explored using linear regression models. RESULTS: There were 439 respondents, of whom 272 (61.7%) were from metropolitan public hospitals. Pharmacists were more likely to assess the appropriateness of intravenous, broad-spectrum or restricted antibiotics than narrow-spectrum, oral antibiotics within 24-72 h of prescription; p < 0.001. Fifty percent or fewer respondents were confident in identifying AMS interventions related to dose optimization based on infection-specific factors, bug-drug mismatch, and inappropriate lack of spectra of antimicrobial activity. The median knowledge score (correct answers to knowledge questions) was 6 out of 9 (interquartile range, 5-7); key gaps were noted in antimicrobials' anaerobic spectrum, beta-lactam allergy assessment and dosing in immunocompromised patients. Clinical practice in inpatient areas, registration for 3-5 years and receipt of recent AMS education were associated with higher knowledge scores. More interactive modes of education delivery were preferred over didactic modes; p ≤ 0.01. CONCLUSION: Gaps in practice, confidence and knowledge among hospital pharmacists were identified that could inform the design of educational strategies to help improve antimicrobial prescribing in Australian hospitals.

Interventions for improving medication-taking ability and adherence in older adults prescribed multiple medications.

BACKGROUND: Older people taking multiple medications represent a large and growing proportion of the population. Managing multiple medications can be challenging, and this is especially the case for older people, who have higher rates of comorbidity and physical and cognitive impairment than younger adults. Good medication-taking ability and medication adherence are necessary to ensure safe and effective use of medications. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve medication-taking ability and/or medication adherence in older community-dwelling adults prescribed multiple long-term medications. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from inception until June 2019. We also searched grey literature, online trial registries, and reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs. Eligible studies tested interventions aimed at improving medication-taking ability and/or medication adherence among people aged ≥ 65 years (or of mean/median age > 65 years), living in the community or being discharged from hospital back into the community, and taking four or more regular prescription medications (or with group mean/median of more than four medications). Interventions targeting carers of older people who met these criteria were also included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts and full texts of eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We conducted meta-analyses when possible and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect, risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Narrative synthesis was performed when meta-analysis was not possible. We assessed overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Primary outcomes were medication-taking ability and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life (HRQoL), emergency department (ED)/hospital admissions, and mortality. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 50 studies (14,269 participants) comprising 40 RCTs, six cluster-RCTs, and four quasi-RCTs. All included studies evaluated interventions versus usual care; six studies also reported a comparison between two interventions as part of a three-arm RCT design. Interventions were grouped on the basis of their educational and/or behavioural components: 14 involved educational components only, 7 used behavioural strategies only, and 29 provided mixed educational and behavioural interventions. Overall, our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions was low to very low due to a high degree of heterogeneity of included studies and high or unclear risk of bias across multiple domains in most studies. Five studies evaluated interventions for improving medication-taking ability, and 48 evaluated interventions for improving medication adherence (three studies evaluated both outcomes). No studies involved educational or behavioural interventions alone for improving medication-taking ability. Low-quality evidence from five studies, each using a different measure of medication-taking ability, meant that we were unable to determine the effects of mixed interventions on medication-taking ability. Low-quality evidence suggests that behavioural only interventions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.38; 4 studies) and mixed interventions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.37; 12 studies) may increase the proportions of people who are adherent compared with usual care. We could not include in the meta-analysis results from two studies involving mixed interventions: one had a positive effect on adherence, and the other had little or no effect. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of educational only interventions (5 studies) on the proportions of people who are adherent. Low-quality evidence suggests that educational only interventions (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.43; 5 studies) and mixed interventions (SMD 0.47, 95% CI -0.08 to 1.02; 7 studies) may have little or no impact on medication adherence assessed through continuous measures of adherence. We excluded 10 studies (4 educational only and 6 mixed interventions) from the meta-analysis including four studies with unclear or no available results. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of behavioural only interventions (3 studies) on medication adherence when assessed through continuous outcomes. Low-quality evidence suggests that mixed interventions may reduce the number of ED/hospital admissions (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; 11 studies) compared with usual care, although results from six further studies that we were unable to include in meta-analyses indicate that the intervention may have a smaller, or even no, effect on these outcomes. Similarly, low-quality evidence suggests that mixed interventions may lead to little or no change in HRQoL (7 studies), and very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects on mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.30; 7 studies). Moderate-quality evidence shows that educational interventions alone probably have little or no effect on HRQoL (6 studies) or on ED/hospital admissions (4 studies) when compared with usual care. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of behavioural interventions on HRQoL (1 study) or on ED/hospital admissions (2 studies). We identified no studies evaluating effects of educational or behavioural interventions alone on mortality. Six studies reported a comparison between two interventions; however due to the limited number of studies assessing the same types of interventions and comparisons, we are unable to draw firm conclusions for any outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Behavioural only or mixed educational and behavioural interventions may improve the proportion of people who satisfactorily adhere to their prescribed medications, but we are uncertain of the effects of educational only interventions. No type of intervention was found to improve adherence when it was measured as a continuous variable, with educational only and mixed interventions having little or no impact and evidence of insufficient quality to determine the effects of behavioural only interventions. We were unable to determine the impact of interventions on medication-taking ability. The quality of evidence for these findings is low due to heterogeneity and methodological limitations of studies included in the review. Further well-designed RCTs are needed to investigate the effects of interventions for improving medication-taking ability and medication adherence in older adults prescribed multiple medications.

