Economic cost-benefit analysis of person-centred medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists.

BACKGROUND: Medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists improve patient outcomes, but little is known about the associated economic outcomes, particularly in patients at higher risk of medicines-related harm. AIM: To conduct an economic cost-benefit analysis of pharmacists providing person-centred medicines reviews to patients with hyperpolypharmacy (prescribed ≥ 10 regular medicines) and/or at high risk of medicines-related harm across multiple general practice settings. METHOD: Service delivery costs were calculated based on the pharmacist's salary, recorded timings, and a general practitioner fee. Direct cost savings were calculated from the cost change of patients' medicines post review, projected over 1 year. Indirect savings were calculated using two models, a population-based model for avoidance of hospital admissions due to adverse drug reactions and an intervention-based model applying a probability of adverse drug reaction avoidance. Sensitivity analyses were performed using varying workday scenarios. RESULTS: Based on 1471 patients (88.4% with hyperpolypharmacy), the cost of service delivery was €153 per review. Using the population-based model, net cost savings ranging from €198 to €288 per patient review and from €73,317 to €177,696 per annum per pharmacist were calculated. Using the intervention-based model, net cost savings of €651-€741 per review, with corresponding annual savings of €240,870-€457,197 per annum per pharmacist, were calculated. Savings ratios ranged from 181 to 584% across all models and inputs. CONCLUSION: Person-centred medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists for patients at high risk of medicines-related harm result in substantial cost savings. Wider investment in general practice pharmacists will be beneficial to minimise both patient harm and healthcare system expenditure.

Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing and Potential Prescribing Omissions and Their Association with Adverse Drug Reaction-Related Hospital Admissions.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) and their association with ADR-related hospital admissions in patients aged ≥ 65 years admitted acutely to the hospital. METHODS: Information on medications and morbidities was extracted from the Adverse Drug Reactions in an Ageing Population (ADAPT) cohort (N = 798: N = 361 ADR-related admissions; 437 non-ADR-related admissions). PIP and PPOs were assessed using Beers Criteria 2019 and STOPP/START version 2. Multivariable logistic regression (adjusted odds ratios (aOR), 95%CI) was used to examine the association between PIP, PPOs and ADR-related admissions, adjusting for covariates (age, gender, comorbidity, polypharmacy). RESULTS: In total, 715 (90%; 95% CI 87-92%) patients had ≥1 Beers Criteria, 555 (70%; 95% CI 66-73%) had ≥ 1 STOPP criteria and 666 patients (83%; 95% CI 81-86%) had ≥ 1 START criteria. Being prescribed at least one Beers (aOR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.00-2.77), or meeting STOPP (aOR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.79-1.45) or START (aOR = 0.72; 95%CI = 0.50-1.06) criteria or the number of PIP/PPO criteria met was not significantly associated with ADR-related admissions. Patients prescribed certain drug classes (e.g., antiplatelet agents, diuretics) per individual PIP criteria were more likely to have an ADR-related admission. CONCLUSION: There was a high prevalence of PIP and PPOs in this cohort but no association with ADR-related admissions.

The impact of lidocaine plaster prescribing reduction strategies: A comparison of two national health services in Europe.

AIMS: In 2017, two distinct interventions were implemented in Ireland and England to reduce prescribing of lidocaine medicated plasters. In Ireland, restrictions on reimbursement were introduced through implementation of an application system for reimbursement. In England, updated guidance on items which should not be routinely prescribed in primary care, including lidocaine plasters, was published. This study aims to compare how the interventions impacted prescribing of lidocaine plasters in these countries. METHODS: We conducted an interrupted time-series study using general practice data. For Ireland, monthly dispensing data (2015-2019) from the means-tested General Medical Services (GMS) scheme was used. For England, data covered all patients. Outcomes were the rate of dispensings, quantity and costs of lidocaine plasters, and we modelled level and trend changes from the first full month of the policy/guidance change. RESULTS: Ireland had higher rates of lidocaine dispensings compared to England throughout the study period; this was 15.22/1000 population immediately pre-intervention, and there was equivalent to a 97.2% immediate reduction following the intervention. In England, the immediate pre-intervention dispensing rate was 0.36/1000, with an immediate reduction of 0.0251/1000 (a 5.8% decrease), followed by a small but significant decrease in the monthly trend relative to the pre-intervention trend of 0.0057 per month. CONCLUSIONS: Among two different interventions aiming to decrease low-value lidocaine plaster prescribing, there was a substantially larger impact in Ireland of reimbursement restriction compared to issuing guidance in England. However, this is in the context of much higher baseline rates of use in Ireland compared to England.

