The association of a critical care electronic prescribing system with the quality of patient care provided by clinical pharmacists - a prospective, observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the strong face validity of electronic prescribing (EP), the empiric data in support of improved patient safety is sparse. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical significance of pharmacist contributions between an established EP and paper-based prescribing (PBP) system in the intensive care unit (ICU) to understand the EP impact on the quality of patient care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective longitudinal study in two 18-bed ICUs; one with EP and the other, PBP. Pharmacist contributions were analysed over three months. Demographic, clinical and adjunctive intervention data were also collected. A multilevel ordinal logistic regression model was used and patients were followed up for 28 days. The primary outcome was the distribution of clinical significance levels of pharmacist contributions. RESULTS: There were 303 patients admitted to the ICU between April 1st and June 30th 2018. EP was used in 171 patients and PBP in 132 patients. 1658 contributions were analysed. There were 14.9% highly clinically significant contributions with EP compared to 44.6% with PBP. The EP group had lower odds (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.02-0.12) for a higher clinical significance contribution compared to the PBP group, but this changed over the admission and differed between groups, with decreasing odds of a higher-level clinical contribution for each additional admission day with PBP (OR 0.57, 95%CI 0.42-0.78). CONCLUSION: This study showed a significant difference in the distribution of pharmacist contributions made over time, with clinical significance levels remaining stable in the EP group at low severity, as opposed to PBP which were initially high and then gradually decreased in severity over time. This contemporaneous controlled study found that the EP system required less significant input both in the severity and frequency of pharmacist contributions to maintain patient safety.

Analysis of clinical enquiries received by five COVID-19 vaccination centres in the UK.

The aim of this study was to explore the nature of clinical enquiries received by UK vaccination centres during the early stages in the roll-out of the COVID-19 vaccination programme. Four centres were situated in acute hospitals and one centre was in a designated public site. Data were collected for eight consecutive weeks between January and February 2021. The hospital centres administered a total of 28 995 doses of the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine, receiving 806 enquiries (1 enquiry per 36 vaccinations, 2.7%). The public centre administered 29 167 doses of AstraZeneca vaccine, receiving 439 enquiries (1 enquiry per 66 vaccinations, 1.5%). Combined enquiry rate was 2.1%. The most common enquiries were related to allergies (44%), compatibility with other medicine (22%) and immunosuppression (16%). These were the topics of clinical guidance that were subject to regular change. Public health programmes implementing novel therapies should ensure the provision of sufficient enquiry answering capacity.

Economic value of pharmacy-led medicines reconciliation at admission to hospital: an observational, UK-based study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the cost-benefits of pharmacy-led medicines reconciliation (MR) on admission by applying a theoretical model (University of Sheffield School of Health and Related Research-SCHARR model) to real-world data. METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-centre study. Setting 1000-bedded teaching hospital in London, UK. Clinical pharmacy contributions related to unintended medication discrepancies (averted preventable adverse drug events, pADEs), documented by pharmacy staff on prearranged days during 2012, were assessed for clinical significance by a panel of senior clinical pharmacists using the SCHARR model. Costs avoided were allocated according to the SCHARR model. Pharmacy staff carrying out admission MR were timed. Net cost avoidance was calculated by subtracting cost of time taken to carry out MR from the costs avoided by averting pADEs. Sensitivity analyses were carried out. RESULTS: 118 pADEs averted as a result of MR were recorded over the 6 reporting days. 116 were rated for clinical significance. Gross costs avoided were £36 135-£75 249 (€44 446-€92 556). The admission MR process was timed for 48 patients. The mean time to complete MR for one patient was 14 min (range 1-40 min). The cost of carrying out one MR, based on the cost of employing a first-level post-foundation clinical pharmacist was £7.56 (€9.30). The net benefit of one MR was £34-£80 (€42-€98). The benefit:cost ratio was 5.53:1-11.51:1. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacy-led MR on admission has significant economic, as well as clinical benefits. Further work is required for full economic evaluations of MR.

Evidence for the outcomes and impact of clinical pharmacy: context of UK hospital pharmacy practice.

