Impact of clinical pharmacist intervention on length of stay in an acute admission unit: a cluster randomised study

Measuring the impact of pharmaceutical care bundle delivery on patient outcomes: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Clinical pharmacists perform activities to optimise medicines use and prevent patient harm. Historically, clinical pharmacy quality indicators have measured individual activities not linked to patient outcomes.

AIM

To determine the proportion of patients who receive a pharmaceutical care bundle (PCB) (consisting of a medication history, medication review, discharge medication list and medicines information on the discharge summary) as well as investigate the relationship between delivery of this PCB and patient outcomes.

METHOD

Pharmaceutical care bundle activities were defined within state-wide (Queensland, Australia) clinical information systems and datasets were linked. An observational study using routinely recorded data was performed at ten participating sites for adult patients who had a non-same day hospital stay. The association between extent of PCB delivery and three patient outcomes were investigated: length of stay (LOS), unplanned readmission, and mortality.

RESULTS

In total 283,813 patient hospital stays were evaluated. The delivery of the PCB occurred in 26.9% of patients at the ten participating hospital sites, ranging from 0.6 to 61.2% across sites. Patients with a longer LOS were more likely to receive delivery of the complete PCB (P < 0.001). There was no correlation between PCB and hospital standardised mortality ratio (r = 0.03, p = 0.93). Higher rates of delivery of the PCB were associated with lower rates of unplanned readmission within 30 days (r = - 0.993, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A complete PCB was delivered to 26.9% of patients and was associated with a significantly lower rate of unplanned readmission within 30 days.

Medication review in hospitalised patients to reduce morbidity and mortality

BACKGROUND

A medication review can be defined as a structured evaluation of a patient's medication conducted by healthcare professionals with the aim of optimising medication use and improving health outcomes. Optimising medication therapy though medication reviews may benefit hospitalised patients.

OBJECTIVES

We examined the effects of medication review interventions in hospitalised adult patients compared to standard care or to other types of medication reviews on all-cause mortality, hospital readmissions, emergency department contacts and health-related quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

In this Cochrane Review update, we searched for new published and unpublished trials using the following electronic databases from 1 January 2014 to 17 January 2022 without language restrictions: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). To identify additional trials, we searched the reference lists of included trials and other publications by lead trial authors, and contacted experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials of medication reviews delivered by healthcare professionals for hospitalised adult patients. We excluded trials including outpatients and paediatric patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for data clarification and relevant unpublished data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the overall certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

In this updated review, we included a total of 25 trials (15,076 participants), of which 15 were new trials (11,501 participants). Follow-up ranged from 1 to 20 months. We found that medication reviews in hospitalised adults may have little to no effect on mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.05; 18 trials, 10,108 participants; low-certainty evidence); likely reduce hospital readmissions (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98; 17 trials, 9561 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce emergency department contacts (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.03; 8 trials, 3527 participants; low-certainty evidence) and have very uncertain effects on health-related quality of life (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.30; 4 trials, 392 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Medication reviews in hospitalised adult patients likely reduce hospital readmissions and may reduce emergency department contacts. The evidence suggests that mediation reviews may have little to no effect on mortality, while the effect on health-related quality of life is very uncertain. Almost all trials included elderly polypharmacy patients, which limits the generalisability of the results beyond this population.

