Dataset Information

Patient counselling service with the use of pictograms as the example of pharmacist intervention to improving compliance and medicine safety.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Pharmaceutical pictograms have been designed to help communicate medication instructions to patients. Pictograms used within a patient counseling service can significantly improve medication compliance and adherence. The study aimed to assess the improvement of adherence to therapy with the use of pictogram intervention in comparison to standard pharmacy practice in community pharmacies.

Methods

Pictograms informing about the proper way of using metoprolol prolonged release tablets were designed to be used on the packages of the drug in community pharmacies. Pharmacies belonging to a pharmacy practice-based research network were randomly assigned to a group using pictograms when dispensing the drug or one following their normal practice. At the first visit, all patients answered a structured questionnaire about their medication behavior in the preceding 7 days. The same questions were asked 4 weeks later to follow-up treatment adherence change and compare patients from pictogram group and standard practice group. Descriptive statistics was used to analyze the data, and the McNemar test was used to compare categorical data at baseline and follow-up.

Results

Of a total of 253 patients screened, 117 and 104 patients completed the study in the standard practice and pictogram groups, respectively. The use of pictograms significantly improved medication adherence in the following areas: not omitting doses (p < 0.0001), not crushing tablets (p = 0.004), number of tablets/day (p = 0.49), and time of use (p = 0.001), compared to the standard practice group.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that pictograms are effective in conveying messages about the proper way of using medications, and they increase treatment adherence, in comparison to standard dispensing practice.

SUBMITTER: Merks P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8747827 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Pharmacist counselling is an important service that has been associated with improved outcomes. The primary aim of this review was to identify, describe, and determine the effectiveness of interventions for improving the counselling practice of community pharmacists. METHODS:We searched PubMed (from January 1990 to June 2017) and the Cochrane Library (June 2017). To supplement our database searches, we searched Google Scholar for papers that cited the identified studies. We included only studies that reported the impact of the intervention on pharmacists' behaviour during counselling. We searched for data from studies with randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, or interrupted time series study designs. Parameters including selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, and attrition bias were assessed. The data were narratively synthesised. RESULTS:We screened 2335 abstracts and 59 full-text articles and included 17 RCTs. Overall, three studies were determined to have a high risk of bias, and 14 studies were determined to have an unclear risk of bias. Fifteen studies investigated multifaceted interventions that included two or more components. The most commonly used interventions were educational meetings (n = 14), educational materials (n = 9), educational outreach visits (n = 5), feedback (n = 5), guidelines (n = 5), and local opinion leaders (n = 2). Outcomes were measured using simulated patient visits (n = 10), and the self-reported outcomes of patient or pharmacists (n = 6). Most of the included studies (n = 11) reported some degree of improvement in counselling practices. CONCLUSIONS:The included studies showed that educational meetings combined with educational materials, outreach visits, and feedback can improve pharmacist counselling in community settings. However, the unclear risk of bias and poor quality of reporting intervention components necessitate caution in interpreting the findings. Recommendations for future studies based on the evidence gap identified in this review are presented.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Medication errors, adverse drug events, and nonadherence are the predominant causes of graft loss in kidney transplant recipients and lead to increased healthcare utilization. Research has demonstrated that clinical pharmacists have the unique education and training to identify these events early and develop strategies to mitigate or prevent downstream sequelae. In addition, studies utilizing mHealth interventions have demonstrated success in improving the control of chronic conditions that lead to kidney transplant deterioration. OBJECTIVE:The goal of the prospective, randomized TRANSAFE Rx study is to measure the clinical and economic effectiveness of a pharmacist-led, mHealth-based intervention, as compared to usual care, in kidney transplant recipients. METHODS:TRANSAFE Rx is a 12-month, parallel, two-arm, 1:1 randomized controlled clinical trial involving 136 participants (68 in each arm) and measuring the clinical and economic effectiveness of a pharmacist-led intervention which utilizes an innovative mobile health application to improve medication safety and health outcomes, as compared to usual posttransplant care. RESULTS:The primary outcome measure of this study will be the incidence and severity of MEs and ADRs, which will be identified, categorized, and compared between the intervention and control cohorts. The exploratory outcome measures of this study are to compare the incidence and severity of acute rejections, infections, graft function, graft loss, and death between research cohorts and measure the association between medication safety issues and these events. Additional data that will be gathered includes sociodemographics, health literacy, depression, and support. CONCLUSIONS:With this report we describe the study design, methods, and outcome measures that will be utilized in the ongoing TRANSAFE Rx clinical trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03247322: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03247322 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6xcSUnuzW).

