Implementation and evaluation of a multisite drug usage evaluation program across Australian hospitals - a quality improvement initiative

Background: With the use of medicines being a broad and extensive part of health management, mechanisms to ensure quality use of medicines are essential. Drug usage evaluation (DUE) is an evidence-based quality improvement methodology, designed to improve the quality, safety and cost-effectiveness of drug use. The purpose of this paper is to describe a national DUE methodology used to improve health care delivery across the continuum through multi-faceted intervention involving audit and feedback, academic detailing and system change, and a qualitative assessment of the methodology, as illustrated by the Acute Postoperative Pain Management (APOP) project. Methods. An established methodology, consisting of a baseline audit of inpatient medical records, structured patient interviews and general practitioner surveys, followed by an educational intervention and follow-up audit, is used. Australian hospitals, including private, public, metropolitan and regional, are invited to participate on a voluntary basis. De-identified data collected by hospitals are collated and evaluated nationally to provide descriptive comparative analyses. Hospitals benchmark their practices against state and national results to facilitate change. The educational intervention consists of academic detailing, group education, audit and feedback, point-of-prescribing prompts and system changes. A repeat data collection is undertaken to assess changes in practice. An online qualitative survey was undertaken to evaluate the APOP program. Qualitative assessment of hospitals' perceptions of the effectiveness of the overall DUE methodology and changes in procedure/prescribing/policy/clinical practice which resulted from participation were elicited. Results: 62 hospitals participated in the APOP project. Among 23 respondents to the evaluation survey, 18 (78%) reported improvements in the documentation of pain scores at their hospital. 15 (65%) strongly agreed or agreed that participation in APOP directly resulted in increased prescribing of multimodal analgesia for pain relief in postoperative patients. Conclusions: This national DUE program has facilitated the engagement and participation of a number of acute health care facilities to address issues relating to quality use of medicine. This approach has been perceived to be effective in helping them achieve improvements in patient care

Current discharge management of acute coronary syndromes: Baseline results from a national quality improvement initiative

Background: Evidence-practice gaps exist in the continuum of care for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), particularly at hospital discharge. Aim: We aimed to describe the methodology and baseline results of the Discharge Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes (DMACS) project, focusing on the prescription of guideline-recommended medications, referral to cardiac rehabilitation and communication between the hospital, patient and their primary healthcare professionals. Methods: DMACS employed Drug Use Evaluation methodology involving data collection, evaluation and feedback, and targeted educational interventions. Adult patients with ACS discharged during a 4-month period were eligible to participate. Data were collected (maximum 50 patients) at each site through an inpatient medical record review, a general practitioner (GP) postal/fax survey conducted 14days post discharge and a patient telephone survey 3months post discharge. Results: Forty-nine hospitals participated in the audit recruiting 1545 patients. At discharge, 57% of patients were prescribed a combination of antiplatelet agent(s), beta-blocker, statin and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and/or angiotensin II-antagonist. At 3months post discharge, 48% of patients reported using the same combination. Some 67% of patients recalled being referred to cardiac rehabilitation; of these, 33% had completed the programme. In total, 83% of patients had a documented ACS management plan at discharge. Of these, 90% included a medication list, 56% a chest pain action plan and 54% risk factor modification advice. Overall, 65% of GPs rated the quality of information received in the discharge summary as 'very good' to 'excellent'. Conclusions: The findings of our baseline audit showed that despite the robust evidence base and availability of national guidelines, the management of patients with ACS can be improved. These findings will inform a multifaceted intervention strategy to improve adherence to guidelines for the discharge management of patients with ACS. © 2010 The Authors. Internal Medicine Journa