Prescribing errors on medical wards and the impact of clinical pharmacists

Background: Clinical pharmacists have a vital role in intercepting prescribing errors (PEs) but their impact within a Jordanian hospital emergency department (ED) has never been studied. Objective: To evaluate the impact of clinical pharmacy services on PEs and assess predictors of physicians’ acceptance of clinical pharmacists’ interventions. Setting: This study was conducted in the ED of the largest governmental hospital in Jordan. Method: This was a pre-post study conducted in October and November 2019 using a disguised observational method. There were 2 phases: control phase (P0) with no clinical interventions, and active phase (P1) where clinical pharmacists prospectively intervened upon errors. The clinical significance of errors was determined by a multidisciplinary committee. The SPSS software version 24 was used for data analysis. Main Outcome Measure: PEs incidence, type, severity, and predictors for physicians’ acceptance. Results: Of 18003 patients, 8732 were included in P0 and 9271 in P1. PEs incidence decreased from 24.6% to 5.4%. Contraindication, drug selection, and dosage form error types were significantly reduced from 32.6%, 9.1%, and 3.7% (P0) to 12.6%, 0.0%, and 0.0% (P1), respectively. Albeit not statistically significant, drug-drug interaction, drug frequency, and allergy error types were reduced from 4.9%, 3.1%, and 0.1% to 4.5%, 2.5%, and 0.0%, respectively. Significant and serious errors were significantly reduced from 68.7% and 3.0% (P0) to 8.9% and 1.8% (P1), respectively. During P1, most errors were minor (89.3%, 1574/1763), and lethal errors ceased. Predictors for physicians’ acceptance were: significant errors (OR 3.1; 95% CI 2.6-4.3; P = 0.03) and non-busy physicians (OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.6-2.7; P = 0.04). Conclusion: Clinical pharmacists significantly reduced PEs in the ED by 76%; most of interventions were significant. Policymakers are advised to implement active clinical pharmacy in the ED.

Download Full-text

Differential impact of on-site or telepharmacy in the intensive care unit: a controlled before–after study

International Journal for Quality in Health Care ◽

10.1093/intqhc/mzab011 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 33 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Joao Gabriel Rosa Ramos ◽

Sandra Cristina Hernandes ◽

Talita Teles Teixeira Pereira ◽

Shana Oliveira ◽

Denis de Melo Soares ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Intensive Care Unit ◽

Intensive Care ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Phase 2 ◽

Differential Impact ◽

Scarce Resources ◽

Clinical Pharmacists ◽

Versus Phase ◽

Quasi Experimental ◽

The Impact

Abstract Background Clinical pharmacists have an important role in the intensive care unit (ICU) team but are scarce resources. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of on-site pharmacists on medical prescriptions in the ICU. Methods This is a retrospective, quasi-experimental, controlled before-after study in two ICUs. Interventions by pharmacists were evaluated in phase 1 (February to November 2016) and phase 2 (February to May 2017) in ICU A (intervention) and ICU B (control). In phase 1, both ICUs had a telepharmacy service in which medical prescriptions were evaluated and interventions were made remotely. In phase 2, an on-site pharmacist was implemented in ICU A, but not in ICU B. We compared the number of interventions that were accepted in phase 1 versus phase 2. Results During the study period, 8797/9603 (91.6%) prescriptions were evaluated, and 935 (10.6%) needed intervention. In phase 2, there was an increase in the proportion of interventions that were accepted by the physician in comparison to phase 1 (93.9% versus 76.8%, P < 0.001) in ICU A, but there was no change in ICU B (75.2% versus 73.9%, P = 0.845). Conclusion An on-site pharmacist in the ICU was associated with an increase in the proportion of interventions that were accepted by physicians.

