The impact of a post-take ward round pharmacist on the risk score and enactment of medication-related recommendations

There is a scarcity of published research describing the impact of a pharmacist on the post-take ward round (PTWR) in addition to ward-based pharmacy services. The aim of this paper was to evaluate the impact of clinical pharmacists' participation on the PTWR on the risk assessment scores of medication-related recommendations with and without a pharmacist. This includes medication-related recommendations occurring on the PTWR and those recommendations made by the ward-based pharmacist on the inpatient ward. A pre-post intervention study was undertaken that compared the impact of adding a pharmacist to the PTWR compared with ward-based pharmacist services alone. A panel reviewed the risk of not acting on medication recommendations that was made on the PTWR and those recorded by the ward-based pharmacist. The relationship between the risk scores and the number and proportion of recommendations that led to action were compared between study groups. There were more medication-related recommendations on the PTWR in the intervention group when a pharmacist was present. Proportionately fewer were in the 'very high and extreme' risk category. Although there was no difference in the number of ward pharmacist recommendations between groups, there was a significantly higher proportion of ward pharmacist recommendations in the "very high and extreme" category in those patients who had been seen on a PTWR attended by a pharmacist than when a pharmacist was not present. There were a greater proportion of "low and medium" risk actionable medication recommendations actioned on the PTWR in the intervention group; and no difference in the risk scores in ward pharmacist recommendations actioned between groups. Overall, the proportion of recommendations that were actioned was higher for those made on the PTWR compared with the ward. The addition of a pharmacist to the PTWR resulted in an increase in low, medium, and high risk recommendations on the PTWR, more very high and extreme risk recommendations made by the ward-based pharmacist, plus an increased number of recommendations being actioned during the patients' admission

Randomised controlled trial of clinical medication review by a pharmacist of elderly patients receiving repeat prescriptions in general practice

Objective: To determine whether a pharmacist can effectively review repeat prescriptions through consultations with elderly patients in general practice. Design: Randomised controlled trial of clinical medication review by a pharmacist against normal general practice review. Setting: Four general practices. Participants: 1188 patients aged 65 or over who were receiving at least one repeat prescription and living in the community. Intervention: Patients were invited to a consultation at which the pharmacist reviewed their medical conditions and current treatment. Main outcome measures: Number of changes to repeat prescriptions over one year, drug costs, and use of healthcare services. Results: 590 (97%) patients in the intervention group were reviewed compared with 233 (44%) in the control group. Patients seen by the pharmacist were more likely to have changes made to their repeat prescriptions (mean number of changes per patient 2.2 v 1.9; difference=0.31, 95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.57; P=0.02). Monthly drug costs rose in both groups over the year, but the rise was less in the intervention group (mean difference £4.72 per 28 days, -£7.04 to -£2.41); equivalent to £61 per patient a year. Intervention patients had a smaller rise in the number of drugs prescribed (0.2 v 0.4; mean difference -0.2, -0.4 to -0.1). There was no evidence that review of treatment by the pharmacist affected practice consultation rates, outpatient consultations, hospital admissions, or death rate. Conclusions: A clinical pharmacist can conduct effective consultations with elderly patients in general practice to review their drugs. Such review results in significant changes in patients' drugs and saves more than the cost of the intervention without affecting the workload of general practitioners

Got Sugar? Pharmacist Intervention to Improve A1c

AIM: Within 6 months, we aim to decrease by 10% the number of our diabetic patients with an A1c \u3e8 through Clinical Pharmacist referrals.https://jdc.jefferson.edu/patientsafetyposters/1033/thumbnail.jp

Pharmacist intervention in primary care to improve outcomes in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction

<b>Background</b> Meta-analysis of small trials suggests that pharmacist-led collaborative review and revision of medical treatment may improve outcomes in heart failure.<p></p> <b>Methods and results</b> We studied patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction in a cluster-randomized controlled, event driven, trial in primary care. We allocated 87 practices (1090 patients) to pharmacist intervention and 87 practices (1074 patients) to usual care. The intervention was delivered by non-specialist pharmacists working with family doctors to optimize medical treatment. The primary outcome was a composite of death or hospital admission for worsening heart failure. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN70118765. The median follow-up was 4.7 years. At baseline, 86% of patients in both groups were treated with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker. In patients not receiving one or other of these medications, or receiving less than the recommended dose, treatment was started, or the dose increased, in 33.1% of patients in the intervention group and in 18.5% of the usual care group [odds ratio (OR) 2.26, 95% CI 1.64–3.10; P< 0.001]. At baseline, 62% of each group were treated with a β-blocker and the proportions starting or having an increase in the dose were 17.9% in the intervention group and 11.1% in the usual care group (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.31–2.35; P< 0.001). The primary outcome occurred in 35.8% of patients in the intervention group and 35.4% in the usual care group (hazard ratio 0.97, 95% CI 0.83–1.14; P = 0.72). There was no difference in any secondary outcome.<p></p> <b>Conclusion</b> A low-intensity, pharmacist-led collaborative intervention in primary care resulted in modest improvements in prescribing of disease-modifying medications but did not improve clinical outcomes in a population that was relatively well treated at baseline

