PROTECTED-UK - Clinical pharmacist interventions in the UK critical care unit: exploration of relationship between intervention, service characteristics and experience level

Critical care pharmacy service provision and workforce in adult extracorporeal membrane oxygenation centres: a multicentre cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

There is good evidence describing pharmacy workforce and service provision in general critical care units. However, no data exist from adult extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) centres.

AIM

To describe workforce characteristics, pharmacy service provision, and pharmaceutical care activities in critical care units (CCUs) providing an adult ECMO service in the United Kingdom (UK) and compare to national staffing standards for CCUs.

METHOD

We conducted a multicentre, cross-sectional electronic survey inviting one pharmacy professional response per UK ECMO centre. We collated information on workforce, service provision, and pharmaceutical care activities provided by pharmacy teams in adult CCUs with an ECMO service.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 90.9%: representatives of 10/11 tertiary hospitals providing ECMO services responded. Median critical care pharmacist to critical care bed was 1:12.1 (IQR: 1:9.4-1:14.9). Most centres (90.0%) did not meet national standards for pharmacy professionals to critical care bed staffing ratios for weekday services. Total critical care beds covered by the critical care pharmacy team varied across the UK: median (IQR) - 45 (37-80) beds. Two centres funded pharmacist time for ECMO activity, and one centre funded a pharmacy technician post. Median peak ECMO activity was 4 ECMO patients in a single day (IQR: 3-5). Most respondents reported reduced pharmacy service at weekends compared to weekday, with limited on-site support.

CONCLUSION

Most responding ECMO centres in the UK reported pharmacy staffing ratios below nationally agreed critical care standards. There was high variability in clinical pharmacy services to ECMO patients over 7 days.

Enhancing drug therapy in ostomy patients: Best practice recommendations for medication management

BACKGROUND

Ostomy surgery is a common procedure that poses various challenges for patients and healthcare professionals. There are numerous guidelines addressing different ostomy-related problems (ORPs) and supporting an interdisciplinary approach for ostomy care, but evidence-based literature for optimizing drug therapy after ostomy surgery is lacking.

AIM

To investigate and characterize typical ORPs in relation to drug therapy and provide best practice recommendations from a pharmaceutical point of view.

METHODS

Patients with an ileo- or colostomy were consecutively enrolled in a prospective, interventional monocentric cohort study during hospitalization, with particular attention to medication. A clinical pharmacist assessed DRPs by performing level 3 medication reviews and patient interviews. Pharmacists' interventions (PIs) were evaluated by two senior clinical pharmacists and documented in DokuPIK (Documentation of Pharmacists' Interventions in the Hospital). Following interdisciplinary discussions, physicians either accepted or rejected the proposed changes in drug therapy. Comparisons were made between ileostomy and colostomy patients regarding type and extent of PIs.

RESULTS

Out of the 80 patients included in the cohort, 54 (67.5%) had an ileostomy and 26 (32.5%) a colostomy. In this study, 288 PIs were documented (234 ileostomy vs. 54 colostomy), of wich 94.0% were accepted and implemented by the physicians. The most common reason for PIs in both subgroups (29.6% ileostomy vs. 26.1% colostomy) was a missing drug although indicated (e.g. no loperamide, but high stoma output). The proportion of PIs associated with the ostomy was higher in ileostomy patients (48.3% ileostomy vs. 31.5% colostomy; p = 0.025). Typical ORPs were extracted and analyzed as case studies including recommendations for their respective management and prevention.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the importance of clinical pharmacists being a part of interdisciplinary teams to collaboratively improve ostomy care and patient safety. Especially ileostomy patients are more vulnerable for ORPs in the context of drug therapy and need to be monitored carefully.

The association of a critical care electronic prescribing system with the quality of patient care provided by clinical pharmacists - a prospective, observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Despite the strong face validity of electronic prescribing (EP), the empiric data in support of improved patient safety is sparse. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical significance of pharmacist contributions between an established EP and paper-based prescribing (PBP) system in the intensive care unit (ICU) to understand the EP impact on the quality of patient care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective longitudinal study in two 18-bed ICUs; one with EP and the other, PBP. Pharmacist contributions were analysed over three months. Demographic, clinical and adjunctive intervention data were also collected. A multilevel ordinal logistic regression model was used and patients were followed up for 28 days. The primary outcome was the distribution of clinical significance levels of pharmacist contributions.

