Investigation of the hospital pharmacy profession in Europe.

OBJECTIVE: From 1995, the European Association of Hospital Pharmacists (EAHP) has regularly investigated the progress of the hospital pharmacy profession in Europe, and identified key barriers and drivers of this. The most recent 'Investigation of the Hospital Pharmacy Profession in Europe' was conducted from November 2022 to March 2023. METHODS: The online questionnaire was sent to all hospital pharmacies in EAHP member countries. The investigation was drafted using the same questions as the 2015 baseline survey. Where possible and relevant, responses were compared with the data from previous surveys that monitored the implementation of the EAHP statements. Keele University, Centre for Medicines Optimisation, School of Pharmacy and Bioengineering, UK analysed the data. RESULTS: The overall number of responses was 653, with a better response rate of 19% compared with 14% in 2018 statements survey. The findings indicated that participating hospital pharmacies have similar characteristics to previous surveys. Section 1 (Introductory statements and governance), section 2 (Selection, procurement and distribution), section 3 (Production and compounding), section 5 (Patient safety and quality assurance) questions were generally answered positively, with results ranging from 52% to 90%. However, results for section 4 (Clinical pharmacy services) returned lower levels of positivity, with responses from 8 of the 15 questions being less than 60%. When asked what is preventing hospital pharmacists from achieving implementation of these activities, most answers were limited capacity, not considered to be a priority by managers, or other healthcare professionals do this. The last section focused on self-assessment and action planning, with fewer than 50% of positive responses; COVID-19 preparedness and vaccines with mixed positive and negative responses. Furthermore, implementation of the falsified medicines directive impacted the medication handling processes in 50% or more of the answers. Regarding sustainability, the majority (59%) of respondents felt a greater focus should be on sustainability from an organisational or management perspective. CONCLUSION: Results offer valuable insights into the hospital pharmacy profession throughout Europe. While there have been improvements in certain areas, challenges remain, particularly in implementing clinical pharmacy services. The findings provide a foundation for further dialogue, advocacy, and strategic planning to advance the role of hospital pharmacists and enhance patient care in Europe's healthcare systems.

EAHP European Statements Survey 2018, focusing on Section 1: Introductory Statements and Governance, Section 3: Production and Compounding, and Section 4: Clinical Pharmacy Services.

OBJECTIVES: The 2018 EAHP European Statements Survey focused on sections 1, 3 and 4 of the European Statements of Hospital Pharmacy. Statistical data on the level of implementation and on the main barriers to implementation of the Statements were collected. A further aim was to identify barriers in general, such as lack of awareness. METHODS: An online questionnaire was sent to all hospital pharmacies in EAHP member countries. Data were analysed at Keele University School of Pharmacy, UK. As with previous reports, the survey was divided into three sections: section A, asking general questions about the hospital pharmacy; Section B, addressing questions about the current activity of pharmacists around each statement from Sections 1, 3 and 4; and Section C, focusing on their ability to implement the statements. RESULTS: 719 complete responses were obtained from a sample of 5164 hospital pharmacies, giving a response rate of 14% (719/5164). Section A results indicated that 45% (323/719) of responders worked in teaching hospitals, 79% (568/719) of hospital pharmacies had 10 or fewer pharmacists, and 48% (345/719) of hospital pharmacies served over 500 beds. Section B results found a high percentage of positive responses for activity in section 1 (introductory statements and governance) and section 3 (production and compounding). However, responses to questions in section 4 (clinical pharmacy services) were more variable, with 6 of the 15 questions being answered positively by less than half of respondents. The five questions that revealed the lowest implementation levels were then analysed in greater detail. These questions corresponded to Statements 4.4, 4.5, 4.8, 1.1, and 4.2, which need the greatest effort for implementation. The major identified barriers to implementation were 'lack of capacity' and that 'other health professionals in the hospital fulfil the tasks'. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides useful information on the implementation status (and the barriers to, and drivers of implementation) of sections 1, 3 and 4 of the Statements. This will allow the EAHP to plan its implementation support programme for its members. To increase the quality of data, as well as the feedback to hospital pharmacies, the EAHP is planning to combine the survey with the self-assessment tool of the European Statements of Hospital Pharmacy.