Impact of the introduction of a specialist critical care pharmacist on the level of pharmaceutical care provided to the critical care unit

Objectives To evaluate the impact of a dedicated specialist critical care pharmacist service on patient care at a UK critical care unit (CCU). Methods Pharmacist intervention data was collected in two phases. Phase 1 was with the provision of a non-specialist pharmacist chart review service and Phase 2 was after the introduction of a specialist dedicated pharmacy service. Two CCUs with established critical care pharmacist services were used as controls. The impact of pharmacist interventions on optimising drug therapy or preventing harm from medication errors was rated on a 4-point scale. Key findings There was an increase in the mean daily rate of pharmacist interventions after the introduction of the specialist critical care pharmacist (5.45 versus 2.69 per day, P < 0.0005). The critical care pharmacist intervened on more medication errors preventing potential harm and optimised more medications. There was no significant change to intervention rates at the control sites. Across all study sites the majority of pharmacist interventions were graded to have at least moderate impact on patient care. Conclusion The introduction of a specialist critical care pharmacist resulted in an increased rate of pharmacist interventions compared to a non-specialist pharmacist service thus improving the quality of patient care

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

Impact of a community pharmacist-led medication review on medicines use in patients on polypharmacy - a prospective randomised controlled trial

In 2010 the 'Polymedication Check' (PMC), a pharmacist-led medication review, was newly introduced to be delivered independently from the prescriber and reimbursed by the Swiss health insurances. This study aimed at evaluating the impact of this new cognitive service focusing on medicines use and patients' adherence in everyday life.; This randomised controlled trial was conducted in 54 Swiss community pharmacies. Eligible patients used ≥4 prescribed medicines over &gt;3 months. The intervention group received a PMC at study start (T-0) and after 28 weeks (T-28) while the control group received only a PMC at T-28. Primary outcome measure was change in patients' objective adherence, calculated as Medication Possession Ratio (MPR) and Daily Polypharmacy Possession Ratio (DPPR), using refill data from the pharmacies and patient information of dosing. Subjective adherence was assessed as secondary outcome by self-report questionnaires (at T-0 and T-28) and telephone interviews (at T-2 and T-16), where participants estimated their overall adherence on a scale from 0-100 %.; A total of 450 patients were randomly allocated to intervention (N = 218, 48.4 %) and control group (N = 232, 51.6 %). Dropout rate was fairly low and comparable for both groups (N Int = 37 (17.0 %), NCont = 41 (17.7 %), p = 0.845). Main addressed drug-related problem (DRP) during PMC at T-0 was insufficient adherence to at least one medicine (N = 69, 26.7 %). At T-28, 1020 chronic therapies fulfilled inclusion criteria for MPR calculation, representing 293 of 372 patients (78.8 %). Mean MPR and adherence to polypharmacy (DPPR) for both groups were equally high (MPRInt = 88.3, SD = 19.03; MPRCont = 87.5, SD = 20.75 (p = 0.811) and DPPRInt = 88.0, SD = 13.31; DPPRCont = 87.5, SD = 20.75 (p = 0.906), respectively). Mean absolute change of subjective adherence between T-0 and T-2 was +1.03 % in the intervention and -0.41 % in the control group (p = 0.058). The number of patients reporting a change of their adherence of more than ±5 points on a scale 0-100 % between T-0 and T-2 was significantly higher in the intervention group (NImprovement = 30; NWorsening = 14) than in the control group (NImprovement = 20; NWorsening = 24; p = 0.028).; Through the PMC pharmacist were able to identify a significant number of DRPs. Participants showed high baseline objective adherence of 87.5 %, providing little potential for improvement. Hence, no significant increase of objective adherence was observed. However, regarding changes in subjective adherence of more than ±5 % the PMC showed a positive effect.; Clinical trial registry database, NCT01739816 ; first entry on November 27, 2012

Impact of pharmacist advice on metabolic syndrome

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of pharmacist intervention on lifestyle modifications and pharmacological treatment in overweight and obese patients suffering from metabolic syndrome. METHOD: Patients were recruited from the community setting according to the International Diabetes Federation definition inclusion criteria for metabolic syndrome. Anthropometric and biochemical tests were performed at baseline (t=0). Patients were assessed for medication compliance, occurrence of side-effects, lifestyle and risk factors using a questionnaire. Patients were re-assessed three months after pharmacist intervention (t=1). KEY FINDINGS: A total of 35 patients participated in the study. Following pharmacist intervention there was a statistically significant improvement in compliance to medications (p=0.005) and statistically significant reduction in occurrence of side-effects (p=0.009), weight (p=0.005), waist circumference (p=0.000), body mass index (p=0.005), fasting blood glucose (p=0.015), total cholesterol (p=0.001) and triglyceride (p=0.000) levels. CONCLUSION: Pharmacist intervention improved patient motivation to change their lifestyle. Pharmacists can play an important role in the management of metabolic syndrome.peer-reviewe