The Prevalence and Nature of Medication Errors and Adverse Events Related to Preadmission Medications When Patients Are Admitted to an Orthopedic Inpatient Unit: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors commonly occur when patients move from the community into hospital. Whereas medication reconciliation by pharmacists can detect errors, delays in undertaking this can increase the risk that patients receive incorrect admission medication regimens. Orthopedic patients are an at-risk group because they are often elderly and use multiple medications. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence and nature of medication errors when patients are admitted to an orthopedic unit where pharmacists routinely undertake postprescribing medication reconciliation. METHODS: A 10-week retrospective observational study was conducted at a major metropolitan hospital in Australia. Medication records of orthopedic inpatients were evaluated to determine the number of prescribing and administration errors associated with patients' preadmission medications and the number of related adverse events that occurred within 72 hours of admission. RESULTS: Preadmission, 198 patients were taking at least 1 regular medication, of whom 176 (88.9%) experienced at least 1 medication error. The median number of errors per patient was 6 (interquartile range 3-10). Unintended omission of a preadmission medication was the most common prescribing error (87.4%). There were 17 adverse events involving 24 medications in 16 (8.1%) patients that were potentially related to medication errors; 6 events were deemed moderate consequence (moderate injury or harm, increased length of stay, or cancelled/delayed treatment), and the remainder were minor. Conclusion and Relevance: Medication errors were common when orthopedic patients were admitted to hospital, despite postprescribing pharmacist medication reconciliation. Some of these errors led to patient harm. Interventions that ensure that medications are prescribed correctly at admission are required.

Challenges and barriers associated with medication management for home nursing clients in Australia: a qualitative study combining the perspectives of community nurses, community pharmacists and GPs.

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of older people are receiving home nursing support for medication management to enable them to remain living at home. Home nursing clients frequently experience medication errors and adverse medication events. There has been little study of how medication management processes and interdisciplinary teamwork impact on medication management in the home nursing setting. OBJECTIVE: To explore medication management processes and describe barriers and challenges from the perspective of community nurses, community pharmacists and GPs involved in the provision of medication management services for home nursing clients. METHODS: Focus groups, in-depth interviews and stakeholder consultations were conducted with a convenience sample of community nurses, community pharmacists and GPs. Data were analysed using the framework approach (a deductive thematic analysis) to identify issues affecting the delivery of medication management services. RESULTS: Ten focus groups, 12 in-depth interviews and 5 stakeholder consultation meetings were conducted with 86 health practitioners (55 community nurses, 17 GPs, 10 community pharmacists and 4 nurse managers). Participants highlighted a range of barriers and challenges associated with medication management for home nursing clients, including deficiencies in interdisciplinary communication; problems related to organizational or workplace policies, processes and systems; and ineffective team function. The negative impacts of these were recognized as compromised client safety, reduced workforce efficiency and productivity and compromised interprofessional relationships. CONCLUSION: Barriers and challenges with medication management for home nursing clients and associated negative impacts were identified. Strategies are needed to improve interdisciplinary medication management and medication safety in the home nursing setting.

Posthospital Falls Prevention Intervention: A Mixed-Methods Study.

