Epidemiology and cost analysis of pharmacist interventions at Ghent University Hospital

Economic evaluation of clinical pharmacy service using integrated health system in tertiary care hospital

BACKGROUND

Clinical pharmacy services are the specialized practices of pharmacists to provide pharmaceutical care. All these activities are documented as pharmacist interventions to avoid medication errors which occur during prescribing, dispensing, and administration. The purpose of this study is to conduct an economic analysis of the pharmacist interventions using integrated health system.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital. Pharmacist interventions were analyzed by an independent pharmacist. Cost-saving and cost avoidance analyses were carried out for drug-related interventions. Economic analysis was performed and tabulated both in PKR and USD.

RESULTS

Out of 1330 interventions, 1250 (95%) interventions were accepted and changed the prescription upon the physician-pharmacist consultation while 71 (5%) were not accepted. Interventions related to prescribing and duplication errors were the highest of all (30 and 29% respectively). Pharmacist interventions were recorded with a 95% acceptance rate. Cost analysis showed that pharmacist interventions saved around 105,115.88 US dollars.

CONCLUSION

Clinical pharmacy services provided by integrated health system are a cost saving program. The cost saved per intervention for our study is around USD 37 which is more than another similar study which quoted USD 30.35 per intervention.

Economic Evaluation of Hospital and Community Pharmacy Services

Objective: To review the international body of literature from 2010 to 2015 concerning methods of economic evaluations used in hospital- and community-based studies of pharmacy services in publicly funded health systems worldwide, their clinical outcomes, and economic effectiveness. Data Sources: The literature search was undertaken between May 2, 2015, and September 4, 2015. Keywords included “health economics” and “evaluation” “assessment” or “appraisal,” “methods,” “hospital” or “community” or “residential care,” “pharmacy” or “pharmacy services” and “cost minimisation analysis” or “cost utility analysis” or “cost effectiveness analysis” or “cost benefit analysis.” The databases searched included MEDLINE, PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct, Springer Links, and Scopus, and journals searched included PLoS One, PLoS Medicine, Nature, Health Policy, Pharmacoeconomics, The European Journal of Health Economics, Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, and Journal of Health Economics. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Studies were selected on the basis of study inclusion criteria. These criteria included full-text original research articles undertaking an economic evaluation of hospital- or community-based pharmacy services in peer-reviewed scientific journals and in English, in countries with a publicly funded health system published between 2010 and 2015. Data Synthesis: 14 articles were included in this review. Cost-utility analysis (CUA) was the most utilized measure. Cost-minimization analysis (CMA) was not used by any studies. The limited use of cost-benefit analyses (CBAs) is likely a result of technical challenges in quantifying the cost of clinical benefits, risks, and outcomes. Hospital pharmacy services provided clinical benefits including improvements in patient health outcomes and reductions in adverse medication use, and all studies were considered cost-effective due to meeting a cost-utility (per quality-adjusted life year) threshold or were cost saving. Community pharmacy services were considered cost-effective in 8 of 10 studies. Conclusions: Economic evaluations of hospital and community pharmacy services are becoming increasingly commonplace to enable an understanding of which health care services provide value for money and to inform policy makers as to which services will be cost-effective in light of limited health care resources.

Expected net benefit of clinical pharmacy in intensive care medicine: a randomized interventional comparative trial with matched before-and-after groups

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated clinical pharmacy costs against drug costs.

METHOD

We conducted a randomized interventional comparative trial at the surgical intensive care unit (ICU) of Ghent University Hospital, Belgium (period B: group B1 with pharmacist consultation; control group B0). We obtained before (period A) and after (period C) control groups using 1:1 propensity score matching with B1 and B0. Mean daily ICU drug costs with standard error of the mean (SEM) were compared between B1 and B0 (primary analysis) and between matched pairs (AB1, AB0, CB1 and CB0; secondary analysis). For B, we performed a 1000 bootstrapping (by resampling B1 and B0), calculated the benefit-cost ratio using pharmacy time (gross salary) as cost (euros) and drug cost savings as benefit. We performed sensitivity analysis with and without outlier drug costs (i.e. twice the standard deviation).

PERSPECTIVE

Belgian health care payer.

RESULTS

In period B, 135 patients were randomized: B0, n = 60; B1, n = 75. Pharmacists provided recommendations in 148/706 (21.0%) therapies with 83.1% acceptance. Mean drug cost difference between B0 (430.6 euros, SEM 406.0) and B1 (221.2 euros, SEM 58.7) (P = 0.870) became significant after excluding outlier drug costs (B0, 184.4 euros, SEM 42.5; B1, 90.5 euros, SEM 17.7; P < 0.001). Recommendations were cost-beneficial (break-even drug costs or savings) in 53.8% of patients with a benefit-cost ratio of 25:1 (confidence interval -5:1 to 94:1). In sensitivity analysis excluding outlier drug costs, B0 costs were significantly higher than both A and C, indicating high baseline expenses in B0.

CONCLUSIONS

The randomized interventional comparative trial in a small ICU patient group suggested the potential cost-benefit of clinical pharmacy on daily ICU drug costs. However, after matching, this benefit was attenuated. A final conclusion demands a larger randomized trial adopting a similar design with matched controls. Future research should include clinical impact of recommendations.

Nissen L, Barter N, McIntosh M. The global public health issue of pharmaceutical waste: what role for pharmacists?

Purpose

– Pharmaceuticals have played an important role in improving the quality of life of the human population in modern times. However, it must also be acknowledged that both the production and use of pharmaceuticals have a significant, negative impact on the environment and consequently, a negative impact on the health of humans and wildlife. This negative impact is due to the embedded carbon in pharmaceuticals' manufacture and distribution and the waste generated in their manufacture, consumption and disposal. Pharmaceutical waste is comprised of contaminated waste (unwanted pharmaceuticals and their original containers) and non-contaminated waste (non-hazardous packaging waste). The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Design/methodology/approach

– The article is a literature review.

Findings

– The article identified a gap in the literature around pharmacist attitudes and behaviour toward the environmentally responsible handling of pharmaceutical waste.

Originality/value

– Pharmacists, with their professional commitment to the quality use of medicines and their active participation in the medicines management pathway, already play an important role in the more sustainable use of pharmaceuticals. Even so, they have the potential to play an even greater role with the environmentally responsible disposal of pharmaceutical waste (including packaging waste) and the education of other health professionals and the general public on this topic.