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

Impact of pharmacists during in-hospital resuscitation or medical emergency response events: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

We sought to determine the impact of the presence of a pharmacist on medication and patient related outcomes during the emergency management of critically ill patients requiring resuscitation or medical emergency response team care in a hospital setting.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A literature search of databases from January 1995 to April 2023 was conducted to identify studies of contemporary pharmacist practice. Results were extracted and analysed for included studies, those evaluating the impact of the presence of a pharmacist on medication and patient related outcomes during the emergency management of critically ill hospitalised patients requiring resuscitation or medical emergency response team care. To determine risk of bias, the Newcastle-Ottowa Quality Assessment scale was used for non-randomised studies and the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials.

RESULTS

Of 1345 studies identified, 54 were selected for full text review, and 30 were included in the final analysis. There were 29 cohort studies and one randomised controlled trial. The studies reported the impact of a pharmacist for a variety of patient presentations. The study team assigned each study to one of eight patient cohorts: acute stroke, cardiac arrest, rapid response calls, S-T segment elevation myocardial infarction, acute haemorrhage, major trauma resuscitation, sepsis and status epilepticus. The most frequently reported outcome, associated with a statistically significant benefit in 23 studies, was time to medication administration. Few studies reported a significant difference in patient outcome measures such as mortality. Only 8 of the 30 studies were assessed to have a low risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this systematic review provide support for a beneficial impact of a pharmacist presence and intervention during resuscitation or medical emergency response team care, with significant improvements in outcomes such as time to initiation of time-critical medications, medication appropriateness and guideline compliance. However, studies were predominantly small and retrospective and were not powered to detect differences in patient related measures such as length of stay and mortality. Future research should investigate the clinical impacts of the pharmacist in ED resuscitation settings in controlled, prospective studies with robust sampling methods.

Completeness of medication information in admission notes from emergency departments

BACKGROUND

Medication lists prepared in the emergency department (ED) form the basis for diagnosing and treating patients during hospitalization. Since incomplete medication information may lead to patient harm, it is crucial to obtain a correct and complete medication list at hospital admission. In this cross-sectional retrospective study we wanted to explore medication information completeness in admission notes from Norwegian EDs and investigate which factors were associated with level of completeness.

METHODS

Medication information was assessed for completeness by applying five evaluation criteria; generic name, formulation, dose, frequency, and indication for use. A medication completeness score in percent was calculated per medication, per admission note and per criterion. Quantile regression analysis was applied to investigate which variables were associated with medication information completeness.

RESULTS

Admission notes for patients admitted between October 2018 and September 2019 and using at least one medication were included. A total of 1,080 admission notes, containing 8,604 medication orders, were assessed. The individual medications had a mean medication completeness score of 88.1% (SD 16.4), while admission notes had a mean medication completeness score of 86.3% (SD 16.2). Over 90% of all individual medications had information about generic name, formulation, dose and frequency stated, while indication for use was only present in 60%. The use of an electronic tool to prepare medication information had a significantly strong positive association with completeness. Hospital visit within the last 30 days, the patient's living situation, number of medications in use, and which hospital the patient was admitted to, were also associated with information completeness.

CONCLUSIONS

Medication information completeness in admission notes was high, but potential for improvement regarding documentation of indication for use was identified. Applying an electronic tool when preparing admission notes in EDs seems crucial to safeguard completeness of medication information.

Attributes of errors, facilitators, and barriers related to rate control of IV medications: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Intravenous (IV) medication is commonly administered and closely associated with patient safety. Although nurses dedicate considerable time and effort to rate the control of IV medications, many medication errors have been linked to the wrong rate of IV medication. Further, there is a lack of comprehensive studies examining the literature on rate control of IV medications. This study aimed to identify the attributes of errors, facilitators, and barriers related to rate control of IV medications by summarizing and synthesizing the existing literature.

METHODS

This scoping review was conducted using the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and PRISMA-ScR. Overall, four databases-PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and CINAHL-were employed to search for studies published in English before January 2023. We also manually searched reference lists, related journals, and Google Scholar.

RESULTS

A total of 1211 studies were retrieved from the database searches and 23 studies were identified from manual searches, after which 22 studies were selected for the analysis. Among the nine project or experiment studies, two interventions were effective in decreasing errors related to rate control of IV medications. One of them was prospective, continuous incident reporting followed by prevention strategies, and the other encompassed six interventions to mitigate interruptions in medication verification and administration. Facilitators and barriers related to rate control of IV medications were classified as human, design, and system-related contributing factors. The sub-categories of human factors were classified as knowledge deficit, performance deficit, and incorrect dosage or infusion rate. The sub-category of design factor was device. The system-related contributing factors were classified as frequent interruptions and distractions, training, assignment or placement of healthcare providers (HCPs) or inexperienced personnel, policies and procedures, and communication systems between HCPs.

