Clinical pharmacist assessment of drug-related problems among intensive care unit patients in a Turkish university hospital

Background Critically ill patients treated in the intensive care units (ICUs) often suffer from side effects and drug-related problems (DRPs) that can be life-threatening. A way to prevent DRPs and improve drug safety and efficacy is to include clinical pharmacists in the clinical team. This study aims to evaluate the classification of drug-related problems and the implementation of clinical pharmacy services by a clinical pharmacist in the ICU of a university hospital in Turkey. Methods This study was carried out prospectively between December 2020 and July 2021 in Gazi University Medical Faculty Hospital Internal Diseases ICU. All patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit for more than 24 h were included in the study. During the study, the clinical pharmacist's interventions and other clinical services for patients were recorded. DRPs were classed according to the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe V.8.02. Results A total of 151 patients were included during the study period corresponding to 2264 patient-days. Patients with DRPs had a longer hospital stay and a higher mortality rate (p < 0.05). 108 patients had at least one DRP and the total number of DRPs was 206. There was an average of 1.36 DRPs per patient, 71.5% of patients experienced DRP and 89.22 DRPs per 1000 patient-days. A total of 35 ADEs were observed in 32 patients. ADE incidence was per 1000 patient-days 15.45. ADEs were caused by nephrotoxicity (48.57%), electrolyte disorders (17.14%), drug-induced thrombocytopenia (17.14%), liver enzyme increase (8.57%) and other causes (8.57%). Drug selection (40.29%) and dose selection (54.36%) constituted most of the causes of DRPs. Dose change was the highest percentage of planned interventions with a rate of 56.79%. Intervention was accepted at a rate of 90.8% and it was fully implemented. Conclusion In this study, the importance of the clinical pharmacist in the determination and analysis of DRPs was emphasized. Clinical pharmacy services like the one described should be implemented widely to increase patient safety.

The Sri Lankan Perspective of Implementing Clinical Pharmacy Services

Clinical Pharmacists provide pharmaceutical care to patients to ensure quality use of medicines and to improve patients’ quality of life. Although clinical pharmacy services have shown medication related benefits to patients, this service has still not been formerly established in Sri Lanka. This report is on the status of developing clinical pharmacy services in Sri Lanka as perceived by an academic who has been involved in teaching, research, and in the development of clinical pharmacy services in Sri Lanka. Keywords: Clinical pharmacy, Pharmacy education, Pharmaceutical care, Sri Lanka

“This is streets ahead of what we used to do”: staff perceptions of virtual clinical pharmacy services in rural and remote Australian hospitals

Background The use of medications is the most common intervention in healthcare. However, unsafe medication practices and medication errors are a leading cause of injury and avoidable harm in healthcare systems across the world. A Virtual Clinical Pharmacy Service (VCPS) was introduced in rural and remote New South Wales public hospitals to support safe and effective use of medications. In this model clinical pharmacy services are delivered via a telehealth cart at the patient’s bedside and through electronic medical and pharmaceutical record systems. The aim of this research was to understand healthcare staff perspectives of the VCPS and identify areas for improvement. Methods A qualitative approach informed by Appreciative Inquiry was used to investigate healthcare staff perceptions of the VCPS. Focus group discussions (n = 15) with hospital staff and medical officers were conducted via videoconference at each study site. Focus groups explored issues, benefits and barriers 3 months after service implementation. Transcribed data were analysed using thematic analysis and team discussion to synthesise themes. Results Focus group participants identified the value of the VCPS to patients, to the health service and to themselves. They also identified enhancements to increase value for each of these groups. Perceived benefits to patients included access to specialist medication advice and improved medication knowledge. Staff valued access to an additional, trusted workforce who provided back-up and guidance. Staff also reported confidence in improved patient safety and identification of medication errors. Enhanced compliance with antimicrobial stewardship and hospital accreditation standards were beneficial to the health service. Suggested improvements included extending virtual service hours and widening patient eligibility to include aged care patients. Conclusions The VCPS brought a positive, collegiate culture regarding medications. Healthcare staff perceived the VCPS was effective and an efficient way for the health service to supply pharmacy services to smaller hospitals. The ease of use, model of delivery, availability, local knowledge and responsiveness of highly skilled pharmacists was the key to user satisfaction. Trial registration ANZCTR ACTRN12619001757101, 11/12/2019.

“This is streets ahead of what we used to do”: Staff perceptions of virtual clinical pharmacy services in rural and remote Australian hospitals

Background: The use of medications is the most common intervention in healthcare. However, unsafe medication practices and medication errors are a leading cause of injury and avoidable harm in healthcare systems across the world. A Virtual Clinical Pharmacy Service (VCPS) was introduced in rural and remote New South Wales public hospitals to support safe and effective use of medications. In this model clinical pharmacy services are delivered via a telehealth cart at the patient’s bedside and through electronic medical and pharmaceutical record systems. The aim of this research was to understand healthcare staff perspectives of the VCPS and identify areas for improvement. Methods: A qualitative approach informed by Appreciative Inquiry was used to investigate healthcare staff perceptions of the VCPS. Focus group discussions (n=15) with hospital staff and medical officers were conducted via videoconference at each study site. Focus groups explored issues, benefits and barriers three months after service implementation. Transcribed data was analysed using thematic analysis and team discussion to synthesise themes. Results: Focus group participants identified the value of the VCPS to patients, to the health service and to themselves. They also identified enhancements to increase value for each of these groups. Perceived benefits to patients included access to specialist medication advice and improved medication knowledge. Staff valued access to an additional, trusted workforce who provided back-up and guidance. Staff also reported confidence in improved patient safety and identification of medication errors. Enhanced compliance with antimicrobial stewardship and hospital accreditation standards were beneficial to the health service. Suggested improvements included extending virtual service hours and widening patient eligibility to include aged care patients. Conclusions: The VCPS brought a positive, collegiate culture regarding medications. Healthcare staff perceived the VCPS was effective and an efficient way for the health service to supply pharmacy services to smaller hospitals. The ease of use, model of delivery, availability, local knowledge and responsiveness of highly skilled pharmacists was the key to user satisfaction.