Download Full-text

A Narrative Review of Clinical Decision Support for Inpatient Clinical Pharmacists

Applied Clinical Informatics ◽

10.1055/s-0041-1722916 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 (02) ◽

pp. 199-207

Author(s):

Liang Yan ◽

Thomas Reese ◽

Scott D. Nelson

Keyword(s):

Patient Safety ◽

Quality Of Care ◽

Decision Support ◽

Clinical Decision Support ◽

Clinical Decision ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Clinical Pharmacists ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

The Impact

Abstract Objective Increasingly, pharmacists provide team-based care that impacts patient care; however, the extent of recent clinical decision support (CDS), targeted to support the evolving roles of pharmacists, is unknown. Our objective was to evaluate the literature to understand the impact of clinical pharmacists using CDS. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central for randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized trials, and quasi-experimental studies which evaluated CDS tools that were developed for inpatient pharmacists as a target user. The primary outcome of our analysis was the impact of CDS on patient safety, quality use of medication, and quality of care. Outcomes were scored as positive, negative, or neutral. The secondary outcome was the proportion of CDS developed for tasks other than medication order verification. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results Of 4,365 potentially relevant articles, 15 were included. Five studies were randomized controlled trials. All included studies were rated as good quality. Of the studies evaluating inpatient pharmacists using a CDS tool, four showed significantly improved quality use of medications, four showed significantly improved patient safety, and three showed significantly improved quality of care. Six studies (40%) supported expanded roles of clinical pharmacists. Conclusion These results suggest that CDS can support clinical inpatient pharmacists in preventing medication errors and optimizing pharmacotherapy. Moreover, an increasing number of CDS tools have been developed for pharmacists' roles outside of order verification, whereby further supporting and establishing pharmacists as leaders in safe and effective pharmacotherapy.

Download Full-text

A simulation study of the interception of prescribing errors by clinical pharmacists in an acute hospital setting

Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice ◽

10.1111/jep.12363 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 21 (4) ◽

pp. 673-680 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Thibaut Caruba ◽

Abdelali Boussadi ◽

Emilie Lenain ◽

Virginie Korb-Savoldelli ◽

Florence Gillaizeau ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Simulation Study ◽

Hospital Setting ◽

Acute Hospital ◽

Prescribing Errors ◽

Clinical Pharmacists ◽

Acute Hospital Setting

Download Full-text

Evaluating the impact of a pharmacist-led prescribing feedback intervention on prescribing errors in a hospital setting

Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy ◽

10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.12.008 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

M. Lloyd ◽

S.D. Watmough ◽

S.V. O'Brien ◽

K. Hardy ◽

N. Furlong

Keyword(s):

Hospital Setting ◽

Prescribing Errors ◽

Feedback Intervention ◽

The Impact

Download Full-text

Outpatient prescribing errors and the impact of computerized prescribing

Journal of General Internal Medicine ◽

10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0194.x ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 20 (9) ◽

pp. 837-841 ◽

Cited By ~ 144

Author(s):

Tejal K. Gandhi ◽

Saul N. Weingart ◽

Andrew C. Seger ◽

Joshua Borus ◽

Elisabeth Burdick ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prescribing Errors ◽

The Impact

Download Full-text

INTERVENTIONS MADE BY UK PHARMACISTS TO MINIMISE RISK FROM PAEDIATRIC PRESCRIBING ERRORS

Archives of Disease in Childhood ◽

10.1136/archdischild-2016-311535.65 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 101 (9) ◽

pp. e2.62-e2 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Sattam Alenezi ◽

Janine Abramson ◽

Coral Smith ◽

Helen Sammons ◽

Sharon Conroy

Keyword(s):

