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.Peer reviewe

The Differences in Antibiotic Decision-making Between Acute Surgical and Acute Medical Teams: An Ethnographic Study of Culture and Team Dynamics

Background Cultural and social determinants influence antibiotic decision-making in hospitals. We investigated and compared cultural determinants of antibiotic decision-making in acute medical and surgical specialties. Methods An ethnographic observational study of antibiotic decision-making in acute medical and surgical teams at a London teaching hospital was conducted (August 2015–May 2017). Data collection included 500 hours of direct observations, and face-to-face interviews with 23 key informants. A grounded theory approach, aided by Nvivo 11 software, analyzed the emerging themes. An iterative and recursive process of analysis ensured saturation of the themes. The multiple modes of enquiry enabled cross-validation and triangulation of the findings. Results In medicine, accepted norms of the decision-making process are characterized as collectivist (input from pharmacists, infectious disease, and medical microbiology teams), rationalized, and policy-informed, with emphasis on de-escalation of therapy. The gaps in antibiotic decision-making in acute medicine occur chiefly in the transition between the emergency department and inpatient teams, where ownership of the antibiotic prescription is lost. In surgery, team priorities are split between 3 settings: operating room, outpatient clinic, and ward. Senior surgeons are often absent from the ward, leaving junior staff to make complex medical decisions. This results in defensive antibiotic decision-making, leading to prolonged and inappropriate antibiotic use. Conclusions In medicine, the legacy of infection diagnosis made in the emergency department determines antibiotic decision-making. In surgery, antibiotic decision-making is perceived as a nonsurgical intervention that can be delegated to junior staff or other specialties. Different, bespoke approaches to optimize antibiotic prescribing are therefore needed to address these specific challenges

Evaluation of the organisation and delivery of patient-centred acute nursing care

In 2002, a team of researchers from the School of Nursing, University of Salford were commissioned by Bolton Hospitals NHS Trust to evaluate the delivery and organisation of patient-centred nursing care across the acute nursing wards within the Royal Bolton Hospital. The key driver for the commissioning of this study arose from two serious untoward incidents that occurred in the year 2000. Following investigation of both these events the Director of Nursing in post at that time believed that poor organisation and delivery of care may have been a contributory factor. Senior nurses in the Trust had also expressed their concern that care may not be organised in a way that made best use of the skills available

Patients’ Perspectives on Engaging in Their Healthcare while Hospitalized

Aims and objectives To examine patients’ experiences and preferences for engaging in their healthcare while hospitalised. Background Promoting patient engagement or involvement in healthcare has become an important component of contemporary, consumer‐oriented approaches to quality care. Previous research on patient engagement highlights that preferences for engagement are not assessed while hospitalised, leading to patient role confusion and frustration. Methods Semistructured interviews were conducted with patients from January–March 2017 to examine their experiences and preferences for engaging in their care while hospitalised on medical‐surgical units in the United States. Inductive thematic analysis was used to uncover the themes from the interview transcriptions. The reporting of research findings followed the COREQ checklist. Results Seventeen patients, eight male and nine female, aged between 19–83 years old were interviewed. Patients had a difficult time articulating how they participated in their care while hospitalised, with the majority stating there were few decisions to be made. Many patients felt that decisions were made prior to or during hospitalisation for them. Patients described their engagement through the following themes: sharing the subjective, involvement of family, information‐gathering, constraints, “I let them take care of me,” and variability. Conclusions Engagement is a dual responsibility of both nurses and patients. Patients’ experiences highlight that engagement preferences and experiences are not universal between patients, speaking to the importance of assessing patient preferences for engagement in health care upon hospital admission. Relevance to clinical practice The articulation of what patients actually experience in the hospital setting contributes to improve nursing practice by offering insight into what is important to the patient and how best to engage with them in their care. The constraints that patients reported facing related to their healthcare engagement should be used to inform the delivery of future engagement interventions in the acute care setting

