Collaborative doctor–pharmacist prescribing in the emergency department and admissions unit: a study of accuracy and safety

Redesigning Medication Management in the Emergency Department: The Impact of Partnered Pharmacist Medication Charting on the Time to Administer Pre-Admission Time-Critical Medicines, Medication Order Completeness, and Venous Thromboembolism Risk Assessment

In order to enhance interdisciplinary collaboration and promote better medication management, a partnered pharmacist medication charting (PPMC) model was piloted in the emergency department (ED) of an Australian referral hospital. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of PPMC on the timeliness of time-critical medicines (TCMs), completeness of medication orders, and assessment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk. This concurrent controlled retrospective pragmatic trial involved individuals aged 18 years and older presenting to the ED from 1 June 2020 to 17 May 2021. The study compared the PPMC approach (PPMC group) with traditional medical officer-led medication charting approaches in the ED, either an early best-possible medication history (BPMH) group or the usual care group. In the PPMC group, a BPMH was documented promptly soon after arrival in the ED, subsequent to which a collaborative discussion, co-planning, and co-charting of medications were undertaken by both a PPMC-credentialled pharmacist and a medical officer. In the early BPMH group, the BPMH was initially obtained in the ED before proceeding with the traditional approach of medication charting. Conversely, in the usual care group, the BPMH was obtained in the inpatient ward subsequent to the traditional approach of medication charting. Three outcome measures were assessed -the duration from ED presentation to the TCM's first dose administration (e.g., anti-Parkinson's drugs, hypoglycaemics and anti-coagulants), the completeness of medication orders, and the conduct of VTE risk assessments. The analysis included 321 TCMs, with 107 per group, and 1048 patients, with 230, 230, and 588 in the PPMC, early BPMH, and usual care groups, respectively. In the PPMC group, the median time from ED presentation to the TCM's first dose administration was 8.8 h (interquartile range: 6.3 to 16.3), compared to 17.5 h (interquartile range: 7.8 to 22.9) in the early BPMH group and 15.1 h (interquartile range: 8.2 to 21.1) in the usual care group (p < 0.001). Additionally, PPMC was associated with a higher proportion of patients having complete medication orders and receiving VTE risk assessments in the ED (both p < 0.001). The implementation of the PPMC model not only expedited the administration of TCMs but also improved the completeness of medication orders and the conduct of VTE risk assessments in the ED.

The impact of partnered pharmacist medication charting in the emergency department on the use of potentially inappropriate medications in older people

Introduction: A process redesign, partnered pharmacist medication charting (PPMC), was recently piloted in the emergency department (ED) of a tertiary hospital. The PPMC model was intended to improve medication safety and interdisciplinary collaboration by having pharmacists work closely with medical officers to review and chart medications for patients. This study, therefore, aimed to evaluate the impact of PPMC on potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use. Methods: A pragmatic concurrent controlled study compared a PPMC group to both early best-possible medication history (BPMH) and usual care groups. In the PPMC group, pharmacists initially documented the BPMH and collaborated with medical officers to co-develop treatment plans and chart medications in ED. The early BPMH group included early BPMH documentation by pharmacists, followed by traditional medication charting by medical officers in ED. The usual care group followed the traditional charting approach by medical officers, without a pharmacist-collected BPMH or collaborative discussion in ED. Included were older people (≥65 years) presenting to the ED with at least one regular medication with subsequent admission to an acute medical unit. PIM outcomes (use of at least one PIM, PIMs per patient and PIMs per medication prescribed) were assessed at ED presentation, ED departure and hospital discharge using Beers criteria. Results: Use of at least one PIM on ED departure was significantly lower for the PPMC group than for the comparison groups (χ2, p = 0.040). However, PIM outcomes at hospital discharge were not statistically different between groups. PIM outcomes on ED departure or hospital discharge did not differ from baseline within the comparison groups. Discussion: In conclusion, PIM use on leaving ED, but not at hospital discharge, was reduced with PPMC. Close interprofessional collaboration, as in ED, needs to continue on the wards.

