Effects of hospital pharmacist interventions on health outcomes in older polymedicated inpatients: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: To identify the evidence that supports the effect of interventions made by hospital pharmacists, individually or in collaboration with a multidisciplinary team, in terms of healthcare outcomes, a more effective utilization of resources and lower costs in older polymedicated inpatients. METHODS: We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. We also conducted a hand search by checking the references cited in the primary studies and studies included in reviews identified during the process of research. Four review authors working by pairs searched for studies, extracted data, and drew up the results tables. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included in the review. In 13 of them pharmacists carried out their intervention exclusively while the patients were in hospital, whereas in 13 interventions were delivered during admission and after hospital discharge. Outcomes identified were mortality, length of stay, visits to the emergency department, readmissions and reported quality of life, among others. Pharmacist interventions were found to be beneficial in fifteen studies, specifically on hospital readmissions, visits to the emergency department and healthcare costs. CONCLUSION: There is no hard evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of hospital pharmacist interventions in older polymedicated patients. Mortality does not show as a relevant outcome. Other health care outcomes, such as hospital readmissions, visits to the emergency department and healthcare costs, seem to be more relevant and amenable to change. Interventions that include pharmacists in multidisciplinary geriatric teams seem to be more promising that isolated pharmacist interventions. Interventions prolonged after hospital discharge seem to be more appropriate that interventions delivered only during hospital admission. Better-designed studies should be conducted in the future to provide further insight into the effect of hospital pharmacist interventions.

Análisis de la interacción ácido valproico-meropenem en pacientes hospitalizados / Analysis of the valproic acid-meropenem interaction in hospitalised patients

Introducción: Existen referencias en la literatura acerca de la gravedad de la interacción entre el ácido valproico y el meropenem. Sin embargo, las recomendaciones en cuanto a su manejo son contradictorias, recomendándose en algunos estudios la monitorización más estrecha del antiepiléptico si se emplean juntos y en otros contraindicando su uso concomitante. El objetivo de este trabajo es analizar la interacción entre el ácido valproico y el meropenem y evaluar el impacto de la intervención farmacéutica sobre la utilización de estos fármacos en pacientes hospitalizados. Material y métodos: Estudio de la prescripción concomitante de ácido valproico y meropenem en un hospital de tercer nivel de 1.080 camas dividido en dos periodos: uno retrospectivo y observacional, el otro prospectivo y con intervención farmacéutica. Se compararon los hábitos de prescripción entre ambos periodos. Resultados: Un total de 26 pacientes recibieron ácido valproico y meropenem simultáneamente (13 en cada periodo), no alcanzando ninguno niveles terapéuticos del antiepiléptico durante el tratamiento. La intervención farmacéutica cambió los hábitos de prescripción, disminuyendo a la mitad los días de tratamiento concomitante, cambiando la antibioterapia y/o monitorizando más estrechamente el antiepiléptico. Conclusiones: La interacción entre el ácido valproico y el meropenem es grave, especialmente por la rapidez con la que disminuyen los niveles del antiepiléptico. Se debe evitar el uso concomitante de ambos fármacos, sustituyendo la antibioterapia de manera empírica o según los patrones de resistencia del microorganismo para mantener el mismo tratamiento anticomicial (AU)

Introduction: Published data demonstrate a serious interaction between valproic acid and meropenem. However, recommendations about the management of concomitant treatment are contradictory; some experts recommend closer monitoring of valproic acid serum concentrations and others recommend avoiding concurrent therapy. The purpose of this study is to critically analyse the interaction and to evaluate the impact of pharmaceutical intervention in the use of these drugs in hospitalised patients. Material and methods: Study of the concomitant prescription of valproic acid and meropenem in a general hospital of 1,080 beds divided in to two periods; the first period was retrospective and observational and it was followed by a prospective period involving pharmaceutical intervention. The prescription habits between both periods were compared. Results: A total of 26 patients received concurrent treatment with valproic acid and meropenem (13 per period) and none of them maintained therapeutic serum levels of the antiepileptic drug. Pharmaceutical intervention modified prescription habits, reducing by half the number of days of concomitant treatment, changing the antibiotherapy and/or monitoring serum concentrations more often. Conclusions: The interaction between valproic acid and meropenem is serious, especially because of the dramatic decrease in the antiepileptic serum concentrations. The concomitant use of both drugs should be avoided, replacing the antibiotherapy empirically, or according to the resistance profiles of the microorganism and maintaining the same the anti-epileptic treatment (AU)

[Analysis of the valproic acid-meropenem interaction in hospitalised patients]. / Análisis de la interacción ácido valproico-meropenem en pacientes hospitalizados.

INTRODUCTION: Published data demonstrate a serious interaction between valproic acid and meropenem. However, recommendations about the management of concomitant treatment are contradictory; some experts recommend closer monitoring of valproic acid serum concentrations and others recommend avoiding concurrent therapy. The purpose of this study is to critically analyse the interaction and to evaluate the impact of pharmaceutical intervention in the use of these drugs in hospitalised patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Study of the concomitant prescription of valproic acid and meropenem in a general hospital of 1,080 beds divided in to two periods; the first period was retrospective and observational and it was followed by a prospective period involving pharmaceutical intervention. The prescription habits between both periods were compared. RESULTS: A total of 26 patients received concurrent treatment with valproic acid and meropenem (13 per period) and none of them maintained therapeutic serum levels of the antiepileptic drug. Pharmaceutical intervention modified prescription habits, reducing by half the number of days of concomitant treatment, changing the antibiotherapy and/or monitoring serum concentrations more often. CONCLUSIONS: The interaction between valproic acid and meropenem is serious, especially because of the dramatic decrease in the antiepileptic serum concentrations. The concomitant use of both drugs should be avoided, replacing the antibiotherapy empirically, or according to the resistance profiles of the microorganism and maintaining the same the anti-epileptic treatment.

