Significant benefits of new communication technology for time delay management in STEMI patients.

BACKGROUND: In the acute phase of STEMI, the length of the total ischemic interval is the principal factor affecting both short- and long-term mortality. The length of the interval remains a global problem, and in EU countries these figures vary between 160 and 325 min. METHODS AND RESULTS: The aim of our research was to assess the benefit of the systematic implementation of the new smartphone-based communication technology "STEMI" enabling immediate ECG picture and voice consultation between an EMS crew in the field and a cardiologist in the PCI-center. The transfer of ECG was associated with 92% technical success. 5 Monthly data from 2016 were compared from the reference2 monthly data set in 2015 when the data in the same area was collected in the SLOVAKS registry. The 5-months data from 2016 were compared to the reference group from 2015, when similar 2-months data in the same area in SLOVAKS registry was collected but communication technology "STEMI" technology was not used. In the monitored period in 2016 we recorded a significant decrease in unwanted secondary STEMI transportations (34.32% vs. 12.9%, p<0.001) and a significant reduction in the total ischemic interval (241 min vs. 181 min, p = 0.03). There was no significant decrease in the subinterval of "admission-pPCI" (28min vs. 23 min, p = 0.144). CONCLUSION: The systematic use of smartphone-based communication technology "STEMI" enabling remote ECG picture consultation between an EMS crew and a cardiologist in PCI-center had a positive impact on the quality of care for patients with acute STEMI and brought clinical practice closer to the current ESC Guidelines. It significantly decreased the ratio of unwanted secondary transportations and led to a significant reduction in the total ischemic interval.

EAHP European Statements survey 2015.

OBJECTIVES: The 2015 EAHP European Statements survey was related to sections 2, 5 and 6 of the European Statements of Hospital Pharmacy (Statements). In addition to collection of statistical data about the level of implementation of the Statements, it was also intended to identify important barriers to their implementation. METHODS: The online questionnaire was sent to all hospital pharmacies in EAHP member countries. Data were analysed by researchers from Keele University School of Pharmacy, UK and the EAHP Survey Group. RESULTS: There were a total of 949 responses (response rate 18%). In the first part of the survey, data was collected on hospital pharmacy setting. While almost half of hospital pharmacies served over 500 beds, 80% of hospital pharmacies had 10 or less pharmacists. In section B, we gathered evidence about the degree of implementation of sections 2, 5 and 6 of the Statements and the main barriers to and drivers of implementation. Five questions with the lowest implementation level were then further analysed. Only five countries had 50% or more of hospital pharmacies reporting that the hospital pharmacists routinely publish hospital pharmacy practice research. 67% of participants stated that they had contingency plans for medicines shortages. The majority of countries (n=20) have less than half of respondents using computerised decision support to reduce the risk of medication errors. When asked if an audit had been undertaken in the past 3 years to identify priorities in medicines use processes, the mean percentage of positive responses for a country was 58%. CONCLUSIONS: EAHP has gained an informative overview of the implementation level as well as the barriers to and drivers of implementation in sections 2, 5 and 6. This is essential to inform the plans for EAHP to best support their implementation.

EAHP statements survey 2016: sections 1, 3 and 4 of the European Statements of Hospital Pharmacy.

BACKGROUND: The 2016 European Association of Hospital Pharmacists (EAHP) Statements survey builds on previous surveys and focuses on sections 1, 3 and 4. OBJECTIVE: To collect statistical data about the level of implementation of the Statements, and identify important barriers to their implementation. METHODS: An online questionnaire was sent to all hospital pharmacies in EAHP member countries. Data were analysed by researchers from Keele University School of Pharmacy, UK and the EAHP Survey Group. If an incomplete survey was submitted, the quantitative data were not used, although any free-text responses were incorporated. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 16% (904 out of 5711 requests) with 730 complete responses. In the first part of the survey, data were collected on the hospital pharmacy setting. While almost half (n=335) of hospital pharmacies served over 500 beds, 77% (n=564) of hospital pharmacies had ≤10 pharmacists. In section B, evidence was gathered about the degree of implementation of sections 1, 3 and 4 of the Statements and the main barriers to, and drivers of, implementation. The questions related to production and compounding (section 3) received very positive responses (all questions from this section received at least a 70% positive response rate), indicating that responders are having less difficulty implementing these statements compared with others. The introductory statements and governance questions (section 1) received a more mixed response. Only 343 (47%) responses indicated that the pharmacists worked routinely as part of multidisciplinary team. Many of the questions relating to clinical pharmacy services (section 4) received a more negative response overall, with six questions receiving <50% positive responses. CONCLUSIONS: This iteration of the survey provides the EAHP with further insight into the implementation of the Statements across the member countries as well as the barriers to, and drivers of, implementation in sections 1, 3 and 4. This is essential to inform the plans for EAHP to best support their implementation.

EAHP European Statements baseline survey 2015: results.

OBJECTIVES: The European Statements baseline survey was designed to give an insight to how well the European Statements of Hospital Pharmacy (the Statements) are being implemented and to help inform the European Association of Hospital Pharmacists (EAHP) implementation strategy for the Statements. METHODS: The online questionnaire was sent to all hospital pharmacies in EAHP member countries. More than 1000 pharmacists completed the survey, which was analysed by Keele University and presented to EAHP. RESULTS: The survey provided general data for each country about the staffing levels and skill mix within each hospital, how well each hospital was implementing each Statement and finally about what were the barriers to implementation for European hospital pharmacists. The survey identified that, generally, the sections covering more traditional roles of hospital pharmacists (procurement, compounding) were being well implemented-96% of respondents indicated that their hospitals had clear processes in place around the procurement of medicines; 91% indicated "When medicines require manufacture or compounding, we either produce them in our hospital pharmacy or we outsource to an approved provider". Compared with that, clinical pharmacy services, multidisciplinary approaches and active engagement in education and practice research activities are challenging areas in most EAHP member countries. In only 29% of hospitals, the pharmacists enter all medicines used onto the patient's medical record on admission. 49% of responders agreed that the pharmacists in their hospital routinely publish hospital pharmacy practice research. Insufficient capacity and capability in terms of staffing and resources seemed to be main reasons given for low implementation of some of the Statements. CONCLUSIONS: After analysis of data from more than 1000 questionnaires, EAHP gained a necessary overview of Statements implementation level and barriers to implementation, needed for informed and efficient progress of EAHP implementation projects.