RESULTS

There were 303 patients admitted to the ICU between April 1st and June 30th 2018. EP was used in 171 patients and PBP in 132 patients. 1658 contributions were analysed. There were 14.9% highly clinically significant contributions with EP compared to 44.6% with PBP. The EP group had lower odds (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.02-0.12) for a higher clinical significance contribution compared to the PBP group, but this changed over the admission and differed between groups, with decreasing odds of a higher-level clinical contribution for each additional admission day with PBP (OR 0.57, 95%CI 0.42-0.78).

CONCLUSION

This study showed a significant difference in the distribution of pharmacist contributions made over time, with clinical significance levels remaining stable in the EP group at low severity, as opposed to PBP which were initially high and then gradually decreased in severity over time. This contemporaneous controlled study found that the EP system required less significant input both in the severity and frequency of pharmacist contributions to maintain patient safety.

Clinical pharmacy services in critical care: results of an observational study comparing ward-based with remote pharmacy services

BACKGROUND

Pharmacists are essential team members in critical care and contribute to the safety of pharmacotherapy for this vulnerable group of patients, but little is known about remote pharmacy services in intensive care units (ICU).

AIM

We compared the acceptance of pharmacist interventions (PI) in ICU patients working remotely with ward-based service. We evaluated both pharmacy services, including further information on PI, including reasons, actions and impact.

METHOD

Over 5 months, a prospective single-centre observational study divided into two sequential phases (remote and ward-based) was performed on two ICU wards at a university hospital. After a structured medication review, PI identified were addressed to healthcare professionals. For documentation, the national database (ADKA-DokuPIK) was used. Acceptance was used as the primary endpoint. All data were analysed using descriptive methods.

RESULTS

In total, 605 PI resulted from 1023 medication reviews. Acceptance was 75% (228/304) for remote and 88% (265/301; p < 0.001) for ward-based services. Non-inferiority was not demonstrated. Most commonly, drug- (44% and 36%) and dose-related (36% and 35%) reasons were documented. Frequently, drugs were stopped/paused (31% and 29%) and dosage changed (31% and 30%). PI were classified as "error, no harm" (National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention [NCC MERP] categories B to D; 83% and 81%). The severity and clinical relevance were at least ranked as "significant" (68% and 66%) and at least as "important" for patients (77% and 83%).

CONCLUSION

The way pharmacy services are provided influences the acceptance of PI. Remote pharmacy services may be seen as an addition, but acceptance rates in remote services failed to show non-inferiority.

Development, implementation and evaluation of a seven-day clinical pharmacy service in a tertiary referral teaching hospital during surge-2 of the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Seven-day clinical pharmacy services in the acute sector of the National Health Service are limited. There is a paucity of evidential patient benefit. This limits investment and infrastructure, despite United Kingdom wide calls.

AIM

To optimise medicines seven-days a week during surge-2 of the COVID-19 pandemic through implementation of a seven-day clinical pharmacy service. This paper describes service development, evaluation and sustainability.

SETTING

A tertiary-referral teaching hospital, London, United Kingdom.

DEVELOPMENT

The seven-day clinical pharmacy service was developed to critical care, acute and general medical patients. Clinical leads developed the service specification and defined priorities, targeting complex patients and transfer of care. Contributing staff were briefed and training materials developed.

IMPLEMENTATION

The service was implemented in January 2021 for 11 weeks. Multidisciplinary team communication brought challenges; strategies were employed to overcome these.

EVALUATION

A prospective observational study was conducted in intervention wards over two weekends in February 2021. 1584 beds were occupied and 602 patients included. 346 interventions were reported and rated; 85.6% had high or moderate impact; 56.7% were time-critical. The proportion of medicines reconciliation within 24-h of admission was analysed across the hospital between November 2020 and May 2021. During implementation, patients admitted Friday-Sunday were more likely to receive medicines reconciliation within 24-h (RR 1.41 (95% CI 1.34-1.47), p < 0.001). Rostered services were delivered sustainably in terms of shift-fill rate and medicines reconciliation outcome.