Pharmacist and patient experiences of primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic: An interview study.

Introduction: A number of significant changes designed to reduce the spread of COVID-19 were introduced in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Ireland, these included fundamental legislative and practice changes such as permitting electronic transfer of prescriptions, extending duration of prescription validity, and encouraging virtual consultations. Although such interventions served an important role in preventing the spread of infection, their impact on practice and patient care is not yet clear. The aim of this study was to investigate patient and healthcare professional (pharmacist and general practitioner) experiences to understand the impact of COVID-19 on primary care and medication safety during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ireland. Methods: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was undertaken between October 2021 and January 2022. Participants included twelve patients, ten community pharmacists, and one general practitioner. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Only patient and pharmacist interviews were included. Findings: Themes from the interviews included: 1) Access to care, 2) Technological changes, 3) Experiences of care, and 4) Patient safety. Particular challenges identified included the difficulty faced by patients when accessing care, impacts on experiences of patient care, and extensive changes to pharmacy practice during the pandemic. Conclusions: This study found that COVID-19 countermeasures considerably impacted patient and pharmacist experiences of primary care in terms of care and medication safety. While many changes were welcomed, others such as virtual consultations were received more cautiously likely due to the rapid and unplanned nature of their introduction. Further research is needed to identify how to optimise these changes to improve pharmacist and patient experience, and to understand the impact on patient safety.

Changes to primary care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic and perceived impact on medication safety: A survey study.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the delivery of primary care around the world. In Ireland, the use of technologies such as virtual consultations and the electronic transfer of prescriptions became widespread in order to deliver care to patients while minimising infection risk. The impact of these changes on medication safety is not yet known. Objectives: The aims of this survey study were to investigate 1) the changes that have occurred in Irish primary care since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and 2) the impact of these changes on medication safety. Methods: Anonymous, online surveys were distributed to general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists from August-September 2021. Surveys contained quantitative (multiple-choice, Likert scale) and qualitative (free-text) questions concerning workflow changes, medication safety incidents and near misses, and GP/pharmacist perspectives on medication safety and COVID-19. Reported medication safety incidents and near misses were categorised according to the WHO Conceptual Framework for the International Classification for Patient Safety. Results: In total, there were 251 responses to the survey, comprising of 211 pharmacists and 40 GPs. The most significant workflow changes during the pandemic were the widespread use of a secure clinical email service (Healthmail) that facilitates electronic prescription transfer and communication (75.3% of respondents) and the increased use of telephone consultations (49%). Overall, Healthmail was widely perceived to have had a positive impact on medication safety. Most GPs did not perceive a change in the frequency of medication safety incidents during the pandemic, while most pharmacists reported a slight increase in incidents. Survey participants highlighted pressure, patient expectations, and patient monitoring as significant challenges encountered during the pandemic. Conclusions: During the pandemic, a number of significant changes occurred in primary care in Ireland, particularly involving communication of healthcare information, with varying impacts on workflow and medication safety. Future research should focus on the optimisation of electronic prescribing and telemedicine services in Ireland, patient perspectives on the changes in primary care, and interventions to improve medication safety in primary care.

Evaluation of policies and practices to support safe and appropriate analgesic and sedative prescribing: The CDRx (controlled drug prescribing) protocol.

