Clinical Outcomes Used in Clinical Pharmacy Intervention Studies in Secondary Care

Clinical pharmacy key performance indicators for hospital inpatient setting: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Key performance indicators (KPIs) are quantifiable measures used to monitor the quality of health services. Implementation guidelines for clinical pharmacy services (CPS) do not specify KPIs.

AIM

To assess the quality of the studies that have developed KPIs for CPS in inpatient hospital settings.

METHOD

A systematic review was conducted by searching in Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed, supplemented with citation analyses and grey literature searches, to retrieve studies addressing the development of KPIs in CPS for hospital inpatients. Exclusions comprised drug- or disease-specific studies and those not written in English, French, Portuguese, or Spanish. The Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument assessed methodological quality. Domain scores and an overall score were calculated using an equal-weight principle. KPIs were classified into structure, process, and outcome categories. The protocol is available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KS2G3 .

RESULTS

We included thirteen studies that collectively developed 225 KPIs. Merely five studies scored over 50% on the AIRE instrument, with domains #3 (scientific evidence) and #4 (formulation and usage) displaying low scores. Among the KPIs, 8.4% were classified as structure, 85.8% as process, and 5.8% as outcome indicators. The overall methodological quality did not exhibit a clear association with a major focus on outcomes. None of the studies provided benchmarking reference values.

CONCLUSION

The KPIs formulated for evaluating CPS in hospital settings primarily comprised process measures, predominantly suggested by pharmacists, with inadequate evidence support, lacked piloting or validation, and consequently, were devoid of benchmarking reference values.

The effect of structured medication review followed by face-to-face feedback to prescribers on adverse drug events recognition and prevention in older inpatients - a multicenter interrupted time series study

Background

The effectiveness of interventions to improve medication safety in older inpatients is unclear, given a paucity of properly designed intervention studies applying clinically relevant endpoints such as hospital-acquired preventable Adverse Drug Events (pADEs) and unrecognized Adverse Drug Events (uADEs). Therefore, we conducted a quality improvement study and used hospital-acquired pADEs and uADEs as main outcomes to assess the effect of an intervention aimed to improve medication safety in older inpatients.

Method

The study followed an interrupted time series design and consisted of three equally spaced sampling points during baseline and during intervention measurements. Each sampling point included between 80 to 90 patients. A total of 500 inpatients ≥65 years and admitted to internal medicine wards of three Dutch hospitals were included. An expert team retrospectively identified and assessed ADEs via a structured patient chart review. The findings from baseline measurement and meetings with the internal medicine and hospital pharmacy staff were used to design the intervention. The intervention consisted of a structured medication review by hospital pharmacists, followed by face-to-face feedback to prescribers, on average 3 days per week.

Results

The rate of hospital-acquired pADEs per 100 hospitalizations was reduced by 50.6% (difference 16.8, 95% confidence interval (CI): 9.0 to 24.6, P <  0.001), serious hospital-acquired pADEs by 62.7% (difference 12.8, 95% CI: 6.4 to 19.2, P <  0.001), and uADEs by 51.8% (difference 11.2, 95% CI: 4.4 to 18.0, P <  0.001). Additional analyses confirmed the robustness of the intervention effect, but residual bias cannot be excluded.

Conclusions

The intervention significantly decreased the overall and serious hospital-acquired pADE occurrence in older inpatients, and significantly improved overall ADE recognition by prescribers.

Trial registration

International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Register, trial registration number: ISRCTN64974377, registration date (date assigned): 07/02/2011.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-022-03118-z.

