Role of clinical pharmacist in the palliative care of adults and elderly patients with cancer: A scoping review

Objective: We conducted this scoping review to map and summarize scientific evidence on the role of clinical pharmacists in the palliative care of adults and elderly patients with cancer. Data Sources: A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, PubMed Central, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and BVS/BIREME for studies published until November 22nd, 2020. Studies that reported work experiences adopted by clinical pharmacists in the palliative care of adults and elderly patients with cancer were included. Two independent authors performed study selection and data extraction. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion with the third and fourth authors. The pharmacist interventions identified in the included studies were described based on key domains in the DEPICT v.2. Data Summary: A total of 586 records were identified, of which 14 studies fully met the eligibility criteria. Most of them were conducted in the United States of America (n = 5) and Canada (n = 5) and described the workplace of the pharmacist in clinic/ambulatory (n = 10). Clinical pharmacists performed several activities and provided services, highlighting medication review (n = 12), patient and caregivers education (n = 12), medication histories and-or medication reconciliation (n = 6). The pharmacist interventions were mostly conducted for patients/caregivers (n = 13), by one-on-one contact (n = 14), and by face-to-face (n = 13). Pharmacists were responsible mainly for change or suggestion for change in therapy (n = 12) and patient counselling (n = 12). Pharmacist interventions were well accepted by the clinical team. Overall, studies showed that pharmacists, within an interdisciplinary team, had significant impacts on measured outcomes. Conclusions: In recent years, there have been advances in the role of the pharmacist in palliative care of patients with cancer and there are great opportunities in this field. They play an important role in managing cancer pain and other symptoms, as well as resolving drug related problems. We encourage more research to be carried out to strengthen this field and to benefit patients with advanced cancer with higher quality of life.

Analysis of Pharmacist Interventions in Adult COVID-19 Patients Admitted to a Tertiary Care Hospital

Background: Pharmacists are integral members of the multidisciplinary healthcare team who, with their skills, knowledge, and training, are well positioned to prevent, identify, and manage medication-related issues. Many published articles related to COVID-19 management have highlighted the important role of the pharmacists in assuring the safe, effective, and cost-effective use of medications. During such challenging times of COVID-19 pandemic that resulted in a high demand on medical resources and healthcare providers, pharmacists are well positioned to contribute and add more efforts to the healthcare system to achieve best use of the available resources including medications and providing high quality pharmaceutical care to help the patients and support the healthcare providers. Methods: This is a retrospective chart review included all admitted adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis from 1 March 2020 till 30 June 2020. The documented clinical pharmacist interventions were extracted from the EMR and reviewed by multiple clinical pharmacists to identify type, number, frequency, outcome, and physician’s acceptance rate of documented interventions. Results: A total of 484 pharmacist interventions included in the final analysis. Antimicrobial stewardship interventions were the most reported (149, 30.8%) and antibiotics were the most reported class of medication, constituting 31.1% of the total interventions. “Optimized therapy” was the most commonly reported outcome (58.8%). Overall, 50.8% (246) of the interventions were rated as having “moderate” clinical significance using the clinical significance scoring tool. The physicians’ acceptance rate was 94.7%. Conclusion: Pharmacist interventions are associated with improved communication and medication use in admitted adult patients with COVID-19. Clinical pharmacists can play a crucial role in optimizing medication use in patients with COVID-19 through prevention, identification, and resolving existing or potential drug-related problems.

Medication regimen complexity vs patient acuity for predicting critical care pharmacist interventions

Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting 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 Quantifying and predicting critical care pharmacist (CCP) workload has significant ramifications for expanding CCP services that improve patient outcomes. Medication regimen complexity has been proposed as an objective, pharmacist-oriented metric that demonstrates relationships to patient outcomes and pharmacist interventions. The purpose of this evaluation was to compare the relationship of medication regimen complexity versus a traditional patient acuity metric for evaluating pharmacist interventions. Summary This was a post hoc analysis of a previously completed prospective, observational study. Pharmacist interventions were prospectively collected and tabulated at 24 hours, 48 hours, and intensive care unit (ICU) discharge, and the electronic medical record was reviewed to collect patient demographics, medication data, and outcomes. The primary outcome was the relationship between medication regimen complexity–intensive care unit (MRC-ICU) score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, and pharmacist interventions at 24 hours, 48 hours, and ICU discharge. These relationships were determined by Spearman rank-order correlation (rS) and confirmed by calculating the beta coefficient (β) via multiple linear regression adjusting for patient age, gender, and admission type. Data on 100 patients admitted to a mixed medical/surgical ICU were retrospectively evaluated. Both MRC-ICU and APACHE II scores were correlated with ICU interventions at all 3 time points (at 24 hours, rS = 0.370 [P < 0.001] for MRC-ICU score and rS = 0.283 [P = 0.004] for APACHE II score); however, this relationship was not sustained for APACHE II in the adjusted analysis (at 24 hours, β = 0.099 [P = 0.001] for MRC-ICU and β = 0.031 [P = 0.085] for APACHE II score). Conclusion A pharmacist-oriented score had a stronger relationship with pharmacist interventions as compared to patient acuity. As pharmacists have demonstrated value across the continuum of patient care, these findings support that pharmacist-oriented workload predictions require tailored metrics, beyond that of patient acuity.