Evaluation of the impact of the addition of a heart failure prescribing pharmacist to consultant-led heart failure ward round at a tertiary hospital

OBJECTIVE

Pharmacists attending general medical post-admission ward rounds is established good practice. However, there is a lack of evidence on the impact of specialist heart failure (HF) prescribing pharmacists on consultant HF ward rounds. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact on prescribing when a specialist HF prescribing pharmacist attended inpatient HF ward rounds.

METHODS

A prospective service evaluation completed at a tertiary hospital between September and December 2020. The same HF prescribing pharmacist attended the HF consultant-led ward round once a week on 15 occasions. For each medicine change, the pharmacist documented: who suggested the intervention, the medicine, prescribing action, reason for review and the primary reason for change. Medicines were categorised into four groups (heart failure, cardiovascular, anticoagulation and other) for analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 158 patients were reviewed and 226 individual changes suggested; 48% of these were consultant led (n=108) and 52% (n=118) due to pharmacist recommendations. All medicines interventions were prescribed on the round by the pharmacist. For consultants, the primary reason for medicine change was to ensure efficacy of HF medicines, 80% (n=73), followed by safety (HF medicines), 20% (n=18). For the pharmacist, the primary reason was safety across all the medicine groups, 36% (n=42), followed by efficacy relating to missing drug history items, 24% (n=28).

CONCLUSIONS

HF consultants focused on ensuring patients have the most effective combination of HF medications. The addition of a specialist HF prescribing pharmacist ensured a wider range of medicines were reviewed for safety and optimisation, helping to deliver a holistic review of all medications.

Impact of pharmacist interventions provided in the emergency department on quality use of medicines: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pharmacists have an increasing role as part of the emergency department (ED) team. However, the impact of ED-based pharmacy interventions on the quality use of medicines has not been well characterised.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aimed to synthesise evidence from studies examining the impact of interventions provided by pharmacists on the quality use of medicines in adults presenting to ED.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Two independent reviewers screened titles/abstracts and reviewed full texts. Studies that compared the impact of interventions provided by pharmacists with usual care in ED and reported medication-related primary outcomes were included. Cochrane Risk of Bias-2 and Newcastle-Ottawa tools were used to assess the risk of bias. Summary estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis, along with sensitivity and sub-group analyses.

RESULTS

Thirty-one studies involving 13 242 participants were included. Pharmacists were predominantly involved in comprehensive medication review, advanced pharmacotherapy assessment, staff and patient education, identification of medication discrepancies and drug-related problems, medication prescribing and co-prescribing, and medication preparation and administration. The activities reduced the number of medication errors by a mean of 0.33 per patient (95% CI -0.42 to -0.23, I²=51%) and the proportion of patients with at least one error by 73% (risk ratio (RR)=0.27, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.40, I²=85.3%). The interventions were also associated with more complete and accurate medication histories, increased appropriateness of prescribed medications by 58% (RR=1.58, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.06, I²=95%) and quicker initiation of time-critical medications.

CONCLUSION

The evidence indicates improved quality use of medicines when pharmacists are included in ED care teams.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020165234.

Health information communication technology evaluation frameworks for pharmacist prescribing: A systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

Information communication technology (ICT) is instrumental in pharmacists' current practice and emerging roles. One such role is prescribing, which requires the use of clinical guidelines and documentation of decision-making, commonly via ICT. Development and refinement of ICT should be guided by evaluation frameworks that describe or measure features of ICT and its implementation. In the context of pharmacist prescribing, these evaluation frameworks should be specific to health stakeholders and the pharmacy setting.

OBJECTIVES

To identify ICT evaluation frameworks from health-related literature and review frameworks relevant to the development, implementation, and evaluation of pharmacist prescribing.

METHODS

A database search of CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Medline (Ovid), ProQuest, Scopus, Web of Science and grey literature was conducted, using combinations of keywords relating to 'ICT', 'utilization', 'usability', and 'evaluation framework'. Abstracts and titles were screened according to inclusion criteria. Identified evaluation frameworks were critiqued for relevance to pharmacy practice.