Morphologically Normal-Appearing Adrenal Glands as a Prevalent Source of Aldosterone Production in Primary Aldosteronism.

BACKGROUND: Normal-appearing adrenal glands on cross-sectional imaging may still be the source of aldosterone production in primary aldosteronism (PA). METHODS: We evaluated the prevalence of aldosterone production among morphologically normal-appearing adrenal glands and the impact of this phenomenon on interpretations of localization studies and treatment decisions. We performed a retrospective cohort study of PA patients with at least 1 normal adrenal gland and reanalyzed contemporary studies to assess interpretations of imaging and adrenal venous sampling (AVS) at the individual patient and adrenal levels. RESULTS: Among 243 patients, 43 (18%) had bilateral normal-appearing adrenals and 200 (82%) had a unilateral normal-appearing adrenal, for a total of 286 normal-appearing adrenal glands. 38% of these normal-appearing adrenal glands were a source of aldosteronism on AVS, resulting in discordance between imaging and AVS findings in 31% of patients. Most patients with lateralizing PA underwent curative unilateral treatment (80%); however, curative treatment was pursued in 92% of patients who had concordant imaging-AVS results but in only 38% who had discordant results (P < 0.05). In young patients, imaging-AVS discordance was detected in 32% of those under 45 years and 21% of those under 35 years. Among 20 contemporary studies (including 4,904 patients and 6,934 normal-appearing adrenal glands), up to 64% of normal-appearing adrenals were a source of aldosteronism resulting in 31% of patients having discordant results. CONCLUSIONS: Morphologically normal-appearing adrenal glands are commonly the source of aldosterone production in PA, even among young patients. The lack of awareness of this issue may result in inappropriate treatment recommendations.

Adrenocorticotropic Hormone-Stimulated Adrenal Venous Sampling Underestimates Surgically Curable Primary Aldosteronism: A Retrospective Cohort Study and Review of Contemporary Studies.

[Figure: see text].

Intraindividual Variability of Aldosterone Concentrations in Primary Aldosteronism: Implications for Case Detection.

Primary aldosteronism is an underdiagnosed cause of hypertension. Although inadequate screening is one reason for underdiagnosis, another important contributor is that clinicians may inappropriately exclude the diagnosis when screening aldosterone concentrations fall below traditionally established thresholds. We evaluated the intraindividual variability in screening aldosterone concentrations and aldosterone-to-renin ratios, and how this variability could impact case detection, among 51 patients with confirmed primary aldosteronism who had 2 or more screening measurements of renin and aldosterone on different days. There were a total of 137 screening measurements with a mean of 3 (range 2-6) per patient. The mean intraindividual variability, expressed as coefficients of variation, was 31% for aldosterone and 45% for the aldosterone-to-renin ratio. Aldosterone concentrations ranged from 4.9 to 51 ng/dL; 49% of patients had at least one aldosterone measurement below 15 ng/dL, 29% had at least 2 aldosterone measurements below 15 ng/dL, and 29% had at least one measurement below 10 ng/dL. Individual aldosterone-to-renin ratios ranged from 8.2 to 427 ng/dL per ng/mL·hour; 57% had at least one ratio below 30 ng/dL per ng/mL·hour, 27% had at least 2 ratios below 30 ng/dL per ng/mL·hour, and 24% had at least one ratio below 20 ng/dL per ng/mL·hour. Aldosterone concentrations and aldosterone-to-renin ratios are highly variable in patients with primary aldosteronism, with many screening values falling below conventionally accepted diagnostic thresholds. The diagnostic yield for primary aldosteronism may be substantially increased by recalibrating the definition of a positive screen to include more liberal thresholds for aldosterone and the aldosterone-to-renin ratio.