CONCLUSIONS

Further research is needed to develop effective interventions to improve IV rate control. Considering the rapid growth of technology in medical settings, interventions and policy changes regarding education and the work environment are necessary. Additionally, each key group such as HCPs, healthcare administrators, and engineers specializing in IV medication infusion devices should perform its role and cooperate for appropriate IV rate control within a structured system.

Clinical and economic impact of partnered pharmacist medication charting in the emergency department

Introduction: Partnered pharmacist medication charting (PPMC), a process redesign hypothesised to improve medication safety and interdisciplinary collaboration, was trialed in a tertiary hospital's emergency department (ED). Objective: To evaluate the health-related impact and economic benefit of PPMC. Methods: A pragmatic, controlled study compared PPMC to usual care in the ED. PPMC included a pharmacist-documented best-possible medication history (BPMH), followed by a clinical conversation between a pharmacist and a medical officer to jointly develop a treatment plan and chart medications. Usual care included medical officer-led traditional medication charting in the ED, without a pharmacist-obtained BPMH or clinical conversation. Outcome measures, assessed after propensity score matching, were length of hospital or ED stay, relative stay index (RSI), in-hospital mortality, 30-day hospital readmissions or ED revisits, and cost. Results: A total of 309 matched pairs were analysed. The median RSI was reduced by 15.4% with PPMC (p = 0.029). There were no significant differences between the groups in the median length of ED stay (8 vs. 10 h, p = 0.52), in-hospital mortality (1.3% vs. 1.3%, p > 0.99), 30-day readmission rates (21% vs. 17%; p = 0.35) and 30-day ED revisit rates (21% vs. 19%; p = 0.68). The hospital spent approximately $138.4 for the cost of PPMC care per patient to avert at least one medication error bearing high/extreme risk. PPMC saved approximately $1269 on the average cost of each admission. Conclusion: Implementing the ED-based PPMC model was associated with a significantly reduced RSI and admission costs, but did not affect clinical outcomes, noting that there was an additional focus on medication reconciliation in the usual care group relative to current practice at our study site.

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.

Patient perceptions and experiences with medication-related activities in the emergency department: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Emergency department (ED) pharmacists reduce medication errors and improve quality of medication use. Patient perceptions and experiences with ED pharmacists have not been studied. The aim of this study was to explore patients' perceptions of and experiences with medication-related activities in the ED, with and without an ED pharmacist present.

METHODS

We conducted 24 semistructured individual interviews with patients admitted to one ED in Norway, 12 before and 12 during an intervention, where pharmacists performed medication-related tasks close to patients and in collaboration with ED staff. Interviews were transcribed and analysed applying thematic analysis.

RESULTS

From our five developed themes, we identified that: (1) Our informants had low awareness and few expectations of the ED pharmacist, both with and without the pharmacist present. However, they were positive to the ED pharmacist. (2) Our informants expressed a variation of trust in the healthcare system, healthcare professionals and electronic systems, though the majority expressed a high level of trust. They believed that their medication list was automatically updated and assumed to get the correct medication. (3) Some informants felt responsible to have an overview of their medication use, while others expressed low interest in taking responsibility regarding their medication. (4) Some informants did not want involvement from healthcare professionals in medication administration, while others expressed no problems with giving up control. (5) Medication information was important for all informants to feel confident in medication use, but the need for information differed.

CONCLUSION

Despite being positive to pharmacists, it did not seem important to our informants who performed the medication-related tasks, as long as they received the help they needed. The degree of trust, responsibility, control and information varied among ED patients. These dimensions can be applied by healthcare professionals to tailor medication-related activities to patients' individual needs.

Assessment of drug-related problems at the emergency department in older patients living with frailty: pharmacist-led medication reviews within a geriatric care team

BACKGROUND

Older patients are vulnerable to experiencing drug related problems (DRPs), which may result in emergency department (ED) visits. However, it is not standard practice to conduct medications reviews during ED visit. The aim of this study was to assess the number of DRPs in older patients living with frailty at the ED, identified through pharmacist-led medication reviews within a geriatric care team, and to determine the acceptance rate of pharmacists' recommendations among hospital physicians and general practitioners or elderly care specialists.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was performed in patients ≥ 70 years living with frailty at the ED at Tergooi Medical Center. Pharmacist-led medication reviews were conducted to identify and classify DRPs as part of a larger geriatric assessment. The acceptance rate of given recommendations was determined during follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 356 ED visits were included. The mean (standard deviation, SD) age of patients was 83 (6.8) years. About 76% of patients had at least one DRP. In total, 548 DRPs were identified with a mean of 1.5 DRP (SD 1.3) per patient. The acceptance rate of medication recommendations in admitted patients was 55%, and 32% among general practitioners/elderly care specialists in discharged patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacist-led medication reviews as part of a geriatric care team identified DRPs in 76% of older patients living with frailty at the ED. The acceptance rate was substantially higher in admitted patients compared to discharged patients.

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.