CONCLUSION

Seven-day clinical pharmacy services benefit patient outcome through early medicines reconciliation and intervention. Investment to permanently embed the service was sustained.

A bibliometric analysis of global trends in the research field of pharmaceutical care over the past 20 years

Pharmaceutical care is essential in building up the basics of public health and clinical care. A comprehensive understanding of global status in the field of pharmaceutical care is necessary for directing its research frontiers and future trends. Therefore, this study aims to make a bibliometric analysis to track the development of pharmaceutical care research worldwide during the past two decades. The publications regarding pharmaceutical care were culled from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). Countries, institutions, authors, journals, references, and keywords in this field were visually analyzed by using VOSviewer (version 1.6.17) and CiteSpace (Version 5.8.R3). As a result, 3,597 publications (3,177 articles and 420 reviews) were obtained. The annual yields grew more than three times in the past two decades, from 54 records in 2002 to 379 papers in 2021. The United States played the leading role in this research from multiple aspects, including publication (n = 1,208), citations (n = 28,759), funding agencies, and collaboration worldwide. The University of Sydney in Australia was the most contributed institution with the greatest number of publications (n = 112) in pharmaceutical care research. Hersberger KE from the University of Basel was the most productive author (n = 40). Chen TF from the University of Sydney was the author who owed the highest H-index of 19 and most citations (n = 1,501). They both significantly impacted this field. American Journal of Health System Pharmacy produced the most publications, while Pharmacotherapy had the highest IF (IF₂₀₂₀ = 4.705) in this field. Clusters networks of co-cited references and keywords suggested that clinical pharmacy is an essential theme in pharmaceutical care. Terms of medication safety and critical care recognized by burst analysis of keywords also hint at the recent attention on clinical pharmacy. The present bibliometrics analysis may provide a comprehensive overview and valuable reference for future researchers and practitioners in the research field of pharmaceutical care.

Impact of Clinical Pharmacist Intervention on Clinical Outcomes in the Critical Care Unit, Taif City, Saudi Arabia: A Retrospective Study

(1) Objectives: Clinical pharmacists are now playing a significant role in hospitals aiming to reduce medication errors, adverse drug reactions, and healthcare costs. Therefore, the main objective of this study was to assess the interventions provided by a clinical pharmacist in the intensive care unit at the King Faisal Hospital in Taif city. (2) Methods: For this single-center retrospective study, patients were included from December 2021 to May 2022. In the present study, all the interventions of clinical pharmacists made over six months were included. The Intensive care unit (ICU) ward was covered by three clinical pharmacists, and the interventions made were categorized into four groups: (1) interventions related to indications; (2) interventions regarding safety; (3) interventions regarding dosing, and (4) miscellaneous. Descriptive statistics was applied to evaluate the results in the form of frequencies and percentages. Analysis was performed using the statistical package SPSS 20.0. (3) Results: Overall, a total of 404 interventions were recommended for 165 patients during the six- month period of study. Among them, 370 interventions (91.5%) were accepted by physicians. Among all the interventions, the majority were suggested regarding ‘indication’ (45.7%), including the addition of drugs, drugs with no indications, and duplication. The acceptance rate of clinical pharmacist intervention was 98.5%. (4) Conclusions: This retrospective study shows that clinical pharmacists played a critical role in optimizing drug therapy which could subsequently help to prevent drug-related issues and lower drug costs. More research is needed to do a thorough cost-benefit analysis.