OBJECTIVE: Posthospital discharge shows increased risk for falls in older people. This pilot study was created to determine feasibility and acceptability of a community-delivered posthospital multifactorial program. METHOD: This mixed-method study used randomized controlled design (quantitative component) and interviews (qualitative component). People aged ≥65 years, hospitalized for a fall, underwent assessment for quality of life and falls-related outcomes, followed by interviews, randomization into intervention (exercise, medication review, and education) or control group, and follow-up at 6 months. RESULTS: Thirteen people commenced, with 10 people assessed at 6 months. Participants were complex with high degrees of frailty, multimorbidity, polypharmacy, and falls risk. Interview data related to intervention, impacts on quality of life, and fall-related outcomes. CONCLUSION: Preliminary findings suggest suitability of a multifactorial program for older people posthospital discharge following a fall. A social component would be a useful addition to falls prevention strategies, utilizing existing community nursing organizations.

'Falls not a priority': insights on discharging older people, admitted to hospital for a fall, back to the community.

Falls are common among older people and a leading cause of injury-related hospitalisation. The immediate post-hospitalisation period is a risky time for further falls. This paper explores discharge strategies from the perspectives of older people hospitalised for a fall and liaison nurses assisting people to return home. Exploratory mixed methods were used. Semi-structured interviews with older people were conducted regarding their experience of the fall and discharge strategies. Quality of life, falls risk and functional capacity were measured by questionnaire. Liaison nurses were also interviewed. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. Mixed-method synthesis occurred using role-ordered matrix analysis. Older people (n=13) and liaison nurses (n=6) participated. Older persons' quality of life was average and falls risk high. Thematic analysis revealed three key themes: 'falls are not a priority', 'information not given, or given and not retained' and 'reduction in confidence and independence'. Role-ordered matrix analysis identified differences between acute and rehabilitative hospital stays. Older people hospitalised for a fall present a unique opportunity for implementation of falls prevention strategies. However, hospitalisation is often a time of crisis with competing priorities. Timing and relevance are crucial for optimal uptake of falls prevention strategies, with the primary care setting well-placed for their implementation.

Evaluation of a hybrid paper-electronic medication management system at a residential aged care facility.

Objectives The aims of the study were to investigate discrepancies between general practitioners' paper medication orders and pharmacy-prepared electronic medication administration charts, back-up paper charts and dose-administration aids, as well as delays between prescribing, charting and administration, at a 90-bed residential aged care facility that used a hybrid paper-electronic medication management system. Methods A cross-sectional audit of medication orders, medication charts and dose-administration aids was performed to identify discrepancies. In addition, a retrospective audit was performed of delays between prescribing and availability of an updated electronic medication administration chart. Medication administration records were reviewed retrospectively to determine whether discrepancies and delays led to medication administration errors. Results Medication records for 88 residents (mean age 86 years) were audited. Residents were prescribed a median of eight regular medicines (interquartile range 5-12). One hundred and twenty-five discrepancies were identified. Forty-seven discrepancies, affecting 21 (24%) residents, led to a medication administration error. The most common discrepancies were medicine omission (44.0%) and extra medicine (19.2%). Delays from when medicines were prescribed to when they appeared on the electronic medication administration chart ranged from 18min to 98h. On nine occasions (for 10% of residents) the delay contributed to missed doses, usually antibiotics. Conclusion Medication discrepancies and delays were common. Improved systems for managing medication orders and charts are needed. What is known about the topic? Hybrid paper-electronic medication management systems, in which prescribers' orders are transcribed into an electronic system by pharmacy technicians and pharmacists to create medication administration charts, are increasingly replacing paper-based medication management systems in Australian residential aged care facilities. The accuracy and safety of these systems has not been studied. What does this paper add? The present study identified discrepancies between general practitioners' orders and pharmacy-prepared electronic medication administration charts, back-up paper medication charts and dose-administration aids, as well as delays between ordering, charting and administering medicines. Discrepancies and delays sometimes led to medication administration errors. What are the implications for practitioners? Facilities that use hybrid systems need to implement robust systems for communicating medication changes to their pharmacy and reconciling prescribers' orders against pharmacy-generated medication charts and dose-administration aids. Fully integrated, paperless medication management systems, in which prescribers' electronic medication orders directly populate an electronic medication administration chart and are automatically communicated to the facility's pharmacy, could improve patient safety.

Evaluation of a support worker role, within a nurse delegation and supervision model, for provision of medicines support for older people living at home: the Workforce Innovation for Safe and Effective (WISE) Medicines Care study.

