Dataset Information

Pharmacist intervention on prescribing errors: Use of a standardized approach in the inpatient setting.

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

The objective of this study was to implement a standardized process across health systems to determine the prevalence and clinical relevance of prescribing errors intercepted by pharmacists.

Methods

This prospective, multicenter, observational study was conducted across 11 hospitals. Pharmacist-intercepted prescribing errors were collected during inpatient order verification over 6 consecutive weeks utilizing a standardized documentation process. The potential harm of each error was evaluated using a modified National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC-MERP) index with physician validation, and errors were stratified into those with potentially low, serious, or life-threatening harm. Endpoints included the median error rate per 1,000 patient days, error type, and potential harm with correlating cost avoidance.

Results

Pharmacists intervened on 7,187 errors, resulting in a mean error rate of 39 errors per 1,000 patient days. Among the errors, 46.6% (n = 3,349) were determined to have potentially serious consequences and 2.4% (n = 175) could have been life-threatening if not intercepted. This equates to $874,000 in avoided cost. The top 3 error types occurring with the highest frequency were "wrong dose/rate/frequency" (n = 2,298, 32.0%), "duplicate therapy" (n = 1,431, 19.9%), and "wrong timing" (n = 960, 13.4%). "Wrong dose/rate/frequency" (n = 49, 28%), "duplicate therapy" (n = 26, 14.9%), and "drug-disease interaction" (n = 24, 13.7%) errors occurred with the highest frequency among errors with potential for life-threatening harm. "Wrong dose/rate/frequency" (n = 1,028, 30.7%), "wrong timing" (n = 573, 17.1%), and "duplicate therapy" (n = 482, 14.4%) errors occurred with the highest frequency among errors with potentially serious harm.

Conclusion

Documentation of pharmacist intervention on prescribing errors via a standardized process creates a platform for multicenter analysis of prescribing error trends and an opportunity for development of system-wide solutions to reduce potential harm from prescribing errors.

SUBMITTER: Cabri A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8406888 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: While clinical pharmacists are expected to have a potential role in minimizing prescribing errors (PEs) in patients with diabetes, the effectiveness of their interventions on the incidence and clinical significance of PEs remains unclear. Objectives: To investigate the effectiveness of clinical pharmacist interventions in correcting PEs in diabetic patients with major polypharmacy. Methods: This was a prospective pre-post study conducted in a secondary care hospital in Jordan over 4 months. There were 2 phases: Control, in which PEs were identified and categorized and active, in which clinical pharmacists intercepted and corrected PEs. Clinical severity of prescribing incidents was evaluated by an expert panel, comprising a senior clinical pharmacist, an internist, and cardiologist. SPSS V26 was used for data analysis. Results: Of 928 patients, 432 were followed and reviewed during the control phase and 496 during the active phase. Clinical pharmacist interventions reduced PEs by 89.5%; from 27.6% (control) to 2.9% (active). PEs per patient and PEs per medication orders were reduced from 2.1 to 0.2 and from 0.3 to 0.03, respectively. Electronic selection errors, wrong dose frequency, duplicate drugs, and allergy errors disappeared in the active phase. Significant, serious, and lethal errors were significantly reduced from 35.4%, 11.6%, and 0.2% (control) to 13.5%, 3.1%, and 0.0% (active), respectively. drugs related to CVS (OR = 5.2; 95% CI, 3.1-8.6; P < .05) versus drugs related to endocrine system was more likely to be associated with the occurrence of PEs versus no PEs. However, drug belonging to infectious (OR = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.1-0.9; P < .05) versus drugs related to endocrine system was less likely to be associated with the occurrence PEs versus no PEs. Conclusion: Clinical pharmacist interventions significantly reduced PEs in patients with diabetes by 89.5% and most of these interventions were clinically significant.