Productivity, workload, and clinical pharmacists: Definitions matter

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

Clinical pharmacists' interventions across German hospitals: results from a repetitive cross-sectional study

Background Pharmacists’ interventions (PI) are suitable to improve medication safety and optimise patient outcome. However, in Germany, clinical pharmacy services are not yet available nationwide. Aim To gain prospective data on the extent and the composition of routine PI with special focus on intervention rates among German hospital pharmacists during two intervention weeks. Methods Within a repetitive cross-sectional study, clinical pharmacists documented all PIs on five days during a one-month period (intervention week) in 2017 and 2019 using the validated online-database ADKA-DokuPIK. Additionally, data regarding the supply structure/level of medical care, the extent of clinical pharmacy services and their professional experience were collected. All data were anonymised before analysis. Results In total, 2,282 PI from 62 pharmacists (2017) and 2578 PI from 52 pharmacists (2019) were entered. Intervention rate increased from 27.5 PI/100 patient days in 2017 to 38.5 PI/100 patient days in 2019 (p = 0.0097). Frequency of clinical pharmacy services on a daily basis significantly increased from 60% (2017) to 83% (2019). Reasons for PIs from the categories “drugs” (e.g. indication, choice, documentation/transcription) and “dose” were most common in both intervention weeks. The vast majority of underlying medication errors in both intervention weeks were categorised as “error, no harm” (80.3 vs. 78.6%), while the proportion of errors which did not reach the patient, doubled to 39.8% in IW-2019. Conclusion Regular and daily clinical pharmacy services become more established in Germany and clinical pharmacists are increasingly involved in solving drug related problems proactively and early during the medication management process.

Integrating a pharmacist into an anaesthesiology and critical care department: Is this worthwhile?

Background Operating rooms and Intensive Care Units are places where an optimal management of drugs and medical devices is required. Objective To evaluate the impact of a dedicated pharmacist in an academic Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Department. Setting This study was conducted in the Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Department of Grenoble University Hospital. Method Between November 2013 and June 2017, the drug-related problems occurring in three Intensive Care Units and their corrections by a full-time clinical pharmacist were analyzed using a structured order review instrument. Pharmaceutical costs in the Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Department were analyzed over a 7 year period (2010-2016), during which automated dispensing systems and recurrent meetings to review indications of medications and medical devices were implemented in the department. Main outcome measure Analysis of two issues: correcting drug-related problems and containing pharmaceutical costs. Results A total of 324 drug-related problems were identified. The most frequent problem concerned anti-infective agents (45%), and this was mainly due to the over-dosage of drugs (30%). Dosage adjustments were the most frequent interventions performed by the pharmacist (43%). Over the 7 year period, pharmaceutical costs decreased by 9% (€365,469), while the care activity of the department increased by 55% (+ 12,022 surgical procedures and + 1424 admissions in the ICU). Conclusion Integrating a pharmacist into the Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Department was associated with interventions to correct drug-related problems and containing pharmaceutical costs. Pharmacists should play a central role in such medical environments, to optimize the use of drugs and medical devices.

Reducing medication errors in critical care patients: pharmacist key resources and relationship with medicines optimisation

BACKGROUND

Medication errors are the most common type of medical errors critical care patients experience. Critical care units utilise a variety of resources to reduce medication errors; it is unknown which resources or combinations thereof are most effective in improving medication safety.

OBJECTIVES

To obtain UK critical care pharmacist group consensus on the most important interventions/resources that reduce medication errors. To then classify units that participated in the PROTECTED UK study to investigate if there were significant differences in the reported pharmacist prescription intervention type, clinical impact and rates according to unit resource classification.

METHODS

An e-Delphi process (three rounds) obtained pharmacist consensus on which interventions/resources were most important in the reduction of medication errors in critical care patients. The 21 units involved in the PROTECTED UK study (multicentre study of UK critical care pharmacist medicines interventions), were categorised as high-, medium- and low-resource units based on routine delivery of the final Top 5 interventions/ resources. High and low units were compared according to type, clinical impact and rate of medication interventions reported during the PROTECTED UK study.

KEY FINDINGS

Consensus on the Top 5 combined medication error reduction resources was established: advanced-level clinical pharmacist embedded in critical care being ranked most important. Pharmacists working on units with high resources made significantly more clinically significant medicines optimisations compared to those on low-resourced units (OR 3.09; P = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

Critical care pharmacist group consensus on the most important medication error reduction resources was established. Pharmacists working on high-resourced units made more clinically significant medicines optimisations.