scholarly journals PHP44 COST AVOIDANCE OF CLINICAL PHARMACIST INTERVENTIONS AT A UNIVERSITYTEACHING HOSPITAL

2005 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. A194
Author(s):  
AM Howe
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Pharmacist ◽  
Cost Avoidance ◽  
Pharmacist Interventions

scholarly journals Quantitative and economic analysis of clinical pharmacist interventions during rounds in an acute care psychiatric hospital

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 242-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alicia Gunterus ◽  
Shruti Lopchuk ◽  
Christina Dunn ◽  
Ronald Floyd ◽  
Brad Normandin
Keyword(s):  
Cost Saving ◽  
Economic Analysis ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Psychiatric Hospital ◽  
Clinical Pharmacist ◽  
Hospital Setting ◽  
Medication Order ◽  
Cost Avoidance ◽  
Pharmacist Interventions ◽  
Medical Teams

Abstract Introduction: Clinical pharmacists have become an integral part of multidisciplinary medical teams, including in the area of psychiatry. Previous studies have shown that having pharmacists in multidisciplinary medical teams has led to improved medication use, reduction of adverse drug events, and improved patient outcomes. The purpose of this study is to conduct a quantitative and economic analysis of the impact of clinical pharmacist interventions during hospital rounds in an acute care psychiatric hospital setting. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of 200 clinical pharmacist interventions documented between September 2013 and September 2014. Clinical pharmacist interventions were classified into several categories and types. Only clinical pharmacist interventions made during multidisciplinary team rounds were included in the study. Descriptive statistics were used for the quantitative analysis of clinical pharmacist interventions. The acceptance rate was calculated. Only the accepted clinical interventions were included in the economic analysis. Economic outcome involved an assessment of cost saving and cost avoidance. Results: The most frequent types of clinical pharmacist interventions were discontinuation of medications (38.5%), laboratory monitoring (26%), and medication order modification (13.5%). The most common reason for drug discontinuation was polypharmacy. Clinical pharmacist interventions were associated with a 92.5% acceptance rate. Two hundred clinical pharmacist interventions were associated with $6760.19 medication cost saving and $62 806.67 cost avoidance. Discussion: Clinical pharmacist interventions during rounds in an acute care psychiatric hospital setting mostly involve medication order modification and laboratory monitoring. They are also associated with significant cost saving and cost avoidance.

Methods used to attribute costs avoided from pharmacist interventions in acute care: A scoping review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sujita W Narayan ◽  
Ivo Abraham ◽  
Brian L Erstad ◽  
Curtis E Haas ◽  
Arthur Sanders ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Care ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Pharmacy Practice ◽  
Economic Implications ◽  
Medline Search ◽  
Cost Avoidance ◽  
Harmful Consequence ◽  
Pharmacist Interventions ◽  
Acute Care Settings ◽  
Human Participants

Abstract Purpose Cost-avoidance studies are common in pharmacy practice literature. This scoping review summarizes, critiques, and identifies current limitations of the methods that have been used to determine cost avoidance associated with pharmacists’ interventions in acute care settings. Methods An Embase and MEDLINE search was conducted to identify studies that estimated cost avoidance from pharmacist interventions in acute care settings. We included studies with human participants and articles published in English from July 2010 to January 2021, with the intent of summarizing the evidence most relevant to contemporary practice. Results The database search retrieved 129 articles, of which 39 were included. Among these publications, less than half (18 of 39) mentioned whether the researchers assigned a probability for the occurrence of a harmful consequence in the absence of an intervention; thus, a 100% probability of a harmful consequence was assumed. Eleven of the 39 articles identified the specific harm that would occur in the absence of intervention. No clear methods of estimating cost avoidance could be identified for 7 studies. Among all 39 included articles, only 1 attributed both a probability to the potential harm and identified the cost specific to that harm. Conclusion Cost-avoidance studies of pharmacists’ interventions in acute care settings over the last decade have common flaws and provide estimates that are likely to be inflated. There is a need for guidance on consistent methodology for such investigations for reporting of results and to confirm the validity of their economic implications.

scholarly journals 179 Evaluating a Clinical Pharmacist Service in a Residential Care Unit

