[Medication safety in hospitals : Integration of clinical pharmacists to reduce drug-related problems in the inpatient setting]

Introduction of Unit-Dose Care in the 1,125 Bed Teaching Hospital: Practical Experience and Time Saving on Wards

Purpose

The shortage of nursing staff as well as the slow progress in the German health care system's digitalisation has gained much attention due to COVID-19. Patient-specific medication management using the unit-dose dispensing system (UDDS) has the potential for a lasting and positive influence on both digitalisation and the relief of nursing staff.

Methods

Nursing staff UDDS-acceptance was determined via a validated online survey. For the evaluation of stock keeping on the wards, the delivery quantities were determined for a comparative period before and after the introduction of the UDDS. The time required for on-ward medication-related processes on ward before and after the introduction of UDDS was recorded based on a survey form and the nursing relief in full-time equivalent (FTE) was calculated using the data obtained.

Results

We show that nurses appreciate the UDDS and confirm a significant reduction in drug stocks on the wards. The UDDS reduces the time needed to dispense medications from 4.52 ± 0.35 min to 1.67 ± 0.15 min/day/patient. In relation to the entire medication process, this corresponds to a reduction of 50% per day and per patient. Based on 40,000 patients/year and a supply of 1,125 beds with unit-dose blisters, 7.36 FTE nursing staff can be relieved per year. In contrast, 6.5 FTE in the hospital pharmacy are required for supplying the hospitals.

Conclusion

UDDS is well accepted by nurses, reduces stock levels on ward, and fulfils criteria as a nursing-relief measure.

[Ward-based clinical pharmacists in intensive care medicine: an economic evaluation]

BACKGROUND

The positive impact of pharmaceutical care in improving medication safety is considered proven. Little is known about the economic benefit of clinical pharmaceutical services in Germany.

OBJECTIVE

In 2020, a pilot project was started at the Ernst von Bergmann Hospital to introduce ward-based clinical pharmacists in intensive care medicine, also in order to determine the economic benefit of the medication management offered.

METHODS

By a team of experienced intensive care physicians and clinical pharmacists on the basis of a consensus principle, each pharmaceutical intervention (PI) was assigned a probability score (Nesbit probability score) with which an adverse drug event (ADE) would have occurred. Assuming that each ADE results in an increased length of stay, the costs of intensive care treatment/day were used as potential savings. The model thereby combines the findings of two international publications to enable an economic analysis of pharmaceutical services.

RESULTS

During the study period, 177 pharmaceutical interventions were evaluated and corresponding probability scores for the occurrence of ADE were determined. From this, annual savings of € 80,000 through avoided costs were calculated.

CONCLUSION

In this project, the economic benefit of pharmaceutical services in intensive care medicine was proven. Ward-based clinical pharmacists are now an integral part of the intensive care treatment team at the Ernst von Bergmann Hospital.

Impact of Pharmaceutical Interventions with STOPP/START and PIM-Check in Older Hospitalized Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction

Pharmaceutical interventions can reduce negative outcomes related to potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs).

Objective

The objective of this study was to compare the impact of interventions on the reduction of PIPs and on different clinical outcomes using two electronic explicit tools.

Methods

A randomized controlled trial was conducted in patients hospitalized between 2018 and 2019 at the Acute Care for Elders unit at Lausanne University Hospital in Switzerland. A medication review was conducted using PIM-Check in the first arm and STOPP/START in the second arm. Proposed interventions were communicated to the physicians. Clinical outcomes evaluated were incidence of falls, delirium, activities of daily living (ADL), length of stay, number of drugs at discharge and hospital readmission.

Results

The 123 included patients (60 in the first arm and 63 in the second arm) were 86.3 ± 6.6 years old, had 3.5 ± 1.7 diseases and were treated by 6.2 ± 2.7 drugs at admission. There was a significant decrease in PIPs in each arm, but no significant difference between arms. The deprescription of nervous system drugs was significantly higher with STOPP/START than with PIM-Check (Chi-square p = 0.025). ADL scores between home and discharge were significantly higher in the STOPP/START arm than in the PIM-Check arm (4.42 vs 3.77; p = 0.040). The predictors of ADL score improvement were the deprescription of nervous system drugs (β = 0.423; 95% CI 0.034–0.812; p = 0.033), the use of STOPP/START (β = 0.798, 95% CI 0.305–1.290; p = 0.002) and a shorter length of hospital stay (β = −0.033, 95% CI − 0.056 to − 0.010; p = 0.005).