Project description:Clinically important medication errors are common after hospital discharge. They include preventable or ameliorable adverse drug events (ADEs), as well as medication discrepancies or nonadherence with high potential for future harm (potential ADEs).To determine the effect of a tailored intervention on the occurrence of clinically important medication errors after hospital discharge.Randomized, controlled trial with concealed allocation and blinded outcome assessors. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00632021)Two tertiary care academic hospitals.Adults hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes or acute decompensated heart failure.Pharmacist-assisted medication reconciliation, inpatient pharmacist counseling, low-literacy adherence aids, and individualized telephone follow-up after discharge.The primary outcome was the number of clinically important medication errors per patient during the first 30 days after hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included preventable or ameliorable ADEs, as well as potential ADEs.Among 851 participants, 432 (50.8%) had 1 or more clinically important medication errors; 22.9% of such errors were judged to be serious and 1.8% life-threatening. Adverse drug events occurred in 258 patients (30.3%) and potential ADEs in 253 patients (29.7%). The intervention did not significantly alter the per-patient number of clinically important medication errors (unadjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.10]) or ADEs (unadjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.09 [CI, 0.86 to 1.39]). Patients in the intervention group tended to have fewer potential ADEs (unadjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.80 [CI, 0.61 to 1.04]).The characteristics of the study hospitals and participants may limit generalizability.Clinically important medication errors were present among one half of patients after hospital discharge and were not significantly reduced by a health-literacy-sensitive, pharmacist-delivered intervention.National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Project description:BackgroundResidents in care homes are often very frail, have complex medicine regimens and are at high risk of adverse drug events. It has been recommended that one healthcare professional should assume responsibility for their medicines management. We propose that this could be a pharmacist independent prescriber (PIP). This feasibility study aimed to test and refine the service specification and proposed study processes to inform the design and outcome measures of a definitive randomised controlled trial to examine the clinical and cost effectiveness of PIPs working in care homes compared to usual care. Specific objectives included testing processes for participant identification, recruitment and consent and assessing retention rates; determining suitability of outcome measures and data collection processes from care homes and GP practices to inform selection of a primary outcome measure; assessing service and research acceptability; and testing and refining the service specification.MethodsMixed methods (routine data, questionnaires and focus groups/interviews) were used in this non-randomised open feasibility study of a 3-month PIP intervention in care homes for older people. Data were collected at baseline and 3 months. One PIP, trained in service delivery, one GP practice and up to three care homes were recruited at each of four UK locations. For ten eligible residents (≥ 65 years, on at least one regular medication) in each home, the PIP undertook management of medicines, repeat prescription authorisation, referral to other healthcare professionals and staff training. Outcomes (falls, medications, resident's quality of life and activities of daily living, mental state and adverse events) were described at baseline and follow-up and assessed for inclusion in the main study. Participants' views post-intervention were captured in audio-recorded focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were thematically analysed.ResultsAcross the four locations, 44 GP practices and 16 PIPs expressed interest in taking part; all care homes invited agreed to take part. Two thirds of residents approached consented to participate (53/86). Forty residents were recruited (mean age 84 years; 61% (24) were female), and 38 participants remained at 3 months (two died). All GP practices, PIPs and care homes were retained. The number of falls per participating resident was selected as the primary outcome, following assessment of the different outcome measures against predetermined criteria. The chosen secondary outcomes/outcome measures include total falls, drug burden index (DBI), hospitalisations, mortality, activities of daily living (Barthel (proxy)) and quality of life (ED-5Q-5 L (face-to-face and proxy)) and selected items from the STOPP/START guidance that could be assessed without need for clinical judgement. No adverse drug events were reported. The PIP service was generally well received by the majority of stakeholders (care home staff, GPS, residents, relatives and other health care professionals). PIPs reported feeling more confident implementing change following the training but reported challenges accommodating the new service within their existing workload.ConclusionImplementing a PIP service in care homes is feasible and acceptable to care home residents, staff and clinicians. Findings have informed refinements to the service specification, PIP training, recruitment to the future RCT and the choice of outcomes and outcome measures. The full RCT with internal pilot started in February 2016 and results are expected to be available in mid late 2020.

Project description:ContextMedical interns (interns) find prescribing challenging and many report lacking readiness when commencing work. Errors in prescribing puts patients' safety at risk. Yet error rates remain high, despite education, supervision and pharmacists' contributions. Feedback on prescribing may improve performance. Yet, work-based prescribing feedback practices focus on rectifying errors. We aimed to explore if prescribing can be improved using a theory-informed feedback intervention.MethodsIn this pre-post study, we designed and implemented a constructivist-theory informed prescribing feedback intervention, informed by Feedback-Mark 2 Theory. Interns commencing internal medicine terms in two Australian teaching hospitals were invited to engage in the feedback intervention. Their prescribing was evaluated by comparing errors per medication order of at least 30 orders per intern. Pre/baseline (weeks 1-3) were compared with post intervention (weeks 8-9). Interns' baseline prescribing audit findings were analysed and discussed at individualised feedback sessions. These sessions were with a clinical pharmacologist (Site 1) and a pharmacist educator (Site 2).ResultsEighty eight intern's prescribing over five 10-week terms was analysed from two hospitals. The frequency of prescribing errors significantly reduced at both sites after the intervention, across all five terms (p < 0.001).There were initially 1598 errors in 2750 orders (median [IQR] 0.48 [0.35-0.67] errors per order) and after the intervention 1113 errors in 2694 orders (median [IQR] 0.30 [0.17-0.50] errors per order).ConclusionOur findings suggest interns' prescribing practices may improve as a result of constructivist -theory learner centred, informed feedback with an agreed plan. This novel intervention, contributed, to a reduction in interns' prescribing errors. This study suggests new strategies for improving prescribing safety should include the design and implementation of theory-informed feedback interventions.