Development of a decision support tool to facilitate primary care management of patients with abnormal liver function tests without clinically apparent liver disease [HTA03/38/02]. Abnormal Liver Function Investigations Evaluation (ALFIE)

Liver function tests (LFTs) are routinely performed in primary care, and are often the gateway to further invasive and/or expensive investigations. Little is known of the consequences in people with an initial abnormal liver function (ALF) test in primary care and with no obvious liver disease. Further investigations may be dangerous for the patient and expensive for Health Services. The aims of this study are to determine the natural history of abnormalities in LFTs before overt liver disease presents in the population and identify those who require minimal further investigations with the potential for reduction in NHS costs

Patient prioritization for pharmaceutical care in hospital: A systematic review of assessment tools

BackgroundClinical pharmacy services improve patient safety, outcomes, and care quality; however, UK clinical pharmacy services face limited resources, insufficient capacity, and patients who present with increasingly complex medication regimes and morbidities. These indicate a need for the prioritization of pharmacy services. Several prioritization tools have been developed; however, there has been no comprehensive review of such tools to date.ObjectiveA systematic review was conducted to provide a structured overview and description of existing assessment tools with a focus on study quality, themes, tool validity, risk factors, and high-risk drug classes.MethodsSystematic searches for English-language publications (from 1990 to September 2017) were conducted in Embase, Medline, Scopus, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Web of Science. Papers in the inpatient setting and in which the tool users were pharmacists or pharmacy technicians were included. Data on each study (e.g. aim and design) and the structure of tools (e.g. risk factors) from each included study were extracted by 2 independent reviewers. A descriptive analysis was conducted to summarize these tools along with a thematic analysis of study findings. The quality of each paper was assessed using the Hawker method.ResultsNineteen studies involving 17 risk assessment tools were included. Most tools were developed in Europe (76.5%) and published in the last 5 years (82%). Most tools (88%) were designed to identify patients at greatest risk of adverse drug reactions, adverse drug events, or medication errors and to guide appropriate pharmaceutical care. Ten out of 17 tools (59%) were validated. None showed a measurable impact on prescription errors or adverse drug events. Keys themes identified from the studies were the positive impact of risk assessment tools on both patient care and provision of pharmacy services as well as the limitations of risk assessment tools.ConclusionsCurrent assessment tools are heterogeneous in their content, targeting diverse patient groups and clinical settings making generalization difficult. However, an underlying theme of all studies was that tools appear to achieve their aim in directing pharmaceutical care to where it is needed most which might provide reassurance and incentive for greater adoption and development of tools across clinical pharmacy services. However, further research is required to measure objectively the impact of tools on patient outcomes and on workforce efficiency so that comparisons can be made between tools

A systematic review of pharmacovigilance systems in developing countries using the WHO pharmacovigilance indicators

BACKGROUND: In the context of the growth of pharmacovigilance (PV) among developing countries, this systematic review aims to synthesise current research evaluating developing countries’ PV systems’ performance. METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus and Web of Science were searched for peer-reviewed studies published in English between 2012 and 2021. Reference lists of included studies were screened. Included studies were quality assessed using Hawker et al.'s nine-item checklist; data were extracted using the WHO PV indicators checklist. Scores were assigned to each group of indicators and used to compare countries’ PV performance. RESULTS: Twenty-one unique studies from 51 countries were included. Of a total possible quality score of 36, most studies were rated medium (n = 7 studies) or high (n = 14 studies). Studies obtained an average score of 17.2 out of a possible 63 of the WHO PV indicators. PV system performance in all 51 countries was low (14.86/63; range: 0–26). Higher average scores were obtained in the ‘Core’ (9.27/27) compared to ‘Complementary’ (5.59/36) indicators. Overall performance for ‘Process’ and ‘Outcome’ indicators was lower than that of ‘Structural’. CONCLUSION: This first systematic review of studies evaluating PV performance in developing countries provides an in-depth understanding of factors affecting PV system performance. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43441-022-00415-y

A qualitative exploration of pharmacovigilance policy implementation in Jordan, Oman, and Kuwait using Matland's ambiguity-conflict model