Nuevas tecnologías aplicadas al proceso de dispensación de medicamentos. Análisis de errores y factores contribuyentes / New technologies applied to the medication-dispensing process, error analysis and contributing factors

Objetivo Calcular la prevalencia de los errores producidos en diferentes sistemas de dispensación de medicamentos, las etapas en que se producen y los factores contribuyentes. Métodos Estudio observacional prospectivo. Se revisaron las etapas del proceso de dispensación en 5 sistemas de dispensación: stock o botiquín de planta, sistema de distribución de medicamentos en dosis unitaria (SDMDU) sin prescripción electrónica asistida (PEA), SDMDU con PEA, sistema automatizado de dispensación (SAD) sin PEA y SAD con PEA. Se identificaron los errores de dispensación, las etapas en que ocurrieron dichos errores y sus factores contribuyentes. Resultados De 54.169 oportunidades de error, se detectaron 2.181 errores. Tasa de error: stock, 10,7%; SDMDU sin PEA, 3,7%; SDMDU con PEA, 2,2%; SAD sin PEA, 20,7%; SAD con PEA, 2,9%. Etapa más frecuente en la que se produce el error: stock, preparación del pedido; SDMDU sin PEA y con PEA, llenado del carro; SAD sin PEA y con PEA, llenado del SAD. Error más frecuente: stock, SAD sin PEA y con PEA, omisión; SDMDU con PEA, diferente cantidad de medicamento; SDMDU sin PEA, sobra medicamento. Factor contribuyente: stock, SAD sin PEA y con PEA, rotura de stock/desabastecimiento; SDMDU con PEA, personal sin experiencia y sistema de comunicación deficiente entre profesionales; SDMDU sin PEA, sistema de comunicación deficiente entre profesionales. Conclusiones La aplicación de nuevas tecnologías en el proceso de dispensación ha aumentado su seguridad, concretamente la implantación de la PEA ha permitido disminuir los errores en el proceso de dispensación (AU)

Objective Calculate error prevalence occurred in different medication-dispensing systems, the stages of occurrence, and contributing factors. Methodology Prospective observational study. The staging of the dispensing process were reviewed in five dispensing systems: Stock, Unitary-Dose dispensing systems (UDDS) without Computerized Prescription Order Entry (CPOE), CPOE-UDDS, Automated Dispensing Systems (ADS) without CPOE and CPOE-ADS. Dispensing errors were identified, together with the stages of occurrence of such errors and their contributing factors.Results2,181 errors were detected among 54,169 opportunities of error. Error-rate: Stock, 10.7%; no-CPOE-UDDS, 3.7%, CPOE-UDDS, 2.2%, no-CPOE-ADS, 20.7%; CPOE-ADS, 2.9%. Most frequent stage when error occurs: Stock, preparation of order; no-CPOE-UDDS and CPOE-UDDS, filling of the unit dose cart; no-CPOE-ADS and CPOE-ADS, filling of the ADS. Most frequent error: Stock, no-CPOE-ADS and CPOE-ADS, omission; CPOE-UDDS, different amount of drug and no-CPOE-UDDS, extra medication. Contributing factor: Stock, CPOE-ADS and no-CPOE-ADS, stock out/supply problems; CPOE-UDDS, inexperienced personnel and deficient communication system between professionals; no-CPOE-UDDS, deficient communication system between professionals. Conclusions Applying new technologies to the dispensing process has increased its safety, particularly, implementation of CPOE has enabled to reduce dispensing errors (AU)

[New technologies applied to the medication-dispensing process, error analysis and contributing factors]. / Nuevas tecnologías aplicadas al proceso de dispensación de medicamentos. Análisis de errores y factores contribuyentes.

OBJECTIVE: Calculate error prevalence occurred in different medication-dispensing systems, the stages of occurrence, and contributing factors. METHODOLOGY: Prospective observational study. The staging of the dispensing process were reviewed in five dispensing systems: Stock, Unitary-Dose dispensing systems (UDDS) without Computerized Prescription Order Entry (CPOE), CPOE-UDDS, Automated Dispensing Systems (ADS) without CPOE and CPOE-ADS. Dispensing errors were identified, together with the stages of occurrence of such errors and their contributing factors. RESULTS: 2,181 errors were detected among 54,169 opportunities of error. Error-rate: Stock, 10.7%; no-CPOE-UDDS, 3.7%, CPOE-UDDS, 2.2%, no-CPOE-ADS, 20.7%; CPOE-ADS, 2.9%. Most frequent stage when error occurs: Stock, preparation of order; no-CPOE-UDDS and CPOE-UDDS, filling of the unit dose cart; no-CPOE-ADS and CPOE-ADS, filling of the ADS. Most frequent error: Stock, no-CPOE-ADS and CPOE-ADS, omission; CPOE-UDDS, different amount of drug and no-CPOE-UDDS, extra medication. Contributing factor: Stock, CPOE-ADS and no-CPOE-ADS, stock out/supply problems; CPOE-UDDS, inexperienced personnel and deficient communication system between professionals; no-CPOE-UDDS, deficient communication system between professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Applying new technologies to the dispensing process has increased its safety, particularly, implementation of CPOE has enabled to reduce dispensing errors.

Análisis de los fallos detectados en el proceso de dispensación de medicamentos y los factores contribuyentes / Analysis of failures detected during the medication-dispensing process and their contributing factors

No disponible

No disponible