Virtual Coaching Delivered by Pharmacists to Prevent COVID-19 Transmission

Background: While the role of pharmacists in the current pandemic control has been recognized worldwide, their coaching efforts to improve public’s behaviors that could prevent COVID-19 transmission has been rarely investigated. Objectives: To assess whether pharmacist-based virtual health coaching sessions could increase the proportion of people who practised healthy social behaviors, to test whether this model can increase the public acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines, and to measure whether these behaviors could actually prevent contracting COVID-19. Method: In this randomized controlled trial, adults who matched specific criteria were randomly allocated into 2 arms. The active arm received 12 pharmacist-based virtual coaching sessions delivered via Zoom® over a month. Participants allocated to the control arm received no coaching. At the end of the last coaching session, both groups were asked to complete a structured questionnaire for outcome assessment. Participants in the active group were followed up to 2 weeks after the end of the last coaching session to check if they contracted COVID-19 or not. The SPSS software version 26.0 (IBM Corp., Chicago, IL) was used for statistical analysis. Results: Of the 300 participants who gave consent for participation, 295 completed the study (147 from the active arm and 148 from the control arm). The proportion of those using face masks, avoiding crowds, and willing to be isolated if infected in the active arm was increased from 51.70%, 53.74%, and 59.86% at baseline to 91.83%, 80.27%, and 96.59% at the end of coaching, respectively (all with P < .05). In addition, the proportion of behaviors, such as disinfecting surfaces, not touching the T-zone, and avoid sharing personal belongings with colleagues at work was increased from 36.05%, 27.89%, and 46.93% at baseline to 63.94%, 52.38%, and 87.75% at the end of coaching, respectively (all with P < .05). Avoid touching the T-zone (OR = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24-0.89) and using disposable tissues (OR = 0.30; 95% CI, 0.18-0.77), each versus using face masks appropriately were more likely to get COVID-19. Conclusion: Pharmacist-based virtual health coaching could be a potential strategy to increase the proportion of behaviors that could curtail the spread of COVID-19

Assessment of A new Strategy to Prevent Prescribing Errors Involving COVID-19 Patients in Community Pharmacies

Background: Because COVID-19 patients are vulnerable to prescribing errors (PEs) and adverse drug events, designing and implementing a new approach to prevent prescribing errors (PEs) involving COVID-19 patients has become a priority in pharmacotherapy research. Objectives: To investigate whether using WhatsApp to deliver prescribing error (PE)-related clinical scenarios to community pharmacists could enhance their ability to detect PEs and conduct successful pharmaceutical interventions (PIs). Methods: In this study, 110 community pharmacies were recruited from different regions across Jordan and equally allocated to 2 groups. Over the course of 4 weeks, WhatsApp was used to send PEs-related clinical case scenarios to the active group. The second group was controlled with no clinical scenarios. After completion of the 4-week phase, pharmacists from both groups were asked to document PEs in COVID-19 patients and their interventions using a data-collection form. Results: The incidence of PEs in COVID-19 patients documented in the active group (18.54%) was higher than that reported in the control group (3.09%) (P = .001). Of the 6598 and 968 PIs conducted by participants working in the active and control group pharmacies, 6013 (91.13%) and 651 (67.25%) were accepted, respectively. The proportions of wrong drug (contraindication), wrong drug (unnecessary drug prescribed/no proof of its benefits), and omission of a drug between the active and control groups were 15.30% versus 7.21% (P = .001), 11.85% versus 6.29% (P = .03), and 17.78% versus 10.50% (0.01), respectively. Additionally, the proportions of lethal, serious, and significant errors were 0.74% versus 0.35% (P = .04), 10.52% versus 2.57% (0.002), and 47.88% versus 9.57% (0.001), respectively. Addition of drug therapy interventions (AOR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.21-0.84) and errors with significant clinical seriousness (AOR = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16-0.64). Conclusions PEs involving COVID-19 patients in community settings are common and clinically significant. The intervention assessed in this study could be promising for designing a feasible and time-efficient interventional tool to encourage pharmacists' involvement in identifying and correcting PEs in light of COVID-19

Antibiotic prescribing errors generated by the use of an electronic prescribing system in the emergency department: A mixed-method study

Context: Inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics can result in serious patient harm. Aims: To investigate the incidence, nature, clinical severity, and causes of antibiotic prescribing errors (APEs) in the emergency department (ED) of a large hospital in Jordan. Methods: A mixed-method approach was used to explore the incidence and types of APEs by direct observation of electronic prescriptions (EPS) of antibiotics over four weeks, and to identify causes of errors by semi-structured interviews with ED physicians. The clinical severity of APEs was rated by a committee of experts. SPSS V26 and NVivo 10 were used for the analysis of quantitative and qualitative data, respectively. Results: The incidence of APEs caused by the use of EPS was 4.3%. Wrong quantity (32.62%), wrong dose (15.25%), and duplicate drugs (13.55%) were identified as the most common types of APEs. More than one-third of APEs identified were deemed clinically significant, seven were serious, and one was lethal. Minor and significant antibiotic APEs across physicians who attended workshops on EPS and those who did not were 75.00% versus 46.77% (p = 0.001) and 18.75% versus 52.41% (p = 0.013), respectively. Three major causes of errors were identified: 1) System-related (system crash, drop-down menu), 2) user-related (lack of computer skills), and 3) workplace-related (overcrowding, inadequate staffing). Conclusions: APEs generated by the use of EPS were common in EDs in Jordan, clinically significant, and multifactorial. Further research is required to cover pharmacists' perspectives of this kind of errors