Reducing medication errors for adults in hospital settings

BACKGROUND

Medication errors are preventable events that may cause or lead to inappropriate medication use or patient harm while the medication is in the control of the healthcare professional or patient. Medication errors in hospitalised adults may cause harm, additional costs, and even death.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions to reduce medication errors in adults in hospital settings.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers on 16 January 2020.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and interrupted time series (ITS) studies investigating interventions aimed at reducing medication errors in hospitalised adults, compared with usual care or other interventions. Outcome measures included adverse drug events (ADEs), potential ADEs, preventable ADEs, medication errors, mortality, morbidity, length of stay, quality of life and identified/solved discrepancies. We included any hospital setting, such as inpatient care units, outpatient care settings, and accident and emergency departments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. Where necessary, we extracted and reanalysed ITS study data using piecewise linear regression, corrected for autocorrelation and seasonality, where possible.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 65 studies: 51 RCTs and 14 ITS studies, involving 110,875 participants. About half of trials gave rise to 'some concerns' for risk of bias during the randomisation process and one-third lacked blinding of outcome assessment. Most ITS studies presented low risk of bias. Most studies came from high-income countries or high-resource settings. Medication reconciliation -the process of comparing a patient's medication orders to the medications that the patient has been taking- was the most common type of intervention studied. Electronic prescribing systems, barcoding for correct administering of medications, organisational changes, feedback on medication errors, education of professionals and improved medication dispensing systems were other interventions studied. Medication reconciliation Low-certainty evidence suggests that medication reconciliation (MR) versus no-MR may reduce medication errors (odds ratio [OR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.74; 3 studies; n=379). Compared to no-MR, MR probably reduces ADEs (OR 0.38, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.80; 3 studies, n=1336 ; moderate-certainty evidence), but has little to no effect on length of stay (mean difference (MD) -0.30 days, 95%CI -1.93 to 1.33 days; 3 studies, n=527) and quality of life (MD -1.51, 95%CI -10.04 to 7.02; 1 study, n=131).  Low-certainty evidence suggests that, compared to MR by other professionals, MR by pharmacists may reduce medication errors (OR 0.21, 95%CI 0.09 to 0.48; 8 studies, n=2648) and may increase ADEs (OR 1.34, 95%CI 0.73 to 2.44; 3 studies, n=2873). Compared to MR by other professionals, MR by pharmacists may have little to no effect on length of stay (MD -0.25, 95%CI -1.05 to 0.56; 6 studies, 3983). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that this intervention probably has little to no effect on mortality during hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95%CI 0.57 to 1.7; 2 studies, n=1000), and on readmissions at one month (RR 0.93, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.14; 2 studies, n=997); and low-certainty evidence suggests that the intervention may have little to no effect on quality of life (MD 0.00, 95%CI -14.09 to 14.09; 1 study, n=724).  Low-certainty evidence suggests that database-assisted MR conducted by pharmacists, versus unassisted MR conducted by pharmacists, may reduce potential ADEs (OR 0.26, 95%CI 0.10 to 0.64; 2 studies, n=3326), and may have no effect on length of stay (MD 1.00, 95%CI -0.17 to 2.17; 1 study, n=311).  Low-certainty evidence suggests that MR performed by trained pharmacist technicians, versus pharmacists, may have little to no difference on length of stay (MD -0.30, 95%CI -2.12 to 1.52; 1 study, n=183). However, the CI is compatible with important beneficial and detrimental effects. Low-certainty evidence suggests that MR before admission may increase the identification of discrepancies compared with MR after admission (MD 1.27, 95%CI 0.46 to 2.08; 1 study, n=307). However, the CI is compatible with important beneficial and detrimental effects. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that multimodal interventions probably increase discrepancy resolutions compared to usual care (RR 2.14, 95%CI 1.81 to 2.53; 1 study, n=487). Computerised physician order entry (CPOE)/clinical decision support systems (CDSS) Moderate-certainty evidence shows that CPOE/CDSS probably reduce medication errors compared to paper-based systems (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.31 to 1.79; 2 studies, n=88).  Moderate-certainty evidence shows that, compared with standard CPOE/CDSS, improved CPOE/CDSS probably reduce medication errors (OR 0.85, 95%CI 0.74 to 0.97; 2 studies, n=630). Low-certainty evidence suggests that prioritised alerts provided by CPOE/CDSS may prevent ADEs compared to non-prioritised (inconsequential) alerts (MD 1.98, 95%CI 1.65 to 2.31; 1 study; participant numbers unavailable). Barcode identification of participants/medications Low-certainty evidence suggests that barcoding may reduce medication errors (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.59 to 0.79; 2 studies, n=50,545). Reduced working hours Low-certainty evidence suggests that reduced working hours may reduce serious medication errors (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.63 to 1.09; 1 study, n=634). However, the CI is compatible with important beneficial and detrimental effects. Feedback on prescribing errors Low-certainty evidence suggests that feedback on prescribing errors may reduce medication errors (OR 0.47, 95%CI 0.33 to 0.67; 4 studies, n=384). Dispensing system Low-certainty evidence suggests that dispensing systems in surgical wards may reduce medication errors (OR 0.61, 95%CI 0.47 to 0.79; 2 studies, n=1775).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests that, compared to usual care, medication reconciliation, CPOE/CDSS, barcoding, feedback and dispensing systems in surgical wards may reduce medication errors and ADEs. However, the results are imprecise for some outcomes related to medication reconciliation and CPOE/CDSS. The evidence for other interventions is very uncertain. Powered and methodologically sound studies are needed to address the identified evidence gaps. Innovative, synergistic strategies -including those that involve patients- should also be evaluated.