Results of EAHP's 2018 Survey on Medicines Shortages.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of the 2018 EAHP Survey on Medicines Shortages was to provide a clearer picture on the issue of medicines shortages, including the impact on hospital pharmacists' time, budgets and the effect on patient care. METHODS: A survey was conducted by the EAHP, collecting information from European hospital pharmacists on the shortage situation in their respective countries. The survey ran from 19 March 2018 to 11 June 2018. Keele University, UK analysed and compared the results to those of the 2014 survey. RESULTS: There were 1666 responses to the 2018 survey, which represented a threefold increase from the 2014 survey which received 607 responses. Ninety per cent of respondents answered 'Yes' when asked if shortages of medicines are a current problem in delivering the best care to patients, while only 7% of respondents answered 'No', and 3% 'Unsure'.Problems with shortages of antimicrobials were most commonly reported (77% of respondents reporting this as an issue in 2018 vs 57% in 2014), followed by preventative medicines (43% in 2018 vs 20% in 2014) and anaesthetics (39% in 2018 vs 27% in 2014). Fifty-nine per cent of respondents have seen care delayed as a consequence of medication shortages, with cancellations of care (31% of respondents), medication errors (25% of respondents) and suboptimal treatment for patients (25% of respondents) also being frequently reported.Sixty-three per cent of respondents reported having had to pay a higher price to procure from alternate sources most of the time or always when there was a shortage of a medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Medicines shortages is an increasing problem across Europe and is having an adverse impact on patient care. Medicines shortages are adding to hospital pharmacists' time pressures and have an adverse budgetary impact. More timely information about impending shortages and how long they will last is seen as necessary to help manage the problem.

EAHP European Statements Survey 2017, focusing on sections 2 (Selection, Procurement and Distribution), 5 (Patient Safety and Quality Assurance) and 6 (Education and Research).

OBJECTIVES: The 2017 EAHP European Statements Survey focussed on sections 2, 5 and 6 of the European Statements of Hospital Pharmacy. Statistical data on the level of implementation and on the main barriers to implementation of the Statements were collected. A further aim was to identify barriers in general, such as lack of awareness. METHODS: An online questionnaire was sent to all hospital pharmacies in European Association of Hospital Pharmacists (EAHP) member countries. Data were analysed at Keele University School of Pharmacy, UK by and the EAHP Survey Group. RESULTS: There were 783 complete responses (response rate 17.4%). Some 42% of responders worked in teaching hospitals, 76% of hospital pharmacies had 10 or less pharmacists, and 46% of hospital pharmacies served over 500 beds.Five questions revealing the lowest implementation levels were further analysed in greater detail. Only 30% of respondents reported that their hospital pharmacists routinely publish hospital pharmacy practice research, and only 50% are involved in the development of local or national guidelines. 45% of respondents reported that computerised decision support was used to reduce the risk of medication errors in their hospitals, 69% stated that they had contingency plans for medicines shortages and 60% answered that they had had reason to contact their medicines authority because of drug shortages. 63% reported that the transcription step had been eliminated from the medicines administration process. CONCLUSIONS: The survey has provided the EAHP with an overview of the implementation level as well as the barriers to and drivers of implementation of sections 2, 5 and 6. This is important for informing the plans of EAHP and its members so that implementation can be fully supported.

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: first steps on the implementation journey.

An implementation plan was developed in conjunction with the publication of the European Statements of Hospital Pharmacy. Subsequently a baseline survey on the status of the Statements was conducted with specific questions on awareness, capability and capacity seen as crucial to informing future implementation plans. The baseline survey showed that, 18 months after agreement at the European Summit of Hospital Pharmacy, hospital pharmacists across Europe have a growing awareness of the Statements. There is a significant variation across Europe with awareness levels ranging from 100% to less than 30%. Capacity within European Healthcare systems to achieve implementation is challenging with less than 10% of respondents in most countries indicating sufficient capacity to implement the services described in the Statements. Staff skills and experience to implement the changes was identified by respondents at less than 20% in many countries. The implementation plan will need to be constantly updated and modified to sustain progress.

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.

EAHP European Statements baseline survey 2015: methodology.

