The Impact of Role of Pharmacists in Renal Dosage Adjustment Program on Renal Drug Dosing Errors: A Quasi-Experimental Study.

Studies have reported high prevalence of inappropriate dosing in patients with renal impairment, which was significantly reduced with pharmacists' interventions. The objective of this study was to assess the proportions of renal drug dosing errors following the implementation of pharmacists-led renal drug dosing adjustment program. This was a quasi-experimental study conducted at the King Abdul Aziz Medical City, a tertiary teaching hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The study comprised of 3 phases. The pre-phase and post-phase evaluated drug orders for dosing appropriateness. During the intervention phase, a renal drug dosing adjustment program was implemented, which included educational sessions on dosing in renal insufficiency and a renal drug dosing guidance. The primary outcome was to assess the change in the proportions of dosing errors following the intervention. In the pre-phase, inappropriate dosing was noted in 20.1% (70/348) of orders that required dosing adjustment. Among the total dosing errors, 44.2% (31/70) were further corrected, and pharmacists have documented intervention in 48.3% (15/31) of the corrected orders. In the post-phase, inappropriate dosing was noted in 21.9% (76/346) of orders that required dosing adjustment. Among the total dosing errors, 39.4% (30/76) were further corrected, and pharmacists have documented intervention in 66.6% (20/30) of the corrected orders. There was no statistically significant difference in inappropriate drug dosing between pre-phase and post-phase with a P = 0.56. The intervention was not associated with significant reduction in renal dosing errors, although pharmacist involvement in the corrected orders orders increased after the implementation of the intervention. This may indicate the need to integrate renal dosing guidance into the hospital prescribing system to optimize drug dosing in renal patients.

A pragmatic randomized controlled trial comparing pathway-based versus usual care in community-acquired acute kidney injury.

Clinical pathways have shown conflicting evidence in improvement of several patient-centered outcomes across different clinical settings. However, the effectiveness of clinical pathway in management of acute kidney injury (AKI) has not been reported. Therefore, we aimed to assess the length of hospital stay (LOS) and patient-centered outcomes in community acquired AKI and compared pathway care (PC) versus usual care (UC). The CHAMP-Path AKI Trial is a pragmatic, parallel, single-blind randomized controlled trial. Physicians were randomized to provide either UC or PC. Patients were randomized through a computer-generated sequence. Allocation was concealed. Patients presenting to the emergency department with AKI and hemodynamic stability, who were over 14 years with a serum creatinine greater than 1.5 times the baseline were eligible. Patients with chronic kidney disease stages 4 or 5, kidney transplantation recipients, those admitted with obstructive uropathy, suspected glomerular or interstitial disease, and pregnant women were excluded. Thirty-eight patients were enrolled from March 2012 to December 2013. The primary outcome was LOS. Secondary outcomes included: 30-day readmission, in-hospital mortality, determinants of LOS, and patient-centered outcomes. Eighteen patients were randomized to PC, and 20 to UC. Baseline characteristics were comparable in both groups. Using an intention-to-treat analysis, the median LOS was 4.96 [interquartile range (IQR) 6.57] and 4.80 days (IQR 6.84) for PC and UC, respectively (P = 0.770). Of the five readmissions, none were for AKI. No in-hospital mortality was reported. The CHAMP-Path AKI pragmatic trial demonstrated that PC was not different than UC in reducing LOS. There was no difference in 30-day re- admission, in-hospital mortality, and patient-centered outcomes.