Medications provide many therapeutic benefits; however, these must be balanced against the potential for patient harm. Two high-risk medications are benzodiazepine receptor agonists or BZRAs (including benzodiazepines and Z-drugs hypnotics) and opioid analgesics, which carry a risk of dependence, misuse, and abuse. Use of these medications has been growing internationally, along with associated morbidity and mortality. These medications are often classified as 'controlled drugs' and subject to legal restrictions in order to balance therapeutic benefits and risks of misuse. The aim of this project is to evaluate prescribing of analgesic and sedative drugs, in particular opioid and BZRA medications, to characterise time trends, the impact of policy changes, and regional and GP practice variation. This will be addressed across three workpackages, primarily using data on prescriptions dispensed to individuals eligible for the General Medical Services scheme in Ireland, held by the HSE Primary Care Reimbursement Service, along with other national and international data collections. Workpackage 1 will derive volume and patterns of utilisation indicators of controlled drugs and related medications and describe time trends in primary care in Ireland between 2014 and 2021 in two repeated cross-sectional studies. Workpackage 2 will consist of two interrupted time series studies on the impact of recent policy changes on prescribing. Workpackage 3 is a cohort study of GP practices, which will aim to quantify and explain regional and GP practice-level variation in analgesic and sedative prescribing, and, in relation to policy changes. This research will provide data-driven insights to inform policy-makers' decisions and clinical practice to optimise regulation and use of these medications for the benefit of patients and society.

Adverse drug reactions in an ageing PopulaTion (ADAPT) study: Prevalence and risk factors associated with adverse drug reaction-related hospital admissions in older patients.

Background: Older people experience greater morbidity with a corresponding increase in medication use resulting in a potentially higher risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Objectives: The aim of this study was to; 1) determine the prevalence and characteristics of ADR-related hospital admissions among older patients (≥65 years) in Ireland; and 2) identify the risk factors associated with ADR-related hospital admissions. Methods: A cross-sectional study of ADR prevalence in patients aged ≥65 years admitted acutely to hospital in Ireland over a 8 month period (November 2016- June 2017). A multifaceted review of each hospital admission was undertaken to assess the likelihood of an ADR being a reason for admission (cause of admission or contributing to admission) in the context of the patient's medication, clinical conditions, comorbidities and investigations. A number of decision aids were applied by two independent reviewers to assess ADR causality, avoidability and severity. A random sample of patients, determined not to have a suspected ADR on screening, were assigned to a non-ADR control group. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between potential risk factors for ADR-related admissions compared with non-ADR-related admissions. Results: In total, 3,760 hospital admission episodes (in 3,091 patients) were screened and 377 admissions were considered ADR-related (10.0%, 95% CI 9.1%, 11.0%). 219 (58.1%) ADR-related admissions were caused by an ADR, while ADRs contributed to 158 (41.9%) admissions. 268 (71.1%) of all ADR-related admissions were deemed definitely or possibly preventable/avoidable. 350 (92.8%) ADRs were classified as being of moderate severity, with 27 (7.2%) classified as severe. Antithrombotic agents, mainly aspirin and warfarin, were the drugs most frequently associated with ADR-related admissions (gastrointestinal and vascular haemorrhagic disorders). In multivariable analysis, immobility, frailty, having delirium or ulcer disease and taking anticoagulant and antiplatelet medication on admission were significantly associated with an ADR-related hospital admission. Conclusion: One in ten hospital admissions, among those aged 65 + years, were considered ADR-related, with approximately 70% potentially avoidable. Reliable and validated ADR detection and prediction tools are needed to develop prevention strategies.