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. iii1-iii16
Author(s):  
Claire Kavanagh ◽  
Eimear O'Dwyer ◽  
Róisín Purcell ◽  
Niamh McMahon ◽  
Morgan Crowe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Safety ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Residential Care ◽  
Clinical Pharmacist ◽  
Comparative Evaluation ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Pharmacist Interventions ◽  
Medication Reviews

Abstract Background This study assessed the pharmacist role in an 80 bed residential care unit by: Quantifying the number and type of pharmacist interventions made and their acceptance rate.Assessing impact of pharmacist interventions on patient care.Assessing staff attitudes towards the clinical pharmacist service. Methods This was a non-blinded, non-comparative evaluation of the existing clinical pharmacist service in the unit. All residents were included. All pharmacist interventions over a 10-week period were recorded, then graded according to the Eadon scale1 by a consultant gerontologist and an experienced pharmacist to assess their impact on patient care. Results There were 615 pharmacist interventions. The most common interventions were: Drug Therapy Review, 34% (n=209) Technical Prescription, 26.5% (n=163) Administration, 15.3% (n=94) Drug Interaction, 10.4% (n=64) Medication Reconciliation, 8.5% (n=52) 98% (n=596) of interventions were rated as having significance to patient care, of which: 48.4% (n=298) and 41.8% (n=257) of the interventions rated as ‘significant and resulting in an improvement in the standard of care’1% (n=6) and 0.5% (n=3) rated as ‘very significant and preventing harm’. There was a statistically significant agreement between the evaluators, κw = 0.231 (95% CI, 0.156 to 0.307), p < .0005. The strength of agreement was fair. Of interventions requiring acceptance by medical team (n=335), 89.9% (n=301) were accepted. 95% (n=36) of staff who responded agreed or strongly agreed that improved patient safety resulted from the pharmacist’s involvement in multidisciplinary medication reviews. Over 92% (n=35) agreed or strongly agreed that their experience of the pharmacist was positive. Conclusion The pharmacist has an important role in our residential care unit. Their involvement in the medicines optimisation process positively impacts patient outcomes and prevents harm. Staff perceived a positive impact of the clinical pharmacist service provided on patient care and patient safety.

scholarly journals 4CPS-229 Analysis of clinical pharmacist interventions in the heart failure day hospital

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Eguiluz Solana ◽  
A Gomez Sanchez ◽  
M Saez Rodriguez ◽  
M Miranda Magaña ◽  
B Tortajada Goitia
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Clinical Pharmacist ◽  
Day Hospital ◽  
Pharmacist Interventions

Proposed guidance on cost-avoidance studies in pharmacy practice

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asad E Patanwala ◽  
Sujita W Narayan ◽  
Curtis E Haas ◽  
Ivo Abraham ◽  
Arthur Sanders ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Pharmacy ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Pharmacoeconomic Analysis ◽  
Pharmacy Practice ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Cost Assessment ◽  
Potential Consequence ◽  
Cost Avoidance ◽  
Pharmacist Interventions

Abstract Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Purpose Cost-avoidance studies of pharmacist interventions are common and often the first type of study conducted by investigators to quantify the economic impact of clinical pharmacy services. The purpose of this primer is to provide guidance for conducting cost-avoidance studies pertaining to clinical pharmacy practice. Summary Cost-avoidance studies represent a paradigm conceptually different from traditional pharmacoeconomic analysis. A cost-avoidance study reports on cost savings from a given intervention, where the savings is estimated based on a counterfactual scenario. Investigators need to determine what specifically would have happened to the patient if the intervention did not occur. This assessment can be fundamentally flawed, depending on underlying assumptions regarding the pharmacists’ action and the patient trajectory. It requires careful identification of the potential consequence of nonaction, as well as probability and cost assessment. Given the uncertainty of assumptions, sensitivity analyses should be performed. A step-by-step methodology, formula for calculations, and best practice guidance is provided. Conclusions Cost-avoidance studies focused on pharmacist interventions should be considered low-level evidence. These studies are acceptable to provide pilot data for the planning of future clinical trials. The guidance provided in this article should be followed to improve the quality and validity of such investigations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document