Exploration of Symptom Scale as an Outcome for Deprescribing: A Medication Review Study in Nursing Homes

The use of inappropriate medication is an increasing problem among the elderly, leading to hospitalizations, mortality, adverse effects, and lower quality of life (QoL). Deprescribing interventions (e.g., medication reviews (MRs)) have been examined as a possible remedy for this problem. In order to be able to evaluate the potential benefits and harms of a deprescribing intervention, quality of life (QoL) has increasingly been used as an outcome. The sensitivity of QoL measurements may, however, not be sufficient to detect a change in specific disease symptoms, e.g., a flair-up in symptoms or relief of side effects after deprescribing. Using symptom assessments as an outcome, we might be able to identify and evaluate the adverse effects of overmedication and deprescribing alike. The objective of this study was to explore whether symptom assessment is a feasible and valuable method of evaluating outcomes of MRs among the elderly in nursing homes. To the best of our knowledge, this has not been investigated before. We performed a feasibility study based on an experimental design and conducted MRs for elderly patients in nursing homes. Their symptoms were registered at baseline and at a follow-up 3 months after performing the MR. In total, 86 patients, corresponding to 68% of the included patients, received the MR and completed the symptom questionnaires as well as the QoL measurements at baseline and follow-up, respectively. Forty-eight of these patients had at least one deprescribing recommendation implemented. Overall, a tendency towards the improvement of most symptoms was seen after deprescribing, which correlated with the tendencies observed for the QoL measurements. Remarkably, deprescribing did not cause a deterioration of symptoms or QoL, which might otherwise be expected for patients of this age group, of whom the health is often rapidly declining. In conclusion, it was found that symptom assessments were feasible among nursing home residents and resulted in additional relevant information about the potential benefits and harms of deprescribing. It is thus recommended to further explore the use of symptom assessment as an outcome of deprescribing interventions, e.g., in a controlled trial.

Implementation of a strategy for identification and monitoring of clinical outcome measures in a department of pharmacy

DISCLAIMER

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.

PURPOSE

To describe a department of pharmacy strategy to identify and monitor outcome measures that represent the impact of clinical pharmacy services on patient outcomes.

SUMMARY

Our department established the Clinical Impact Committee, with the goal of developing and maintaining an approach to demonstrate the impact of clinical pharmacists on patient care outcomes. We describe the committee's structure, aims, and key stakeholders, inclusive of both departmental leadership and clinical pharmacist representatives across service lines. We also describe the systematic process used by the committee for identifying clinical outcome measures that are both aligned with organizational priorities and representative of pharmacists' impact. This involved assembly of a crosswalk of clinical outcome measures that are prioritized by the organization and attributable to the work of clinical pharmacists. We found it imperative to connect pharmacists' efforts to the priorities of the organization to demonstrate value and continue to justify pharmacy resources. Once the crosswalk of clinical outcome measures was assembled, the Clinical Impact Committee leveraged modified Delphi methodology to build consensus on the measures to prioritize. Once determined, the final outcome measures were developed into outcomes dashboards, to be monitored by the committee and leveraged by frontline pharmacists.

CONCLUSION

Our organization was successful in developing a structure, the Clinical Impact Committee, to identify, prioritize, and monitor measures that demonstrate pharmacist contributions to patient care outcomes. Further, our approach includes an intentional alignment with organizational priorities, allowing us to understand and communicate the contributions of our teams to meeting-defined organizational quality priorities.

Impact of clinical pharmacists in an inpatient medical oncology service: A prospective study at a comprehensive cancer center in Jordan

INTRODUCTION

Clinical pharmacy is considered an integral discipline in the health care system for optimizing therapy and reducing drug-related problems. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of clinical pharmacists in optimizing management in a medical oncology service.

METHODS

A prospective study was conducted at King Hussein Cancer Center between July 2019 and September 2019 of patients admitted to the medical oncology service. The impact of clinical pharmacists was measured by evaluating their interventions, defined as actions that were expected to result in a change in patient management. Data were collected daily by routine review of patients' profiles and by recording clinical pharmacists' interventions. The data collected were baseline characteristics of patients, numbers and types of clinical pharmacists' interventions, their significance, medications involved, and rate of acceptance of clinical pharmacists' interventions by physicians. The significance of each intervention was assessed by two clinical pharmacists on a Hatoum scale. Physicians' acceptance was assessed by whether the recommendations were implemented.