Conclusions

Although PIM-Check was non-inferior to STOPP/START in reducing the number of PIPs, STOPP/START had a significantly higher impact on ADL. The use of STOPP/START or the deprescription of two nervous system drugs would allow the patient to acquire almost one more basic function of living. On the other hand, a loss of one point on the ADL score was observed per month of hospitalization.

Clinical Trials Registration Number

NCT04028583.

The impact of pharmacist intervention on prophylactic antibiotics use in orthopedic surgery at a hospital in China

This study aimed to assess the impact of the pharmacist-led intervention on perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis by standardizing the cephalosporin intradermal skin test in the orthopedic department.A pre-and postintervention study was conducted among patients in the Orthopedics Department at the Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital in China. Use of intradermal skin test, perioperative antibacterial prophylaxis, and cost of care were compared between the preintervention population (admitted from 6/1/2018 to 8/31/2018) and postintervention population (admitted from 1/1/2019 to 3/31/2019). Logistic regression and generalized linear regression were used to assess the intervention impact.425 patients from the preintervention period and 448 patients from the postintervention period were included in the study. After the implementation of the pharmacist intervention program, there was a decrease in the utilization of intradermal skin tests, from 95.8% to 16.5% (P < .001). Patients were more likely to have cephalosporin as prophylactic antimicrobials (OR = 5.28, P < .001) after the implementation. The cost of antimicrobials was significantly reduced by $150.21 (P < .001) for each patient.Pharmacist-involved intervention can reduce the utilization of cephalosporins skin tests and decrease the prescription of unnecessary high-cost antimicrobials.

Impact of Pharmaceutical Interventions in Hospitalized Patients: A Comparative Study Between Clinical Pharmacists and an Explicit Criteria-Based Tool

Background

It has been well recognized that pharmaceutical interventions (PIs) can prevent patient harm related to prescribing errors. Various tools have been developed to facilitate the detection and the reduction of inappropriate prescriptions and some have shown benefit on clinical outcomes.

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical, economical, and organizational impact of interventions generated by clinical pharmacists in hospitalized patients, and to evaluate the performance of an explicit tool, the Potentially Inappropriate Medication Checklist for Patients in Internal Medicine (PIM-Check), in detecting each pharmacist's intervention.

Methods

A cohort retrospective study was conducted on hospitalized patients. The impact of PIs based on pharmacists’ standard examination was evaluated using the Clinical, Economic, and Organizational (CLEO) tool. The performance of PIM-Check in detecting each intervention was assessed by conducting a retrospective medication review based on available information collected from patients’ records. A qualitative analysis was also conducted to identify the types of PIs that PIM-Check failed to detect.

Results

The study was performed on 162 patients with a median age of 68 years (interquartile range = 46–77 years) and a median hospital stay of 5 days (interquartile range = 4–7 days). The pharmacists generated 1.9 PIs per patient (n = 304) of which 31% were detected by PIM-Check. The acceptance rate of the interventions by physicians was 84% (n = 255). Among the accepted interventions, 53% (n = 136) had a clinical impact graded CL ≥ 2C (moderate or major), whereas the majority of them were not detected by PIM-Check (63%; 86 out of 136). In addition, 46% of accepted interventions (n = 117) were associated with a cost decrease, among which 62% were not detected by PIM-Check (73 out of 117). The qualitative analysis shows that PIM-Check mostly failed to detect PIs related to dose adjustment, overprescribing, and therapy monitoring.

Conclusions

According to the CLEO tool evaluation of PIs, our results show that clinical pharmacists’ interventions are associated with improved clinical outcomes. In comparison with pharmacists’ interventions, PIM-Check failed in detecting the majority of interventions associated with a moderate or major impact.

[Safety of Pharmacotherapy in Emergencies]

Safety of Pharmacotherapy in Emergencies Abstract. Emergency pharmacotherapy is one of the most commonly used medical procedures. At the same time, pharmacotherapy in an emergency is always a potentially dangerous action. Medication errors are even among the most frequently registered errors in medicine. Due to the special circumstances in emergency medicine, special precautions are required to ensure the safety of drug therapy. In addition to the important background information, this article presents procedures that are recognized and applicable in daily routine to increase safety in pharmacotherapy.