BACKGROUND: Support with managing medicines at home is a common reason for older people to receive community nursing services. With population ageing and projected nurse shortages, reliance on nurses may not be sustainable. We developed and tested a new workforce model: 'Workforce Innovation for Safe and Effective (WISE) Medicines Care', which enabled nurses to delegate medicines support home visits for low-risk clients to support workers (known as community care aides [CCAs]). Primary study aims were to assess whether the model increased the number of medicines support home visits conducted by CCAs, explore nurses', CCAs' and consumers' experiences with the CCAs' expanded role, and identify enablers and barriers to delegation of medicines support. METHODS: A prospective before-after mixed-methods study was conducted within a community nursing service that employed a small number of CCAs. The CCAs' main role prior to the WISE Medicines Care model was personal care, with a very limited role in medicines support. CCAs received training in medicines support, and nurses received training in assessment, delegation and supervision. Home visit data over two three-month periods were compared. Focus groups and interviews were conducted with purposive samples of nurses (n = 27), CCAs (n = 7) and consumers (n = 28). RESULTS: Medicines support visits by CCAs increased from 43/16,863 (0.25 %) to 714/21,552 (3.3 %) (p < 0.001). Nurses reported mostly positive experiences, and high levels of trust and confidence in CCAs. They reported that delegating to CCAs sometimes eliminated the need for duplicate nurse and CCA visits (for people requiring personal care plus medicines support) and enabled them to visit people with more complex needs. CCAs enjoyed their expanded role and were accepted by clients and/or carers. Nurses and CCAs reported effective communication when medicine-related problems occurred. No medication incidents involving CCAs were reported. Barriers to implementation included the limited number of CCAs employed in the organisation and reluctance from some nurses to delegate medicines support to CCAs. Enablers included training and support, existing relationships between CCAs and nurses, and positive staff attitudes. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriately trained and supervised support workers can be used to support community nurses with providing medicines management for older people in the home care setting, particularly for those who are at low risk of adverse medication events or errors. The model was acceptable to nurses, clients and carers, and may offer a sustainable and safe and effective future workforce solution to provision of medicines support for older people in the home care setting.

Completeness and accuracy of adverse drug reaction documentation in electronic medical records at a tertiary care hospital in Australia.

Background: A large proportion of patients presenting to hospitals have experienced a previous adverse drug reaction (ADR). Electronic medical records (EMRs) present an opportunity to accurately document ADRs and alert clinicians against inadvertent rechallenge where there is a pre-existing reaction. However, EMR systems are imperfect and rely on the accuracy of the data entered. Objective: To ascertain the completeness of ADR documentation and the accuracy of the classification of ADRs as allergy versus intolerance in the EMR at a major metropolitan hospital in Australia. Method: Cross-sectional audit of the ADR field of the EMR for a sample of patients on four different wards over 3 weeks to ascertain the completeness of ADR documentation and the accuracy of classification of ADRs. Results: Of the 264 patients assessed, 102 (38.6%) had a total of 210 ADRs documented in the EMR. Of these, 105 (50%) were considered to have complete documentation; 63/210 (30.0%) were missing a reaction description and 88/210 (41.9%) were missing severity information. For those ADRs with a reaction description (n = 147), 97 (66.0%) were considered to be appropriately classified as allergy or intolerance. Conclusion: Incomplete and inaccurate ADR documentation was common. These findings highlight a need for optimising ADR documentation to improve appropriate medication use in hospital. Implications: Improved EMR design and education of healthcare workers on the importance of complete and accurate documentation of reactions are needed to improve completeness and accuracy of ADR classification.

Accuracy of medication labels on community pharmacy-prepared dose administration aids: An observational study.

Background: Hospital prescribers often use the labels on multicompartment compliance aids or monitored dosage systems, known in Australia as dose administration aids (DAAs), as a trusted source of information about patients' medication regimens taken in the community. Aim: The primary aim was to explore the prevalence and nature of labelling incidents on community pharmacy-prepared DAAs. Methods: A convenience sample of 100 adult patients admitted to a metropolitan teaching hospital who used a community pharmacy-prepared DAA at home was recruited. Patients were excluded if their DAAs were not brought to hospital. As part of usual care, a pharmacist took a best possible medication history (BPMH) using multiple information sources. This 'gold standard' BPMH was compared to the regimen listed on the DAA summary label and the DAA contents. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients whose DAA summary label(s) had one or more incidents for DAA packed medications. DAA label incident was defined as incorrect, missing or illegible/ambiguous medication name, strength, dose or dose-form when compared to the BPMH and DAA contents. Secondary outcomes were compliance with best-practice guidelines for labelling DAAs; and percentage of patients with a DAA packing error. Results: The 100 patients used 110 DAAs, packed by 75 community pharmacies. Four (4.0%) patients had no medication summary label on their DAAs. Of the 96 patients whose DAA(s) had a summary label, 82 (85.4%) had one or more summary label incidents. The most prevalent incidents were 'illegible, ambiguous or missing medication details', 'truncated medication name' and 'omission of a medication'. The most prevalent guideline non-compliance was not including generic medication names (68% DAA-packed medications). Two DAA packing errors were identified. Conclusion: A high prevalence of DAA labelling incidents was identified. Improved DAA labelling software functionality, more robust pharmacy procedures and pharmacy staff education are required.