Background: As Arab countries seek to implement the ‘Guideline on Good Pharmacovigilance Practice (GVP) for Arab countries’, understanding policy implementation mechanisms and the factors impacting it can inform best implementation practice. This study aimed to explore the mechanisms of and factors influencing pharmacovigilance policy implementation in Arab countries with more established pharmacovigilance systems (Jordan, Oman), to inform policy implementation in a country with a nascent pharmacovigilance system (Kuwait). Results: Matland’s ambiguity-conflict model served to frame data analysis from 56 face-to-face interviews, which showed that policy ambiguity and conflict were low in Jordan and Oman, suggesting an “administrative implementation” pathway. In Kuwait, policy ambiguity was high while sentiments about policy conflict were varied, suggesting a mixture between “experimental implementation” and “symbolic implementation”. Factors reducing policy ambiguity in Jordan and Oman included: decision-makers’ guidance to implementors, stakeholder involvement in the policy’s development and implementation, training of policy implementors throughout the implementation process, clearly outlined policy goals and means, and presence of a strategic implementation plan with appropriate timelines as well as a monitoring mechanism. In contrast, policy ambiguity in Kuwait stemmed from the absence or lack of attention to these factors. Factors reducing policy conflict included: the policy’s compliance with internationally recognised standards and the policy’s fit with local capabilities (all three countries), decision-makers’ cooperation with and support of the national centre as well as stakeholders’ agreement on policy goals and means (Jordan and Oman) and adopting a stepwise approach to implementation (Jordan). Conclusions: Using Matland’s model, both the mechanism of and factors impacting successful pharmacovigilance policy implementation were identified. This informed recommendations for best implementation practice in Arab as well as other countries with nascent pharmacovigilance systems, including increased managerial engagement and support, greater stakeholder involvement in policy development and implementation, and undertaking more detailed implementation planning.</p

Reliability and validity testing of the medicines related-consultation assessment tool for assessing pharmacists' consultations

Abstract Background Demonstrating a person-centred approach in a consultation is a key component of delivering high-quality healthcare. To support development of such an approach requires training underpinned by valid assessment tools. Given the lack of a suitable pharmacy-specific tool, a new global consultation skills assessment tool: the medicines related-consultation assessment tool (MR-CAT) was designed and tested. Aim This study aimed to test the validity and reliability of the MR-CAT using psychometric methods. Method Psychometric testing involved analysis of participants’ (n = 13) assessment of fifteen pre-recorded simulated consultations using the MR-CAT. Analysis included discriminant validity testing, intrarater and interrater reliability testing for each of the five sections of the MR-CAT and for the overall global assessment of the consultation. Analysis also included internal consistency testing for the whole tool. Results Internal consistency for the overall global assessment of the consultation was good (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.97). The MR-CAT discriminated well for the overall global assessment of the consultation (p &lt; 0.001). Moderate to high intrarater reliability was observed for the overall global assessment of the consultation and for all five sections of the MR-CAT (rho = 0.64–0.84) in the test–retest analysis. Moderate to good interrater reliability (Kendall’s W = 0.68–0.90) was observed for the overall global assessment of the consultation and for all five sections of the MR-CAT. Conclusion The MR-CAT is a valid and reliable tool for assessing person-centred pharmacist’s consultations. Moreover, its unique design means that the MR-CAT can be used in both formative and summative assessment. </jats:sec

Pharmacists’ attitudes towards a pharmaceutical assessment screening tool to help prioritise pharmaceutical care in a UK hospital

ObjectiveTo establish the thoughts of pharmacists using the pharmaceutical assessment screening tool (PAST) when assigning a patient acuity level and establish other decision factors. A patient acuity level is a pharmaceutical assessment of a patient (lowest =1 to highest =3), higher patient acuity levels highlight the requirement for a more intensive pharmaceutical input to reduce potential harm.MethodA questionnaire designed to elicit attitudes about the pharmaceutical assessment screening tool was circulated to 32 pharmacists working in a 900 bed UK university teaching hospital. Respondents were asked to document what patient acuity level they would assign for six theoretical patient cases with an explanation. The data collected was analysed using Microsoft Excel® and further analysis was undertaken about the strength of agreement to PAST using the kappa statistic (Ƙ) using Stata v12 (StataCorp, TX., USA).ResultsThe questionnaire was completed by 28/32 pharmacists (87.5% response rate). The mean confidence (SD) for assigning a patient acuity level (PAL) was 81% (±20%). 26/28 pharmacists (93%) agreed or strongly agreed that professional judgement guided them most when allocating a PAL. The PAL assigned to the case studies presented both over and under estimations compared to the guidance but overall the strength of agreement was considered to be “fair” (Ƙ =0.202).ConclusionPharmacists feel confident about using a pharmaceutical assessment screening tool to help them assign a patient acuity level. However the use of professional judgement to assign an acuity level overrides any predicted level from PAST