RESULTS

During the study period, 748 patients were included, of whom 605 required a total of 1683 clinical interventions. The mean age was 56.3 years (±15.5 SD). Of the interventions, 39% resulted in initiation of a drug and 25% in drug discontinuations. The drug group most commonly associated with clinical pharmacists' interventions was antibiotics (26.5%). Physicians accepted 98% of the clinical pharmacists' interventions, and 92.4% of the interventions brought care to a more appropriate level and were considered significant.

CONCLUSION

Most patients in the medical oncology service required clinical pharmacists' interventions, as demonstrated by the high number of significant clinical pharmacists' interventions. Studies should be conducted to follow up these findings with respect to patient outcomes and cost savings.

Rates and correlates of pharmacotherapy-related problems among psychiatric inpatients: a representative Danish study

BACKGROUND

Drug related problems (DRPs) occur frequently among psychiatric patients due to common prescribing errors and complex treatment schedules. Clinical pharmacists (CPs) are thought to play an important role in preventing DRPs and, consequently, to increasing the quality of inpatient care. There is, however, limited information available on DRPs within the psychiatric field in Denmark. The aim of this study was to identify rates and correlates of pharmacotherapy-related problems among psychiatric inpatients in a Danish psychiatric hospital.

METHODS

A retrospective descriptive study was conducted by two CPs and data were obtained from the medical records available in two psychiatric wards. Chart-reviews were conducted for the period of June 2015 to February 2017. The analyses focussed on the prevalence of DRP categories, implementation and acceptance rates, and drugs associated with the DRPs. Extracted data were discussed with the wards' physicians and registered in a DRP-database.

RESULTS

In total, 607 medical records were reviewed and, on average, 2.5 DRPs per medication review were found. There was a positive correlation between the number prescribed drugs and the average number of DRPs. The most frequent categories of DRPs were 'drug dosage', 'inappropriate drug' and 'interactions'. The drugs represented most frequently in DRPs were olanzapine, quetiapine and pantoprazole. The overall acceptance rate was 49% with 33% of those implemented clinically.

CONCLUSION

DRPs were commonly observed among psychiatric patients, particularly in those with multiple prescriptions, in relation to drugs dosage, inappropriate prescriptions and drug interactions. Particular attention must be paid to olanzapine, quetiapine and pantoprazole. Strategies to minimise DRPs among psychiatric patients are warranted and CPs can play an important role.

Role and impact of pharmacists in Spain: a scoping review

Background The role of the pharmacist has evolved greatly over the last decades, expanding to patient-oriented activities, administrative tasks and public health functions. However, considerable differences emerge across regions. Aim of the review To gather evidence in order to describe and highlight the different characteristics of the pharmacists' role and the impact of their activities in Spain. Method A review of the existing literature was conducted. The literature search was undertaken in PubMed between 01/01/2006 and 15/08/2017. Results were screened and reviewed to extract previously established criteria such as author(s), publication year, language, study design, setting, pharmaceutical activity, patient care programs, targeted diseases and intervention description using DEPICT2 tool. Pharmaceutical intervention were classified into eight outcome measures and categorized by types of outcomes reported: descriptive or impact evaluation regarding the effect of the service (positive, neutral or negative). Results The search strategy resulted in 473 articles and 108 articles met the inclusion criteria. The most common design was observational (n = 76, 70%). Most articles were published after 2011 (75%), in English (69%). Studies were conducted in hospitals (60%) and community pharmacies (30%). Of the 24 pharmaceutical activities identified, medication review was the activity most frequently studied (n = 42), followed by patient education (n = 29), risk and prevention (n = 27) and medication reconciliation (n = 19). Only 39 articles (36%) had outcome measures with impact evaluation. Of the 223 impact outcome measures, 48% (107/223) had a positive effect. Conclusion This review shows the substantial scientific production focusing on pharmacy practice in Spain over the last years. The evidence reviewed reflects the pharmacist role at various professional settings, providing a wide variety of activities on diverse targeted diseases and patient care programs, in line with the increasing specialization of clinical pharmacists over the last years.