Medication safety incidents associated with the remote delivery of primary care: a rapid review.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic triggered rapid, fundamental changes, notably increased remote delivery of primary care. While the impact of these changes on medication safety is not yet fully understood, research conducted before the pandemic may provide evidence for possible consequences. To examine the published literature on medication safety incidents associated with the remote delivery of primary care, with a focus on telemedicine and electronic prescribing. METHODS: A rapid review was conducted according to the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group guidance. An electronic search was carried out on Embase and Medline (via PubMed) using key search terms 'medication error', 'electronic prescribing', 'telemedicine' and 'primary care'. Identified studies were synthesised narratively; reported medication safety incidents were categorised according to the WHO Conceptual Framework for the International Classification for Patient Safety. KEY FINDINGS: Fifteen studies were deemed eligible for inclusion. All 15 studies reported medication incidents associated with electronic prescribing; no studies were identified that reported medication safety incidents associated with telemedicine. The most commonly reported medication safety incidents were 'wrong label/instruction' and 'wrong dose/strength/frequency'. The frequency of medication safety incidents ranged from 0.89 to 81.98 incidents per 100 electronic prescriptions analysed. SUMMARY: This review of medication safety incidents associated with the remote delivery of primary care identified common incident types associated with electronic prescriptions. There was a wide variation in reported frequencies of medication safety incidents associated with electronic prescriptions. Further research is required to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medication safety in primary care, particularly the increased use of telemedicine.

Evaluation of the General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) intervention to optimise prescribing in Irish primary care: a non-randomised pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: Limited evidence suggests integration of pharmacists into the general practice team could improve medicines management for patients, particularly those with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. This study aimed to develop and assess the feasibility of an intervention involving pharmacists, working within general practices, to optimise prescribing in Ireland. DESIGN: Non-randomised pilot study. SETTING: Primary care in Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: Four general practices, purposively sampled and recruited to reflect a range of practice sizes and demographic profiles. INTERVENTION: A pharmacist joined the practice team for 6 months (10 hours/week) and undertook medication reviews (face to face or chart based) for adult patients, provided prescribing advice, supported clinical audits and facilitated practice-based education. OUTCOME MEASURES: Anonymised practice-level medication (eg, medication changes) and cost data were collected. Patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) data were collected on a subset of older adults (aged ≥65 years) with polypharmacy using patient questionnaires, before and 6 weeks after medication review by the pharmacist. RESULTS: Across four practices, 786 patients were identified as having 1521 prescribing issues by the pharmacists. Issues relating to deprescribing medications were addressed most often by the prescriber (59.8%), compared with cost-related issues (5.8%). Medication changes made during the study equated to approximately €57 000 in cost savings assuming they persisted for 12 months. Ninety-six patients aged ≥65 years with polypharmacy were recruited from the four practices for PROM data collection and 64 (66.7%) were followed up. There were no changes in patients' treatment burden or attitudes to deprescribing following medication review, and there were conflicting changes in patients' self-reported quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: This non-randomised pilot study demonstrated that an intervention involving pharmacists, working within general practices is feasible to implement and has potential to improve prescribing quality. This study provides rationale to conduct a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of this intervention.

Using Six Sigma to improve once daily gentamicin dosing and therapeutic drug monitoring performance.

BACKGROUND: Safe, effective therapy with the antimicrobial gentamicin requires good practice in dose selection and monitoring of serum levels. Suboptimal therapy occurs with breakdown in the process of drug dosing, serum blood sampling, laboratory processing and level interpretation. Unintentional underdosing may result. This improvement effort aimed to optimise this process in an academic teaching hospital using Six Sigma process improvement methodology. METHODS: A multidisciplinary project team was formed. Process measures considered critical to quality were defined, and baseline practice was examined through process mapping and audit. Root cause analysis informed improvement measures. These included a new dosing and monitoring schedule, and standardised assay sampling and drug administration timing which maximised local capabilities. Three iterations of the improvement cycle were conducted over a 24-month period. RESULTS: The attainment of serum level sampling in the required time window improved by 85% (p≤0.0001). A 66% improvement in accuracy of dosing was observed (p≤0.0001). Unnecessary dose omission while awaiting level results and inadvertent disruption to therapy due to dosing and monitoring process breakdown were eliminated. Average daily dose administered increased from 3.39 mg/kg to 4.78 mg/kg/day. CONCLUSIONS: Using Six Sigma methodology enhanced gentamicin usage process performance. Local process related factors may adversely affect adherence to practice guidelines for gentamicin, a drug which is complex to use. It is vital to adapt dosing guidance and monitoring requirements so that they are capable of being implemented in the clinical environment as a matter of routine. Improvement may be achieved through a structured localised approach with multidisciplinary stakeholder involvement.