The European Statements of Hospital Pharmacy are a set of hospital pharmacy practice standards published by the European Association of Hospital Pharmacists (EAHP) for European health systems to ensure safe, effective and optimal use of medicines in collaboration with multidisciplinary teams. Keele University was commissioned to conduct a survey among European hospital pharmacists to establish a baseline to assess awareness of the Statements and to identify any barriers to their implementation. The survey was conducted from January 2015 to March 2015, spanning 16 languages and 34 countries. The survey consisted of three sections: ▸ Section A: general questions about the participant's hospital pharmacy, such as workforce skill-mix and number of beds served; ▸ Section B: questions about the current activity of pharmacists around each statement; ▸ Section C: questions about the hospital's readiness and ability to implement the statements. In section B, a value was allocated to each response to rate the degree to which they were able to comply with each statement (where 1=never able to comply, 5=always complied). In section C, they were asked to what degree they agreed with the question (1 for strongly disagree, 5 for strongly agree). A response of 1 or 2 was deemed to indicate some difficulty in complying with that statement-a 'negative response'. Where this was the case, the participant was given the option to provide a free text response explaining the reasons for this difficulty. The full results are discussed in a subsequent paper (see page 69). Overall, the response rate was 18%, but the variation in this was marked. 22 of the 34 countries had a response rate of over 30%. The methods used for this survey results informs the methodology and scope of future EAHP surveys Recommendations for future surveys are as follows: ▸ Keep the survey short and easy to complete (to within 20 min); ▸ Specifically enquire for each question if capacity and capability are the key barriers to implementation; ▸ Construct survey response options for each question to identify barriers other than capacity and capability; ▸ Identify the key drivers for change in countries where implementation has occurred or is occurring; ▸ Compile better intelligence about the number of surveys sent out in the first place (as those countries with a low response rate sent out lots of invites to participate which may be unrealistic); ▸ A named person (country coordinator) to send out invite survey link; ▸ Weekly reminders should be sent out by the named person (country coordinator).

How clinical decisions are made.

There is much variation in the implementation of the best available evidence into clinical practice. These gaps between evidence and practice are often a result of multiple individual decisions. When making a decision, there is so much potentially relevant information available, it is impossible to know or process it all (so called 'bounded rationality'). Usually, a limited amount of information is selected to reach a sufficiently satisfactory decision, a process known as satisficing. There are two key processes used in decision making: System 1 and System 2. System 1 involves fast, intuitive decisions; System 2 is a deliberate analytical approach, used to locate information which is not instantly recalled. Human beings unconsciously use System 1 processing whenever possible because it is quicker and requires less effort than System 2. In clinical practice, gaps between evidence and practice can occur when a clinician develops a pattern of knowledge, which is then relied on for decisions using System 1 processing, without the activation of a System 2 check against the best available evidence from high quality research. The processing of information and decision making may be influenced by a number of cognitive biases, of which the decision maker may be unaware. Interventions to encourage appropriate use of System 1 and System 2 processing have been shown to improve clinical decision making. Increased understanding of decision making processes and common sources of error should help clinical decision makers to minimize avoidable mistakes and increase the proportion of decisions that are better.

Evaluating the safety and effectiveness of new drugs.

Prescribers seek to provide their patients with access to the latest innovations in medicine to maximize their health status. When a new drug comes to market, it often has not been as widely tested as other available therapies, and its effectiveness and safety cannot be fully evaluated. To address this problem, physicians can use the STEPS (Safety, Tolerability, Effectiveness, Price, and Simplicity) mnemonic to provide an analytic framework for making better decisions about a new drug's appropriate place in therapy. A key element is to base this evaluation on patient-oriented evidence rather than accept disease-oriented evidence (which may be misleading), while avoiding inappropriate reliance on studies that report only noninferiority results or relative-risk reductions. The primary question to ask for each new drug prescribing decision is, "Is there good evidence that this new drug is likely to make my patient live longer or better compared with the available alternatives?"

Evaluating the safety and effectiveness of new drugs.

Prescribers seek to provide their patients with access to the latest innovations in medicine to maximize their health status. When a new drug comes to market, it often has not been as widely tested as other available therapies, and its effectiveness and safety cannot be fully evaluated. To address this problem, physicians can use the STEPS (Safety, Tolerability, Effectiveness, Price, and Simplicity) mnemonic to provide an analytic framework for making better decisions about a new drug's appropriate place in therapy. A key element is to base this evaluation on patient-oriented evidence rather than accept disease-oriented evidence (which may be misleading), while avoiding inappropriate reliance on studies that report only noninferiority results or relative risk reductions. The primary question to ask for each new drug prescribing decision is, "Is there good evidence that this new drug is likely to make my patient live longer or better compared with the available alternatives?"