Maximizing acceptance of clinical pharmacy recommendations to reduce length of hospital stay in a private hospital from Amman, Jordan

Background

Clinical pharmacy interventions (CPI) usually require prior medical authorization. Physicians approve 80% of CPI and reject 20%. If pharmacists show that physicians should authorize all 100% CPI, the profession will step closer to a fully independent prescriber status. This study used an artificial neural network (ANN) model to determine whether clinical pharmacy (CP) may improve outcomes associated with rejected CPI.

Method

This is a non-interventional, retrospective analysis of documented CPI in a 100-bed, acute-care private hospital in Amman, Jordan. Study consisted of 542 patients, 574 admissions, and 1694 CPI. Team collected demographic and clinical data using a standardized tool. Input consisted of 54 variables with some taking merely repetitive values for each CPI in each patient whereas others varying with every CPI. Therefore, CPI was consolidated to one rejected and/or one accepted per patient per admission. Groups of accepted and rejected CPI were compared in terms of matched and unmatched variables. ANN were, subsequently, trained and internally as well as cross validated for outcomes of interest. Outcomes were length of hospital and intensive care stay after the index CPI (LOSTA & LOSICUA, respectively), readmissions, mortality, and cost of hospitalization. Best models were finally used to compare the two scenarios of approving 80% versus 100% of CPI. Variable impacts (VI) automatically generated by the ANN were compared to evaluate the effect of rejecting CPI. Main outcome measure was Lengths of hospital stay after the index CPI (LOSTA).

Results

ANN configurations converged within 18 s and 300 trials. All models showed a significant reduction in LOSTA with 100% versus 80% accepted CPI of about 0.4 days (2.6 ± 3.4, median (range) of 2 (0–28) versus 3.0 ± 3.8, 2 (0–30), P-value = 0.022). Average savings with acceptance of those rejected CPI was 55 JD (~ 78 US dollars) and could help hire about 1.3 extra clinical pharmacist full-time equivalents.

Conclusions

Maximizing acceptance of CPI reduced the length of hospital stay in this model. Practicing Clinical Pharmacists may qualify for further privileges including promotion to a fully independent prescriber status.

Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of pharmacist input at the ward level: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pharmacists play important role in ensuring timely care delivery at the ward level. The optimal level of pharmacist input, however, is not clearly defined.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the evidence that assessed the outcomes of ward pharmacist input for people admitted with acute or emergent illness.

METHODS

The protocol and search strategies were developed with input from clinicians. Medline, EMBASE, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, The Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluations, Health Technology Assessment and Health Economic Evaluations databases were searched. Inclusion criteria specified the population as adults and young people (age >16 years) who are admitted to hospital with suspected or confirmed acute or emergent illness. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English were eligible for inclusion in the effectiveness review. Economic studies were limited to full economic evaluations and comparative cost analysis. Included studies were quality-assessed. Data were extracted, summarised. and meta-analysed, where appropriate.