Multifaceted Pharmacist-led Interventions in the Hospital Setting: A Systematic Review

Clinical pharmacy services often comprise complex interventions. In this MiniReview, we conducted a systematic review aiming to evaluate the impact of multifaceted pharmacist-led interventions in a hospital setting. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL for peer-reviewed articles published from 2006 to 1 March 2018. Controlled trials concerning hospitalized patients in any setting receiving patient-related multifaceted pharmacist-led interventions were considered. All types of outcome were accepted. Inclusion and data extraction were performed. Study characteristics were collected, and risk of bias assessment was conducted utilizing the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools. All stages were conducted by at least two independent reviewers. The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017075808). A total of 11,896 publications were identified, and 28 publications were included. Of these, 17 were conducted in Europe. Six of the included publications were multi-centre studies, and 16 were randomized trials. Usual care was the comparator. Significant results on quality of medication use were reported as positive in eleven studies (n = 18; 61%) and negative in one (n = 18, 6%). Hospital visits were reduced significantly in seven studies (n = 16; 44%). Four studies (n = 12; 33%) reported a positive significant effect on either length of stay or time to revisit, and one study reported a negative effect (n = 12; 6%). All studies investigating mortality (n = 6), patient-reported outcome (n = 7) and cost-effectiveness (n = 1) showed no significant results. This MiniReview indicates that multifaceted pharmacist-led interventions in a hospital setting may improve the quality of medication use and reduce hospital visits and length of stay, while no effect was seen on mortality, patient-reported outcome and cost-effectiveness.

Effect of an In-Hospital Multifaceted Clinical Pharmacist Intervention on the Risk of Readmission: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Hospital readmissions are common among patients receiving multiple medications, with considerable costs to the patients and society.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a multifaceted pharmacist intervention based on medication review, patient interview, and follow-up can reduce the number of readmissions and emergency department (ED) visits.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical multicenter study (Odense Pharmacist Trial Investigating Medication Interventions at Sector Transfer [OPTIMIST]) enrolled patients from September 1, 2013, through April 23, 2015, with a follow-up of 6 months completed on October 31, 2015. Consecutive medical patients in an acute admission ward who were 18 years or older and who used 5 or more medications were invited to participate. Of 1873 patients invited to participate, 1499 (80.0%) accepted. The medication review and patient interview were conducted in the hospital and followed up in collaboration with primary care. Analysis was based on intention to treat.

INTERVENTIONS

The patients were randomized into 3 groups receiving usual care (no intervention), a basic intervention (medication review), and an extended intervention (medication review, 3 motivational interviews, and follow-up with the primary care physician, pharmacy, and nursing home).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The prespecified primary outcomes were readmission within 30 or 180 days and ED visits within 180 days. The primary composite end point was readmission or an ED visit within 180 days. Secondary outcomes were drug-related readmissions within 30 and 180 days after inclusion, and all-cause mortality and drug-related mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 1467 patients (679 men [46.3%] and 788 women [53.7%]; median age, 72 years; interquartile range, 63-80 years) were part of the primary analysis, including 498 randomized to usual care, 493 randomized to the basic intervention, and 476 randomized to the extended intervention. The extended intervention had a significant effect on the numbers of patients who were readmitted within 30 days (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46-0.84) or within 180 days (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.90) after inclusion and on the number of patients who experienced the primary composite end point (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64-0.93). The study showed a nonsignificant reduction in drug-related readmissions within 30 days (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39-1.09) and within 180 days (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.59-1.08) after inclusion and in deaths (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.22-3.11). The number needed to treat to achieve the primary composite outcome for the extended intervention (vs usual care) was 12.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

A multifaceted clinical pharmacist intervention may reduce the number of ED visits and hospital readmissions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03079375.