Author(s)

Christina Anastasiadou – Lead Pharmacist Acute & Emergency Medicine
Karen Dicks – Chief Pharmacy Technician Medicines Management
Radhika Patel – Pharmacy Technician MMS

Why was it done?

Until October 2023, the A&E department in Croydon University Hospital in London lacked a full-time pharmacy service, unlike other London trusts. This has contributed to suboptimal medicine management and a delay in the identification of prescribing errors. This has resulted in longer stays, missed medication doses, and a rise in patient safety incidences. At a hospital level this reduces flow and increases cost due to medication wastage. Ultimately, the aim is to improve the flow of patients within the hospital via timely medicines provision, early clinical pharmacy intervention and early discharge planning.

What was done?

We have obtained funding from the Better Care Fund for a period of 2 years. This funding is aimed at assisting local systems in effectively achieving the integration of health and social care in a manner that promotes person-centred care, sustainability, and improved outcomes for individuals and caregivers. Therefore, we introduced a full-time pharmacy service including one pharmacist and two medicines management technicians (MMTs)—one full-time and one part-time. This initiative was implemented as a 2-year trial period, using key performance indicators (KPIs) to evaluate its effectiveness.

How was it done?

Data has been collected against the below KPIS:
1) Number of drug histories completed on admission, before patient is allocated a ward (by MMT or pharmacist) per calendar month.
2) Number of medicines reconciliations completed (by pharmacist) per calendar month.
3) Number of clinical interventions completed by all members of the pharmacy team.
4) Savings secondary to the use of patient’s own drugs (PODs) brought from home for administration to reduce medicines wastage.
5) Savings due to the return of medicines to inpatient pharmacy for re-use from other patients when appropriate.
6) Time between request of medicines from pharmacy dispensary and medicine being dispensed, checked and released to A&E.
7) Review of stock lists in all areas in A&E.
8) Reduction in omitted doses.
9) Discharge medicines supply and screening from A&E to streamline discharge.
10) Number of patients counselled on their medicines and provided with patient-friendly information on them.
11) Number of referrals to community teams i.e allocated chemist via Discharge Medicines Service, Integrated Care Network (ICN) pharmacists or specialty teams (i.e anticoagulation clinic for newly initiated anticoagulant) to provide continuation of care.
12) Liaising with specialty teams within the hospital to expedite review and treatment in a time efficient and cost-effective way.

What has been achieved?

The current pharmacy team is fully integrated into the A&E service and has contributed significantly towards advancing patient experience, via early pharmacy engagement with patients. During the first 10 months of the project, we have data to show:
1) A 540% increase in drug histories and medicines reconciliation on admission.
2) A 19.525% increase in clinical interventions and early detection of medication errors.
3) We have completed 5 teaching sessions so far, in order to tackle common prescribing and medicines management inaccuracies and embedding solutions into nurses and doctors training.
4) We have contributed towards the reduction in omitted doses by 6%.

Positive contribution towards tackling medicines wastage has been shown too. Our team contributed towards saving £13.110 from April to September 2024 by using PODs for administration in hospital and £10.483 by returning dispensed medications to the inpatient pharmacy for recycling and use for other patients for the same time period.

In addition, the team has completed 66 referrals to the community pharmacy team for follow up on newly started medicines, stopped medicines, adherence concerns and polypharmacy. This is in order to provide continuous care and establish follow-up after discharge from hospital.

All in all, improved safe patients flow in and out of hospital.

What next?

Work towards a business case for a permanent pharmacy service in A&E, to continue further developing the above. Utilise all the skills our MMTs hold, in order to continue working on patient safety, improved flow and cost improvement plans. Introduce a pharmacist-prescriber who will be able to tackle arising problems as soon as possible and provide high quality care in liaison with doctors, nurses and advanced care practitioners.

Author(s)

Muñoz Cid, CL; Sierra Torres, MI; Sánchez Martín, A; Martín Roldán, A; González Sánchez, B

Why was it done?

A procedure was designed for the registration of drug allergies of patients admitted to the hospital in the electronic prescription program by reviewing the digital medical record.

What was done?

Several issues lead to the need of this development:
-Lack of integration of allergy information from computerized history and electronic prescribing.
-To facilitate the appropriate triggering of alerts, correct allergy terminology, coded properly, and captured in a standard location
-Variability in the recording of this information at the different levels of healthcare (primary care and hospitalized).
-Difficulty in accessing information on drug allergies when prescribing and validating medical treatments.
-To improve Patient safety, there is a high risk of serious adverse events if the patient receives a drug to which he/she is allergic.

How was it done?

-Review of allergy documentation (free text), including a more detailed specification and characterization of the patient´s allergies to coded properly (allergy to medicines or therapeutic groups, contraindications, intolerances).
-Validation and configuration of the alert system stratifying risk by means of different colors of according to the information from the clinical history.
-Development of an algorithm to evaluate how to register each allergy depending on every different situation.
-Elaboration of a procedure to alert management and incorporation into the electronic prescription program.
-Dissemination of the procedure and awareness-raising of the need for proper recording.