OBJECTIVES: The role of clinical pharmacists in hospitals has evolved and continues to expand. In the UK, outside of a few national policy drivers, there are no agreed priorities, measures or defined outcomes for hospital clinical pharmacy (CP). This paper aims to (1) highlight the need to identify and prioritise specific CP roles, responsibilities and practices that will bring the greatest benefit to patients and health systems and (2) describe systematic weaknesses in current research methodologies for evaluating CP services and propose a different approach. METHOD: Published reviews of CP services are discussed using the Economic, Clinical and Humanistic Outcomes framework. Recurring themes regarding study methodologies, measurements and outcomes are used to highlight current weaknesses in studies evaluating CP. RESULTS: Published studies aiming to demonstrate the economic, clinical or humanistic outcomes of CP often suffer from poor research design and inconsistencies in interventions, measurements and outcomes. This has caused difficulties in drawing meaningful conclusions regarding CP's definitive contribution to patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: There is a need for more research work in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals, employing a different paradigm to address some of the weaknesses of existing research on CP practice. We propose a mixed-methods approach, including qualitative research designs, and with emphasis on cost-consequence analyses for economic evaluations. This approach will provide more meaningful data to inform policy and demonstrate the contribution of hospital CP activities to patient care and the NHS.

The incidence and severity of errors in pharmacist-written discharge medication orders.

Background Errors in discharge prescriptions are problematic. When hospital pharmacists write discharge prescriptions improvements are seen in the quality and efficiency of discharge. There is limited information on the incidence of errors in pharmacists' medication orders. Objective To investigate the extent and clinical significance of errors in pharmacist-written discharge medication orders. Setting 1000-bed teaching hospital in London, UK. Method Pharmacists in this London hospital routinely write discharge medication orders as part of the clinical pharmacy service. Convenient days, based on researcher availability, between October 2013 and January 2014 were selected. Pre-registration pharmacists reviewed all discharge medication orders written by pharmacists on these days and identified discrepancies between the medication history, inpatient chart, patient records and discharge summary. A senior clinical pharmacist confirmed the presence of an error. Each error was assigned a potential clinical significance rating (based on the NCCMERP scale) by a physician and an independent senior clinical pharmacist, working separately. Main outcome measure Incidence of errors in pharmacist-written discharge medication orders. Results 509 prescriptions, written by 51 pharmacists, containing 4258 discharge medication orders were assessed (8.4 orders per prescription). Ten prescriptions (2%), contained a total of ten erroneous orders (order error rate-0.2%). The pharmacist considered that one error had the potential to cause temporary harm (0.02% of all orders). The physician did not rate any of the errors with the potential to cause harm. Conclusion The incidence of errors in pharmacists' discharge medication orders was low. The quality, safety and policy implications of pharmacists routinely writing discharge medication orders should be further explored.

A quantitative comparison of ward-based clinical pharmacy activities in 7 acute UK hospitals.

Background Several clinical pharmacy activities are common to UK hospitals. It is not clear whether these are provided at similar levels, and whether they take similar amounts of time to carry out. Objective To quantify and compare clinical pharmacist ward activities between different UK hospitals. Setting Seven acute hospitals in the Greater London area (UK). Methods A list of common ward activities was developed. On five consecutive days, pharmacists visiting hospital wards documented total time spent and how many of each activity they undertook. Results were analysed by hospital. The range and number of activities per 100 occupied bed days, and per 24 beds were compared. Main outcome measure Time spent on wards and numbers of each activity undertaken. Results Pharmacists logged a total of 2291 h carrying out 40,000 activities. 4250 changes to prescriptions were made or recommended. 5901 individual medication orders were annotated for clarity or safety. For every 24 beds visited, mean time spent was 230 min-seeing 6.2 new patients, carrying out 3.9 calculations and 1.3 patient consultations, checking and authorising 1.8 discharge prescriptions, and providing staff with information twice. Other activities varied significantly, not all could be explained by differences in hospital specialties or Information Technology systems. Conclusion This is the first detailed comparison of clinical pharmacy ward activities between different hospitals. There are some typical levels of activities carried out. Wide variations in other activities could not always be explained. Despite a large number of contacts, pharmacists reported very few consultation sessions with patients.