A novel, multidomain, primary care nurse-led and mHealth-assisted intervention for dementia risk reduction in middle-aged adults (HAPPI MIND): study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Middle-aged multidomain risk reduction interventions targeting modifiable risk factors for dementia may delay or prevent a third of dementia cases in later life. We describe the protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT), HAPPI MIND (Holistic Approach in Primary care for PreventIng Memory Impairment aNd Dementia). HAPPI MIND will evaluate the efficacy of a multidomain, nurse-led, mHealth supported intervention for assessing dementia risk and reducing associated risk factors in middle-aged adults in the Australian primary care setting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: General practice clinics (n≥26) across Victoria and New South Wales, Australia, will be recruited and randomised. Practice nurses will be trained to implement the HAPPI MIND intervention or a brief intervention. Patients of participating practices aged 45-65 years with ≥2 potential dementia risk factors will be identified and recruited (approximately 15 patients/clinic). Brief intervention participants receive a personalised report outlining their risk factors for dementia based on Australian National University Alzheimer's Disease Risk Index (ANU-ADRI) scores, education booklet and referral to their general practitioner as appropriate. HAPPI MIND participants receive the brief intervention as well as six individualised dementia risk reduction sessions with a nurse trained in motivational interviewing and principles of behaviour change, a personalised risk reduction action plan and access to the purpose-built HAPPI MIND smartphone app for risk factor self-management. Follow-up data collection will occur at 12, 24 and 36 months. Primary outcome is ANU-ADRI score change at 12 months from baseline. Secondary outcomes include change in cognition, quality of life and individual risk factors of dementia. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Project approved by Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (ID: 28273). Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at healthcare conferences. If effective in reducing dementia risk, the HAPPI MIND intervention could be integrated into primary care, scaled up nationally and sustained over time. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621001168842.

An exploration of the role of pharmacists within general practice clinics: the protocol for the pharmacists in practice study (PIPS).

BACKGROUND: Medication-related problems are a serious concern in Australian primary care. Pharmacist interventions have been shown to be effective in identifying and resolving these problems. Collaborative general practitioner-pharmacist services currently available in Australia are limited and underused. Limitations include geographical isolation of pharmacists and lack of communication and access to patient information. Co-location of pharmacists within the general practice clinics is a possible solution. There have been no studies in the Australian setting exploring the role of pharmacists within general practice clinics.The aim of this study is to develop and test a multifaceted practice pharmacist role in primary care practices to improve the quality use of medicines by patients and clinic staff. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multi-centre, prospective intervention study with a pre-post design and a qualitative component. A practice pharmacist will be located in each of two clinics and provide short and long patient consultations, drug information services and quality assurance activities. Patients receiving long consultation with a pharmacist will be followed up at 3 and 6 months. Based on sample size calculations, at least 50 patients will be recruited for long patient consultations across both sites. Outcome measures include the number, type and severity of medication-related problems identified and resolved; medication adherence; and patient satisfaction. Brief structured interviews will be conducted with patients participating in the study to evaluate their experiences with the service. Staff collaboration and satisfaction with the service will be assessed. DISCUSSION: This intervention has the potential to optimise medication use in primary care clinics leading to better health outcomes. This study will provide data about the effectiveness of the proposed model for pharmacist involvement in Australian general practice clinics, that will be useful to guide further research and development in this area. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12612000742875.