RESULTS

Twenty-two articles were identified, describing the development or application of 20 evaluation frameworks. None of the frameworks was developed specifically for pharmacy practice. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), describing use behavior, behavior intention, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use, was the most widely utilized framework. The Information System Success (ISS) and Human-Organization and Technology Fit (HOT-fit) are notable evaluation frameworks that address user and organizational influences in health ICT utility, and factors of both can address the limitation of TAM.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings call for development of an agile evaluation framework for the system under review; however, this can prove difficult due to the heterogenicity and complexity of the healthcare system, particularly contemporary pharmacy practice. While the TAM appears useful to evaluate user attitudes and intentions towards ICT, its relevance to ICT in contemporary community pharmacy practice requires exploration.

Impact of Partnered Pharmacist Medication Charting (PPMC) on Medication Discrepancies and Errors: A Pragmatic Evaluation of an Emergency Department-Based Process Redesign

Medication errors are more prevalent in settings with acutely ill patients and heavy workloads, such as in an emergency department (ED). A pragmatic, controlled study compared partnered pharmacist medication charting (PPMC) (pharmacist-documented best-possible medication history [BPMH] followed by clinical discussion between a pharmacist and medical officer to co-develop a treatment plan and chart medications) with early BPMH (pharmacist-documented BPMH followed by medical officer-led traditional medication charting) and usual care (traditional medication charting approach without a pharmacist-collected BPMH in ED). Medication discrepancies were undocumented differences between medication charts and medication reconciliation. An expert panel assessed the discrepancies' clinical significance, with 'unintentional' discrepancies deemed 'errors'. Fewer patients in the PPMC group had at least one error (3.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1% to 5.8%) than in the early BPMH (49.4%; 95% CI: 42.5% to 56.3%) and usual care group (61.4%; 95% CI: 56.3% to 66.7%). The number of patients who need to be treated with PPMC to prevent at least one high/extreme error was 4.6 (95% CI: 3.4 to 6.9) and 4.0 (95% CI: 3.1 to 5.3) compared to the early BPMH and usual care group, respectively. PPMC within ED, incorporating interdisciplinary discussion, reduced clinically significant errors compared to early BPMH or usual care.

Influences on surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis decision making by surgical craft groups, anaesthetists, pharmacists and nurses in public and private hospitals

Background

Surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis (SAP) is a leading indication for antibiotic use in the hospital setting, with demonstrated high rates of inappropriateness. Decision-making for SAP is complex and multifactorial. A greater understanding of these factors is needed to inform the design of targeted antimicrobial stewardship interventions and strategies to support the optimization of SAP and its impacts on patient care.

Methods

A qualitative case study exploring the phenomenon of SAP decision-making. Focus groups were conducted with surgeons, anaesthetists, theatre nurses and pharmacists across one private and two public hospitals in Australia. Thematic analysis was guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Capabilities, Opportunities, Motivators-Behaviour (COM-B) model.

Results

Fourteen focus groups and one paired interview were completed. Ten of the fourteen TDF domains were identified as relevant. Thematic analysis revealed six significant themes mapped to the COM-B model, and subthemes mapped to the relevant TDF domains in a combined framework. Key themes identified were: 1) Low priority for surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis prescribing skills; 2) Prescriber autonomy takes precedence over guideline compliance; 3) Social codes of prescribing reinforce established practices; 4) Need for improved communication, documentation and collection of data for action; 5) Fears and perceptions of risk hinder appropriate SAP prescribing; and 6) Lack of clarity regarding roles and accountability.

Conclusions

SAP prescribing is a complex process that involves multiple professions across the pre-, intra- and post-operative surgical settings. The utilisation of behaviour change frameworks to identify barriers and enablers to optimal SAP prescribing supports future development of theory-informed antimicrobial stewardship interventions. Interventions should aim to increase surgeon engagement, enhance the prioritisation of and accountability for SAP, and address the underlying social factors involved in SAP decision-making, such as professional hierarchy and varied perceptions or risks and fears.