Project description:BackgroundDespite the recent increase in opioid overdoses across Canada, few pharmacy-led initiatives have been implemented to address issues related to opioid prescribing in the hospital setting.ObjectivesThe primary objective of this study was to develop a clinical tool, intended for use by hospital pharmacists and informed by best practices from the literature, that would provide a structured approach to enhancing the safety of opioid prescribing. The secondary objective was to collect pharmacists' opinions about the feasibility and utility of this tool.MethodsA comprehensive literature search and pharmacist focus group analysis provided content for development of a candidate clinical tool. This tool was then piloted by clinical pharmacists working on general medical and surgical units in a single hospital. Pharmacists participating in the pilot were invited to complete an online survey concerning their perceptions of the tool. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the survey results.ResultsThe literature search and focus group analysis led to development of a candidate clinical tool that focused on Medication review, Optimization, Reassessment, and Education (MORE). It included key risk factors relating to opioid safety, along with suggested mitigating strategies. The MORE tool was piloted for 3 weeks by 14 clinical pharmacists, 9 of whom responded to the subsequent survey. Five respondents indicated that the clinical tool increased their ability to identify risk factors. Five respondents also noted an increase in their ability to identify possible interventions. Most respondents felt that the tool was useful and that it would be feasible to integrate it into their practice; however, they noted that a more streamlined version could improve ease of use.ConclusionsThe MORE tool was well received by clinical pharmacists. Implementation of the tool into routine practice requires additional changes to improve ease of use. Suggestions for modifying and streamlining the tool will be incorporated into future versions.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Medication errors, adverse drug events, and nonadherence lead to increased health care utilization and increased risk of adverse clinical outcomes, including graft loss, in solid organ transplant recipients. Veterans living with organ transplants represent a population that is at substantial risk for medication safety events and fragmented care coordination issues. To improve medication safety and long-term clinical outcomes in veteran transplant patients, interventions should address interorganizational system failures and provider-level and patient-level factors. OBJECTIVE:This study aims to measure the clinical and economic effectiveness of a pharmacist-led, technology-enabled intervention, compared with usual care, in veteran organ transplant recipients. METHODS:This is a 24-month prospective, parallel-arm, cluster-randomized, controlled multicenter study. The pharmacist-led intervention uses an innovative dashboard system to improve medication safety and health outcomes, compared with usual posttransplant care. Pharmacists at 10 study sites will be consented into this study before undergoing randomization, and 5 sites will then be randomized to each study arm. Approximately, 1600 veteran transplant patients will be included in the assessment of the primary outcome across the 10 sites. RESULTS:This study is ongoing. Institutional review board approval was received in October 2018 and the study opened in March 2019. To date there are no findings from this study, as the delivery of the intervention is scheduled to occur over a 24-month period. The first results are expected to be submitted for publication in August 2021. CONCLUSIONS:With this report, we describe the study design, methods, and outcome measures that will be used in this ongoing clinical trial. Successful completion of the Improving Transplant Medication Safety through a Technology and Pharmacist Intervention study will provide empirical evidence of the effectiveness of a feasible and scalable technology-enabled intervention on improving medication safety and costs. CLINICAL TRIAL:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03860818; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03860818. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):PRR1-10.2196/13821.

Project description:BackgroundWe evaluated the impact of the pharmacist-led Safety Medication dASHboard (SMASH) intervention on medication safety in primary care.Methods and findingsSMASH comprised (1) training of clinical pharmacists to deliver the intervention; (2) a web-based dashboard providing actionable, patient-level feedback; and (3) pharmacists reviewing individual at-risk patients, and initiating remedial actions or advising general practitioners on doing so. It was implemented in 43 general practices covering a population of 235,595 people in Salford (Greater Manchester), UK. All practices started receiving the intervention between 18 April 2016 and 26 September 2017. We used an interrupted time series analysis of rates (prevalence) of potentially hazardous prescribing and inadequate blood-test monitoring, comparing observed rates post-intervention to extrapolations from a 24-month pre-intervention trend. The number of people registered to participating practices and having 1 or more risk factors for being exposed to hazardous prescribing or inadequate blood-test monitoring at the start of the intervention was 47,413 (males: 23,073 [48.7%]; mean age: 60 years [standard deviation: 21]). At baseline, 95% of practices had rates of potentially hazardous prescribing (composite of 10 indicators) between 0.88% and 6.19%. The prevalence of potentially hazardous prescribing reduced by 27.9% (95% CI 20.3% to 36.8%, p < 0.001) at 24 weeks and by 40.7% (95% CI 29.1% to 54.2%, p < 0.001) at 12 months after introduction of SMASH. The rate of inadequate blood-test monitoring (composite of 2 indicators) reduced by 22.0% (95% CI 0.2% to 50.7%, p = 0.046) at 24 weeks; the change at 12 months (23.5%) was no longer significant (95% CI -4.5% to 61.6%, p = 0.127). After 12 months, 95% of practices had rates of potentially hazardous prescribing between 0.74% and 3.02%. Study limitations include the fact that practices were not randomised, and therefore unmeasured confounding may have influenced our findings.ConclusionsThe SMASH intervention was associated with reduced rates of potentially hazardous prescribing and inadequate blood-test monitoring in general practices. This reduction was sustained over 12 months after the start of the intervention for prescribing but not for monitoring of medication. There was a marked reduction in the variation in rates of hazardous prescribing between practices.