Exposure to hand sanitisers and other cleaning products in Victoria, Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was increased promotion and use of topical antiseptics (especially hand sanitisers) and cleaning products to reduce transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This study describes unintentional exposures (oral or ocular) to these substances by children during the first year (2020) of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the previous year (2019). METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of unintentional exposures reported to the Victorian Poisons Information Centre for the period 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2020. Substances included topical antiseptics (including hand sanitisers), bleach, multipurpose cleaners, disinfectants and high-percentage ethanol products. We analysed data for two age groups; under 5 years and 5 to 14 years. RESULTS: Oral exposures (ingestion or buccal) to topical antiseptics increased from 435 in 2019 to 882 in 2020 in the under 5 age group, with peak call numbers in 2020 coinciding with peaks in active COVID-19 daily case numbers. Oral exposures in older children (5-14 years) were lower (23 and 77 in 2019 and 2020, respectively). No children had moderate or severe symptoms at the time of the call to the Poisons Centre. Ocular exposures to topical antiseptics more than doubled from 2019 to 2020 (from 20 to 53 among children under 5 years, and 8 to 18 in older children). The majority of children with ocular exposure presented with mild symptoms; one had moderate symptoms. Changes in exposures to disinfectants, bleach and cleaners were smaller and not consistent with peaks in active COVID-19 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Unintentional oral exposures to topical disinfectants (mainly hand sanitiser) by young children increased during the COVID-19 pandemic and were more prevalent during periods of increased COVID-19 cases. While there were no cases of severe harm identified, the high number of exposures suggests that appropriate use and storage of hand sanitisers should be promoted.

Coaching ward pharmacists in antimicrobial stewardship: A pilot study.

Background: Ward pharmacists are well-positioned to enhance the activities of hospital antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs by reviewing the appropriateness of antimicrobials and making recommendations to prescribers. However, recent studies have identified gaps in ward pharmacists' AMS practice, knowledge, skills, and confidence which suggests education and training programs are needed. Objectives: To describe, for the first time, an interactive educational activity - coaching in AMS - targeted at ward pharmacists and explore their perceptions of coaching as a mode of delivering education to improve AMS knowledge, skills, confidence, and practice. A secondary objective was to describe the type, frequency, and acceptance of AMS recommendations made by coached pharmacists. Methods: This was a descriptive pilot study with a qualitative evaluation of pharmacists' perceptions and experiences of coaching. AMS coaching was delivered over 2 months in 2019 to pharmacists providing clinical pharmacy services to general medical and surgical wards. A focus group was conducted one month after the coaching period to elicit pharmacists' perceptions of coaching as a mode of delivering AMS education and how it impacted their AMS knowledge, skills, confidence, and practice. AMS recommendations made by coached pharmacists were prospectively recorded, and the prescriber acceptance rate was determined. Results: Ward pharmacists reported positive experiences with AMS coaching and believed it helped them identify a range of recommendations to improve antimicrobial prescribing and increased their confidence to communicate recommendations to prescribers. Workload issues were identified as the main barrier to implementation. Suggestions were provided to improve coaching implementation feasibility. During coaching, 162 AMS recommendations were identified for a range of antimicrobials, and 69% (113/162) were accepted and implemented. Conclusions: Ward pharmacists believed coaching improved their AMS knowledge, skills, confidence, and practice, including their confidence to discuss recommendations with prescribers. These results can assist with the design and evaluation of future hospital-based AMS educational initiatives.

Evaluation of a post-discharge pharmacist opioid review following total knee arthroplasty: a pre- and post-intervention cohort study.

BACKGROUND: More than 70% of patients continue to use opioid medications 3-weeks following total knee arthroplasty. Post-discharge pharmacist reviews improve medication management, however it's effect on opioid usage is not known. AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of post-discharge pharmacist review on opioid use following a total knee arthroplasty. METHOD: A pilot, cohort pre- and post-intervention study was undertaken on patients who had undergone a total knee arthroplasty and were supplied an opioid upon discharge from hospital. During the intervention, patients were contacted via telephone by a pharmacist approximately five days post-discharge to review analgesic usage, provide education and advice and communicate an opioid management plan to their general practitioner. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients taking opioids 3-weeks post-discharge. Secondary endpoints included: percentage of patients obtaining an opioid refill; patient satisfaction with opioid supply and the pharmacist review. RESULTS: Pre- and post-intervention, 63 and 44 patients were included, respectively. The percentage of patients taking opioids 3-weeks post-discharge declined from 74.6 to 29.6% (p < 0.001) and the percentage requiring an opioid refill from their general practitioner declined from 71.4 to 36.4% (p < 0.001). More patients were satisfied with opioid supply during the intervention period (79.5% cf. 47.6%, p = 0.001). Twenty-eight (63.6%) patients could recall the post-discharge pharmacist review, and all were either satisfied or extremely satisfied with the review. CONCLUSION: Pharmacist-delivered post-discharge analgesia review reduced the percentage of patients taking opioids 3-weeks post-discharge following a total knee arthroplasty. This intervention has the potential to provide a smoother transition of care for patients supplied with opioids at the time of hospital discharge.