Pharmacist independent prescribing in secondary care: opportunities and challenges.

In recent years a number of countries have extended prescribing rights to pharmacists in a variety of formats. The latter includes independent prescribing, which is a developing area of practice for pharmacists in secondary care. Potential opportunities presented by wide scale implementation of pharmacist prescribing in secondary care include improved prescribing safety, more efficient pharmacist medication reviews, increased scope of practice with greater pharmacist integration into acute patient care pathways and enhanced professional or job satisfaction. However, notable challenges remain and these need to be acknowledged and addressed if a pharmacist prescribing is to develop sufficiently within developing healthcare systems. These barriers can be broadly categorised as lack of support (financial and time resources), medical staff acceptance and the pharmacy profession itself (adoption, implementation strategy, research resources, second pharmacist clinical check). Larger multicentre studies that investigate the contribution of hospital-based pharmacist prescribers to medicines optimisation and patient-related outcomes are still needed. Furthermore, a strategic approach from the pharmacy profession and leadership is required to ensure that pharmacist prescribers are fully integrated into future healthcare service and workforce strategies.

Potentially inappropriate prescribing in patients on admission and discharge from an older peoples' unit of an acute UK hospital.

BACKGROUND: The Screening Tool of Older Persons' potentially inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP) classifies 65 common drug issues found to contribute to inappropriate prescribing in the elderly. International studies using STOPP criteria indicate high potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) prevalence rates; however, no studies have been conducted in older patients in UK hospitals. Published literature has not assessed whether prescribers attempt to minimise the potential risk of PIMs by putting in place follow-up or review plans. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were (1) to determine prevalence and types of PIMs in older people admitted to and discharged from a UK hospital; and (2) to determine how often PIMs prescribed on discharge are accompanied by a plan for follow-up. METHODS: This was a retrospective, non-randomised study conducted in the Specialist Health and Ageing Unit (HAU) of a 950-bed acute hospital trust in England, UK. The subjects were patients aged ≥65 years admitted to the HAU in June and July 2011. Data were obtained by applying STOPP criteria to electronic admission and discharge medication lists. Parametric and non-parametric tests were performed to assess variables and to detect differences between groups. A PIM index was calculated by dividing the total number of PIMs by the total number of medications. RESULTS: Medication lists for 195 patients were assessed. Median age was 85.5 years. The median number of admission medicines was nine. A total of 66 patients (34 %) were prescribed more than ten medications. The median number of discharge medicines was ten, with 80 patients (41 %) prescribed more than ten medicines. Admission PIM prevalence was 26.7 % (95 % CI 20.5-32.9; 52 patients, 74 PIMs). The most common PIM categories on admission were central nervous system (CNS) and psychotropic drugs, drugs adversely affecting patients at risk of falls and drugs acting on the urogenital system. The likelihood of having a PIM on admission was doubled in patients receiving more than ten medications compared with those taking fewer (odds ratio 2.3 [95 % CI 1.2-4.4]; p = 0.01). Discharge PIM prevalence was 22.6 % (95 % CI 16.7-28.5; 44 patients, 51 PIMs). PIMs reduced significantly on discharge (p = 0.005). The most common discharge PIMs were drugs adversely affecting patients at risk of falls, CNS and psychotropics, urogenital drugs and cardiovascular agents. Advice for general practitioners to monitor medication was documented on the discharge summary of three patients. An index was developed, based on the ratio of PIMs to medication totals. The PIM index complements the assessment of PIM prevalence and allows comparison of prescribing appropriateness between populations and between studies by taking into account the total amount of prescribed medication. Despite an increase in medication prescribed, the PIM index (rate) decreased from 0.043 on admission to 0.027 at discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Admission to a specialist HAU was associated with a significant reduction in PIMS. Very few patients discharged with a PIM had a documented follow-up plan. PIM prevalence was lower than published rates found internationally. Similar studies in settings of varying types across the UK are needed.