What has been achieved?

-Preventing medication errors related to drug allergies and ensuring patient safety.
– Improving access to all allergy information for all healthcare professionals involved in the prescription and validation of medication.
– To have a standardized methodology for recording and coding allergies.
– Integrating medical record information into the electronic prescription system.
– Setting-up an effective alert system to avoid allergy errors in the e-prescribing system.

What next?

We have achieved the implementation in the Pharmacy Service of our hospital, but it has already been taken to the safety committee in order to extend this practice to all the services of our hospital and we are working on the formation of a working group within the Patient Safety Commission. We are considering extending this procedure to primary care in order to address this problem from all healthcare areas.

Author(s)

Elena Blanco Saiz

Why was it done?

It is estimated that over 80% of patients receiving treatment with cetuximab experience acneiform eruptions and/or skin dryness and flaking. Approximately 15% of these cutaneous reactions are severe, including cases of skin necrosis.
These skin lesions may predispose patients to secondary infections, potentially leading to complications such as cellulitis, erysipelas, staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome, necrotizing fasciitis, or sepsis, which can result in death.

What was done?

A kit consisting of an alcohol-free moisturizing cream, an alcohol-free gel, and a sunscreen with a sun protection factor of 100 was provided to patients undergoing treatment with cetuximab for daily skin care.

How was it done?

When the oncology department prescribes cetuximab, the patient is informed that a kit will soon be dispensed.
The pharmacy service reviews daily the patients who will initiate treatment with cetuximab in the day treatment center. If there is a patient starting treatment, nursing staff notify us when they arrive at the center, and the pharmacy dispenses a kit while explaining its contents.
We periodically call the patient to check whether they are continuing to use it correctly, if they have noticed any changes in their skin, what changes they have observed, and whether they have needed to take antibiotics and/or topical corticosteroids.

What has been achieved?

• To date, the kit has been dispensed to 21 patients undergoing treatment with cetuximab.
• It empowers patients by actively involving them in their care.
• It prioritizes the overall well-being of the patient, as it may prevent the onset of dermatological side effects and the use of topical corticosteroids and oral antibiotics.
• The process facilitates the pharmacist’s engagement with the patient in the day treatment center and throughout the treatment, allowing for addressing concerns, answering questions, and providing information about adverse effects.
• It promotes the creation of a multidisciplinary team by involving collaboration between oncology, nursing, and pharmacy.

What next?

We present a practical approach that enhances patient safety during the oncology process.
This practice can be adopted by any center.
It is necessary to continue collecting data to obtain reliable results regarding its impact on improving patient safety.

Pdf

Author(s)

Carla Noguera-Jurado, Alba Manzaneque, Gloria Molas, Genis Castells, Sandra Jara, Bernat Tenas, Jordi Nicolas

Why was it done?

Bispecific antibodies (BA) have the ability to specifically bind two different antigens, thereby presenting specificity for two different cells. Among the toxicities associated with these drugs are cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immunoeffector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), the management of which requires multidisciplinary action. The purpose of this circuit is to ensure adequate management of these toxicities to guarantee patient safety.

What was done?

Creation of an action plan for haematological patients treated with bispecific antibodies for the detection and proper management of their toxicities.

How was it done?

A multidisciplinary team formed by Pharmacy, Haematology, Nursing, Intensive Care Medicine and Neurology was created and the healthcare professionals involved were specifically instructed. Moreover, an action circuit was implemented for the detection and management of these toxicities, and a specific protocol was created for the preparation and dispensing of tocilizumab. The protocol contemplated: centralisation of the preparation in the pharmacy department (within the pharmacy hours) or preparation in the hospitalisation ward by trained professionals using a kit previously prepared by the pharmacist (containing drug, serum and closed system dispositive for the preparation and administration of tocilizumab outside pharmacy hours).

What has been achieved?

From July 2022 to August 2023, a total of five patients have been treated with BA in our institution (elranatamab (4/5), and teclistamab (1/5)), including clinical trials and compassionate use, for Multiple Myeloma.
Three patients presented grade 1 CRS in the first cycle of treatment, which was resolved with symptomatic therapy, with no need for tocilizumab administration in any case. In addition, one also presented grade 1 ICANS, which only required monitoring without treatment.
The availability of the toxicity management circuit, in addition to staff training, allowed toxicities to be detected and resolved early and, if tocilizumab had been needed, the circuit would have ensured its immediate availability.

What next?

The implementation of a multidisciplinary care circuit led by pharmacy and haematology guarantees the adequate management of toxicities associated with the treatment, ensuring the best quality of care for the patients and their safety.

Pdf

Author(s)

ALBA MARIA MARTINEZ SOTO, MARIA ONTENIENTE CANDELA, CARLES INIESTA NAVALON, PATRICIA ORTIZ FERNANDEZ, PILAR FERNANDEZ-VILLACAÑAS FERNANDEZ, ANABEL HERREROS HERNANDEZ, GEMMA MARTINEZ SOTO, CARMEN CABALLERO REQUEJO, MAYTE GIL CANDEL, ELENA URBIETA SANZ

Why was it done?