Clinical Inertia in Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Analysis of Pharmacist-Managed Diabetes Care vs. Usual Medical Care

Background: Evidence suggests that patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) suffer from a high rate of “clinical inertia” or “recognition of the problem but failure to act.” Objective: The aim of this study is to quantify the rate of clinical inertia between two models of care: Pharmacist-Managed Diabetes Clinic (PMDC) vs. Usual Medical Care (UMC). Methods: Patients in a university based medical clinic with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) were analyzed in this retrospective cohort study. Patients were exposed to either PMDC or UMC. The difference in days to intervention in response to suboptimal laboratory values and time to achieve goal hemoglobin A1c (A1c), systolic blood pressure (SBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) was compared in the two models of care. Results: A total of 113 patients were included in the analysis of this study, 54 patients were in the PMDC and 59 patients were in the UMC group. Median time (days) to intervention for A1c values \u3e7% was 8 days and 9 days in the PMDC and UMC groups, respectively (p\u3e0.05). In patients with baseline A1c values \u3e8%, median time to achieving A1c Conclusions: Rates of clinical inertia, defined as time to intervention of suboptimal clinical values, did not differ significantly between patients enrolled in a PMDC compared to patients with UMC with respect to A1c, SBP and LDL. Participation in PMDC, however, was associated with achieving goal A1c, SBP, and LDL levels sooner compared to UMC

First narrow-band search for continuous gravitational waves from known pulsars in advanced detector data

Spinning neutron stars asymmetric with respect to their rotation axis are potential sources of continuous gravitational waves for ground-based interferometric detectors. In the case of known pulsars a fully coherent search, based on matched filtering, which uses the position and rotational parameters obtained from electromagnetic observations, can be carried out. Matched filtering maximizes the signalto- noise (SNR) ratio, but a large sensitivity loss is expected in case of even a very small mismatch between the assumed and the true signal parameters. For this reason, narrow-band analysis methods have been developed, allowing a fully coherent search for gravitational waves from known pulsars over a fraction of a hertz and several spin-down values. In this paper we describe a narrow-band search of 11 pulsars using data from Advanced LIGO’s first observing run. Although we have found several initial outliers, further studies show no significant evidence for the presence of a gravitational wave signal. Finally, we have placed upper limits on the signal strain amplitude lower than the spin-down limit for 5 of the 11 targets over the bands searched; in the case of J1813-1749 the spin-down limit has been beaten for the first time. For an additional 3 targets, the median upper limit across the search bands is below the spin-down limit. This is the most sensitive narrow-band search for continuous gravitational waves carried out so far

Patient prioritisation for hospital pharmacy services: current approaches in the UK

Objectives To survey and explore current approaches to deployment of pharmaceutical care prioritisation tools in acute hospitals in the UK.Methods A national online survey was circulated electronically to chief pharmacists of hospitals to determine if they use a prioritisation tool or process. Where such mechanisms exist, respondents were invited to participate in a semistructured telephone interview to explore the development, evaluation and application of their tool and share relevant documentation. Interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed.Results Seventy hospitals (70/130) used a tool or process to prioritise clinical pharmacy services. Thirty-six interviews were conducted, and two were excluded. The majority of tools had been developed in-house. Few hospitals had undertaken formal evaluations of their prioritisation tool. Pharmacy prioritisation tools ranged in complexity and often included a combination of pharmacy service prioritisation, such as medicines reconciliation, and a section to assign an individual patient prioritisation level. Determining the priority of a patient based on the identification of set indicators instilled confidence in pharmacists by ensuring they were not missing high-risk patients. Electronic prioritisation tools were especially useful at retrieving real-time data to prioritise workload, improving workflow and ensuring continuity in patient care. Drawbacks of using prioritisation tools included lack of tool sensitivity across certain specialties and time spent using the tool if not all information was accessible.Conclusions Prioritisation tools were seen to be useful for prioritising workload and ensuring the right patients are seen at the right time. As few hospitals had formally evaluated their tools, it is important to rigorously and systematically develop an evidence-based prioritisation tool that is both useable and acceptable. Further research to evaluate such tools would be needed to ensure it improves patient health outcomes and efficiency in pharmacy services