Data Collection ◽

Routine Practice ◽

Medical Council ◽

Prescribing Errors ◽

Prescribing Error ◽

Error Type ◽

Common Error ◽

Clinical Pharmacists ◽

Paediatric Patients ◽

The Uk

BackgroundPrescribing errors have the potential to adversely affect the safe pharmacological treatment of patients of all ages. The multi-centre General Medical Council commissioned ‘EQUIP’ study assessed the prevalence and nature of prescribing errors and found a mean rate of errors in 8.9% of medication orders.1 Paediatric data was not however analysed separately. Errors have been estimated to cause harm in paediatric patients three times more often than in adults.2 Clinical pharmacists play a role in identifying prescribing errors and minimising harm but this role has not been explored in detail in children in the UK.ObjectivesTo evaluate the prevalence and nature of prescribing errors and the role of hospital pharmacists in identifying and reducing risk in neonatal and paediatric patients.MethodsData collection sites were identified through the Neonatal and Paediatric Pharmacists Group by an email asking for volunteer centres. Clinical pharmacists working in these hospitals were asked to document prescribing errors in inpatient medication orders identified as part of their routine practice using a data collection form adapted from the EQUIP study1. A variety of hospital settings were aimed for.Data was collected monthly on six separate weekdays in most of the participating hospitals in 2013. Data was entered on to a SPSS database for collation and analysis.Classification of error type and potential severity was done using the EQUIP study categories1. Drugs were categorised according to the British National Formulary for Children3 and patient's ages were grouped according to the International Conference of Harmonisation guidelines.4 ResultsThirteen hospitals (eight specialist children's and five general teaching hospitals) from across the UK agreed to participate. Pharmacists checked 11,941 prescriptions written for 3,330 patients and identified 1,039 errors: an overall rate of 8.7% of medication orders with 20.6% of all patients having a prescribing error.Overdose was found to be the most common error followed by incorrect or missing administration times and underdose. This was in contrast to the EQUIP study where omission errors were most common. Specialist trainees/trust grade fixed term specialty training appointments (FTSTAs) made the majority of errors; however this was in proportion with the number of prescriptions which they wrote. Antibacterial and analgesic drugs were the most common classes associated with errors and the oral route was the most common route involved.70% errors were classified as minor, though 25% were considered significant, 5.4% serious and 0.22% (two errors) potentially lethal. Five patients were stated to have experienced harm.39.6% of errors occurred during the patient's hospital stay followed by 35% errors occurring on admission.ConclusionPrescribing errors occurred at a similar rate as in adult patients 1 but the most common type of errors was different with dosing errors most common in children. Clinical pharmacists' interventions play an important role in identifying and minimising harm from prescribing errors.

Download Full-text

Patient Access to Hepatitis C Treatment After Incorporation of Pharmacists in a Hepatology Clinic

Hospital Pharmacy ◽

10.1177/00185787211037540 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 001857872110375

Author(s):

Frank A. Fanizza ◽

Jennifer Loucks ◽

Angelica Berni ◽

Meera Shah ◽

Dennis Grauer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Hepatitis C ◽

Medication Adherence ◽

Hcv Treatment ◽

Clinical Pharmacists ◽

The Mean ◽

Group 2 ◽

Cure Rates ◽

The Impact ◽

Mean Time ◽

Group 1

Background: Modern hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment regimens yield cure rates greater than 90%. However, obtaining approval for treatment through the prior authorization (PA) process can be time consuming and require extensive documentation. Lack of experience with this complex process can delay HCV medication approval, ultimately increasing the amount of time before patients start treatment and in some cases, prevent treatment altogether. Objectives: Assess the impact of incorporating clinical pharmacists into specialty pharmacy and hepatology clinic services on medication access, patient adherence, and outcomes in patients being treated for HCV. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort exploratory study of patients seen in an academic medical center hepatology clinic who had HCV prescriptions filled between 8/1/15 and 7/31/17. Patients were categorized by whether they filled prescriptions prior to (Pre-Group) or after (Post-Group) the implementation of a pharmacist in clinic. The Post-Group was further divided according to whether the patient was seen by a pharmacist in clinic (Post-Group 2) or if the patient was not seen by the pharmacist, but had their HCV therapy evaluated by the pharmacist before seeking insurance approval (Post-Group 1). Results: The mean time from the prescription being ordered to being dispensed was longer in the Pre-Group (50.8 ± 66.5 days) compared to both Post-Groups (22.2 ± 27.8 days in Post-Group 1 vs 18.9 ± 17.7 days in Post-Group 2; P < .05). The mean time from when the prescription was ordered to when the PA was submitted was longer in the Pre-Group (41.6 ± 71.9 days) compared to both Post-Groups (6.3 ± 16 in Post-Group 1 vs 4.1 ± 9.7 in Post-Group 2; P < .05). Rates of medication adherence and sustained virologic response were similar between all groups. Conclusion: Incorporation of clinical pharmacists into a hepatology clinic significantly reduced the time patients waited to start HCV treatment. In addition to improving access to medications, implementation of the model helped to maintain excellent medication adherence and cure rates.

Download Full-text