RESULTS

Eighteen RCTs and 7 economic studies were included. The RCTs were from USA (n = 3), Sweden (n = 2), Belgium (n = 2), China (n = 2), Australia (n = 2), Denmark (n = 2), Northern Ireland, Norway, Canada, UK and Netherlands. The economic studies were from UK (n = 2), Sweden (n = 2), Belgium and Netherlands. The results showed that regular pharmacist input was most cost effective. It reduced length-of-stay (mean = -1.74 days [95% CI: 2.76, -0.72], and increased patient and/or carer satisfaction (Relative Risk (RR) = 1.49 [1.09, 2.03] at discharge). At £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)-gained cost-effectiveness threshold, it was either cost-saving or cost-effective (Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) = £632/QALY-gained). No evidence was found for 7-day pharmacist presence.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacist inclusion in the ward multidisciplinary team improves patient safety and satisfaction and is cost-effective when regularly provided throughout the ward stay. Research is needed to determine whether the provision of 7-day service is cost-effective.

Important Aspects of Pharmacist-led Medication Reviews in an Acute Medical Ward

In some hospitals, clinical pharmacists review the medication to find drug-related problems (DRPs) in acutely admitted patients. We aimed to identify the nature of identified DRPs and investigate factors of potential importance for the clinical implementation of pharmacist suggestions. In 100 randomly selected medication review (MR) notes, we retrospectively evaluated the clinical implementation and classified (1) timing and communication of the review; (2) DRPs and related suggestions for the physician; and (3) DRPs' potential clinical relevance to patients as 'beneficial', 'somewhat beneficial', 'no relevance' or 'other relevance'. Of 327 DRPs (0-13 DRPs per patient), 42% were implemented. The clinical implementation was higher if the MR note was made prior to (instead of after) the physician's admission, and even higher if the suggestions were communicated verbally (instead of only in writing) to the physicians (44% versus 79%, p < 0.05). The clinical relevance of the DRPs was either 'beneficial' (16%), 'somewhat beneficial' (43%), 'no relevance' (22%) or 'other relevance' (19%). The 'beneficial' DRPs had a higher clinical implementation (53%) than 'no relevance' (34%) (p < 0.05). The most frequently implemented suggestions were based on DRPs concerning 'indication for drug treatment not noticed', 'inappropriate drug form' and 'drug dose too low', with implementation rates of 83%, 67% and 63%, respectively. In our sample, the pharmacist's MR suggestions were only implemented by physicians in 42% of the cases, but review prior to physician contact and verbal communication of the suggestions, higher clinical relevance and specific types of DRPs were associated with a higher implementation rate.

Consequence of delegating medication-related tasks from physician to clinical pharmacist in an acute admission unit: an analytical study

OBJECTIVES

Studies have shown that medication histories obtained by clinical pharmacists (CPs) are more complete, and that medication reviews by CPs reduce healthcare costs, drug-related readmissions and emergency readmissions. The aim of this study was to identify the consequences of delegating medication-related tasks from physicians to CPs.

METHODS

An analytical study based on data from a prospective cluster randomised trial was performed. The intervention consisted of CPs obtaining medication history, performing medication reconciliation and medication review. The physician had to approve the prescriptions and assess changes proposed by the CP. The primary outcome measure was a comparison of changes in the Electronic Medication Module (EMM) and changes proposed by CPs.

RESULTS

232 and 216 patients were included on control days (n=63) and intervention days (n=63). In total, 1018 changes were made in the control group (by physicians). In the intervention group 2123 changes were made, 1808 by CPs and 315 by physicians. In particular, the number of substitutions, registration of drugs and change of instructions for use (eg, administration times) differed between physicians and pharmacists. CPs made 341 written proposals in the intervention group and, of these, 22.9% (95% CI 18.7% to 27.8%) and 50.9% (95% CI 45.5% to 56.2%) were accepted by a physician at discharge from the acute admission unit (AAU) and hospital, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

CPs updated the EMM more thoroughly than physicians, especially entering new prescriptions, substitutions and changing instructions for use. Half of the written proposals were accepted. The extent to which patients benefit from a CP intervention is unknown.