Implementación del Proceso Estandarizado de Evaluación Farmacoterapéutica en pacientes hospitalizados y ambulatorios / Implementation of the standardized process of Pharmacotherapeutic evaluation in inpatients and outpatients

Objetivos el seguimiento farmacoterapéutico (SFT) realizado por el farmacéutico clínico puede enmarcarse dentro de 3 actividades: la identificación, la resolución y la prevención de eventos adversos a medicamentos. Estas deben ajustarse a los requerimientos y los recursos de cada institución, generando la necesidad de desarrollar procedimientos que aumenten la eficiencia del SFT y garanticen la seguridad del paciente. Los farmacéuticos clínicos de la Red de Salud UC-CHRISTUS Chile desarrollamos un Proceso Estandarizado de Evaluación Farmacoterapéutica (PEEF). El objetivo principal del estudio fue evaluar el impacto de esta herramienta en términos del número de evaluaciones e intervenciones de los farmacéuticos clínicos y secundariamente determinar el ahorro de costos potenciales y directos asociados a las intervenciones en la Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos (UCI). Método estudio cuasi-experimental que evaluó la frecuencia y tipo de evaluaciones e intervenciones realizadas por los farmacéuticos clínicos en unidades de pacientes adultos de la Red UC-CHRISTUS, previo y posterior a la utilización del PEEF. La distribución de variables se evaluó mediante el test Shapiro–Wilk, la asociación entre el uso del PEEF y el número de evaluaciones e intervenciones fue realizada mediante el test Chi cuadrado. La evaluación de costos asociados a las intervenciones del farmacéutico clínico en UCI se realizó utilizando la metodología propuesta por Hammond et al.10. Resultados el total de pacientes evaluados pre- y pos-PEEF fue de 1.781 y 2.129, respectivamente. Las evaluaciones e intervenciones en el periodo pre-PEEF fueron 5.209 y 2.246, en el periodo pos-PEEF fueron 6.105 y 2.641, respectivamente. El aumento de las evaluaciones como de las intervenciones fue significativo solo en las unidades de mayor complejidad. La reducción potencial de costos estimados en el periodo pos-PEEF en UCI fue de 492.805 dólares americanos. ... (AU)

Objectives The Pharmacotherapeutic follow-up program (PFU) carried out by the clinical pharmacist can be categorized within 3 fundamental activities; identification, resolution and prevention of adverse drug events. These must be adjusted to the requirements and resources of each institution, developing procedures to increase PFU efficiency and to guarantee patient safety. The clinical pharmacists of UC-CHRISTUS Healthcare Network developed a Standardized Pharmacotherapeutic Evaluation Process (SPEP). The main goal of our study is to evaluate the impact of this tool through the pharmacist evaluation number and pharmacist interventions number. Secondarily to determine the potential and direct cost savings associated with the pharmacist interventions in an Intensive care unit (ICU). Methods A quasi-experimental study evaluated the frequency and type of pharmacist evaluation and pharmacist interventions performed by clinical pharmacists in adult patients units of UC-CHRISTUS Healthcare Network, before and after the implementation of SPEP. The distribution of variables was evaluated using the Shapiro–Wilk test and the association between the use of SPEP and the pharmacist evaluation and pharmacist interventions number was performed using the Chi-square test. The cost evaluation associated with pharmacist interventions in the ICU was carried out using methodology proposed by Hammond et al. Results A total number of 1,781 patients was evaluated before and 2,129 after the SPEP. The pharmacist evaluation and pharmacist interventions number in the before-SPEP period were 5,209 and 2,246. In the after-SPEP period were 6,105 and 2,641, respectively. The increase in both the pharmacist evaluation and pharmacist interventions number was significant only in critical care patients. The potential cost saving in after-SPEP period in the ICU was USD 492,805.... (AU)

Implementation of the standardized process of Pharmacotherapeutic evaluation in inpatients and outpatients. / Implementación del Proceso Estandarizado de Evaluación Farmacoterapéutica en pacientes hospitalizados y ambulatorios.

OBJECTIVES: The Pharmacotherapeutic follow-up program (PFU) carried out by the clinical pharmacist can be categorized within 3 fundamental activities; identification, resolution and prevention of adverse drug events. These must be adjusted to the requirements and resources of each institution, developing procedures to increase PFU efficiency and to guarantee patient safety. The clinical pharmacists of UC-CHRISTUS Healthcare Network developed a Standardized Pharmacotherapeutic Evaluation Process (SPEP). The main goal of our study is to evaluate the impact of this tool through the pharmacist evaluation number and pharmacist interventions number. Secondarily to determine the potential and direct cost savings associated with the pharmacist interventions in an Intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: A quasi-experimental study evaluated the frequency and type of pharmacist evaluation and pharmacist interventions performed by clinical pharmacists in adult patients units of UC-CHRISTUS Healthcare Network, before and after the implementation of SPEP. The distribution of variables was evaluated using the Shapiro-Wilk test and the association between the use of SPEP and the pharmacist evaluation and pharmacist interventions number was performed using the Chi-square test. The cost evaluation associated with pharmacist interventions in the ICU was carried out using methodology proposed by Hammond et al. RESULTS: A total number of 1,781 patients was evaluated before and 2,129 after the SPEP. The pharmacist evaluation and pharmacist interventions number in the before-SPEP period were 5,209 and 2,246. In the after-SPEP period were 6,105 and 2,641, respectively. The increase in both the pharmacist evaluation and pharmacist interventions number was significant only in critical care patients. The potential cost saving in after-SPEP period in the ICU was USD 492,805. Major adverse drug events prevention was the intervention that generated the most savings with a reduction of 60.2%. The total direct savings for sequential therapy was USD 8,072 in the study period. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows a clinical pharmacist developed tool called SPEP that increased the pharmacist evaluation and pharmacist interventions number in multiple clinical scenarios. These were significant only in critical care patients. Future investigations should make effort to evaluate the quality and clinical impact of these interventions.