Communication behaviors and patient autonomy in hospital care: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how hospitalized patients share decisions with physicians. METHODS: We conducted an observational study of patient-doctor communication on an inpatient medicine service among 18 hospitalized patients and 9 physicians. A research assistant (RA) approached newly hospitalized patients and their physicians before morning rounds and obtained consent. The RA audio recorded morning rounds, and then separately interviewed both patient and physician. Coding was done using integrated analysis. RESULTS: Most patients were white (61%) and half were female. Most physicians were male (66%) and of Southeast Asian descent (66%). All physicians explained the plan of care to the patients; most believed that their patient understood. However, many patients did not. Physicians rarely asked the patient for their opinion. In all those cases, the decision had been made previously by the doctors. No decisions were made with the patient. Patients sometimes disagreed. CONCLUSIONS: Shared decision-making may not be the norm in hospital care. Although physicians do explain treatment plans, many hospitalized patients do not understand enough to share in decisions. When patients do assert their opinion, it can result in conflict. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Some hospitalized patients are interested in discussing treatment. Improving hospital communication can foster patient autonomy

Committed to Safety: Ten Case Studies on Reducing Harm to Patients

Presents case studies of healthcare organizations, clinical teams, and learning collaborations to illustrate successful innovations for improving patient safety nationwide. Includes actions taken, results achieved, lessons learned, and recommendations

Investigating and learning lessons from early experiences of implementing ePrescribing systems into NHS hospitals:a questionnaire study

Background: ePrescribing systems have significant potential to improve the safety and efficiency of healthcare, but they need to be carefully selected and implemented to maximise benefits. Implementations in English hospitals are in the early stages and there is a lack of standards guiding the procurement, functional specifications, and expected benefits. We sought to provide an updated overview of the current picture in relation to implementation of ePrescribing systems, explore existing strategies, and identify early lessons learned.Methods: a descriptive questionnaire-based study, which included closed and free text questions and involved both quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data generated.Results: we obtained responses from 85 of 108 NHS staff (78.7% response rate). At least 6% (n = 10) of the 168 English NHS Trusts have already implemented ePrescribing systems, 2% (n = 4) have no plans of implementing, and 34% (n = 55) are planning to implement with intended rapid implementation timelines driven by high expectations surrounding improved safety and efficiency of care. The majority are unclear as to which system to choose, but integration with existing systems and sophisticated decision support functionality are important decisive factors. Participants highlighted the need for increased guidance in relation to implementation strategy, system choice and standards, as well as the need for top-level management support to adequately resource the project. Although some early benefits were reported by hospitals that had already implemented, the hoped for benefits relating to improved efficiency and cost-savings remain elusive due to a lack of system maturity.Conclusions: whilst few have begun implementation, there is considerable interest in ePrescribing systems with ambitious timelines amongst those hospitals that are planning implementations. In order to ensure maximum chances of realising benefits, there is a need for increased guidance in relation to implementation strategy, system choice and standards, as well as increased financial resources to fund local activitie

A Delphi study to validate competency-based criteria to assess undergraduate midwifery students' competencies in the maternity ward

Background: workplace learning plays a crucial role in midwifery education. Twelve midwifery schools in Flanders (Belgium) aimed to implement a standardised and evidence-based method to learn and assess competencies in practice. This study focuses on the validation of competency-based criteria to guide and assess undergraduate midwifery students’ postnatal care competencies in the maternity ward. Method: an online Delphi study was carried out. During three consecutive sessions, experts from workplaces and schools were invited to score the assessment criteria as to their relevance and feasibility, and to comment on the content and their formulation. A descriptive quantitative analysis, and a qualitative thematic content analysis of the comments were carried out. A Mann-Whitney U-test was used to investigate diferences between expert groups. Findings:eleven competencies and fifty-six assessment criteria were found appropriate to assess midwifery students’ competencies in the maternity ward. Overall median scores were high and consensus was obtained for all criteria, except for one during the first round. Although all initial assessment criteria (N=89) were scored as relevant, some of them appeared not feasible in practice. Little difference was found between the expert groups. Comments mainly included remarks about concreteness and measurability. Conclusion: this study resulted in validated criteria to assess postnatal care competencies in the maternity ward