– Guide the pharmacist in the development of an individualised follow-up strategy for patient evaluating the frequency with which appointments should be established in the consultation of Pharmaceutical Care.
– Use the information from the specific questionnaires to detect possible failures therapeutic.
– Use the results obtained in the PROs to direct the recommendations pharmacotherapeutic to perform, which will be assessed in a multidisciplinary committee of immune-mediated diseases.
– Promote higher quality pharmaceutical care.

What was done?

Implementation of a circuit to improve pharmaceutical care and follow-up pharmacotherapeutic, incorporating the stratification of
patients according to the “Model of Stratification and Pharmaceutical Care for Diseases Immune-mediated Inflammatory Diseases” (MAPEX) and the use of Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs).

How was it done?

1. Selection of patients to include.
2. Design a database in Access for the collection of stratification data and PROs.
3. Selection of specific and generic PROs.
4. Stratification of active patients according to the MAPEX methodology at the beginning of the implantation and in patients who start during the follow-up period will be stratified at the baseline visit.
5. Establish a strategy for carrying out questionnaires (PROs) in consultation.

What has been achieved?

An Access database has been created that incorporates the blocks established by the MAPEX model with each of its variables broken down, allowing us to obtain the patient global score.
3 pathology-specific PROs have been selected (RAPID3 in rheumatoid arthritis, PSAID12 in Psoriatic Arthritis and BASDAI in Ankylosing Spondylitis) and a generic one, EuroQol-5D-5L.
The follow-up strategy based on the stratification was selected as the one proposed by the MAPEX model.
To carry out the PROs, those patients with arthropathies that are were under treatment with biological drugs.
It was decided to pass a specific PRO according to his pathology and the generic having a baseline intake, another at 16 weeks and another a year.

What next?

Design a study to measure the results in terms of quality of care obtained with this new circuit.

Pdf

Author(s)

Alba Manzaneque, Carla Jurado , Cristina Alonso , Mireia Cairó, Glòria Molas, Fernando Salazar , Lucía Boix, Roser Font, Laura López, Jordi Nicolás, Marc Campayo, Esther Calbo

Why was it done?

Although an intrinsic risk of infection has not been associated with ICI, there are different studies and case-series in the literature in which an increased risk of infection is observed, mainly associated with the use of immunosuppressive drugs (like corticoids) for immune-mediated toxicities. The objective of implementing this circuit in our centre is to reduce all preventable infections, by carrying out an initial infection screening that allows detection of those patients susceptible to vaccination measures, prophylaxis, or specific recommendations.

What was done?

Implementation of an infection screening circuit in cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor drugs (ICI).

How was it done?

To carry it out, a multidisciplinary work team was created (pharmacy/oncology/infections department) that designed the ICI template and the clinical circuits. At this point, we believed it was necessary to centralise requests, results, and follow-ups in the oncology pharmacy team (OPT) in order to ensure that all patients were included.
Before the patient initiates treatment with ICIs, the OPT makes the request for a pre-established ICI analysis and the oncology nurse (ON) extracts it. Within 7-10 days, the infection department checks the results and makes the necessary recommendations (vaccination/prophylaxis/specific recommendations).
The OPT is then responsible for both vaccination and initiation of prophylaxis.

What has been achieved?

A total of 30 patients (January to September 2022) have been included in the circuit, 25/30 being men and with a mean age of 67.8 (± 8.8) years.
In 25/30 the treatment was with palliative intent, and 21/30 had lung neoplasia.
The ICIs prescribed were: pembrolizumab (15/30) and nivolumab/atezolizumab/durvalumab (5/30 in each case).
Screening results are available for 26/30 patients. Some type of recommendation was made in 25/26 patients, being: 20/26 hepatitis B vaccination, 5/26 start prophylaxis (2/5 hepatitis B and 3/5 tuberculosis), 6/26 hygienic-dietary measures (aimed at toxoplasmosis).
Additionally, all previously unvaccinated patients (23/26) have been vaccinated against pneumococcus.

What next?

A comparative analysis of infection with a historical cohort is planned when larger sample size is available, to demonstrate that these types of measures reduce the occurrence of infections. Centralising this type of initiative from the OPT is key to our integration into clinical teams, by avoiding important adverse reactions and taking care of our patients.

Author(s)

Monira Alwhaibi

Why was it done?

This study is the first project of the STOP ME projects which aims to develop a tool that can assess the application of the essential strategies that can stop or minimize MEs in healthcare institutes in Saudi Arabia. Consequently, stakeholders in the healthcare system can identify current gaps that need feature improvement to enhance patient safety

What was done?

Medication Errors (ME) are defined as unintentional drug-induced harm that led to morbidity and mortality. The STOP (ME) project is a comprehensive series of research studies that aim to explore MEs in Saudi Arabia and how to stop such harmful events.

How was it done?

Extensive search of the literature review for the essential strategies to stop or minimize MEs was carried by the research team to develop a draft of the aimed tool. The survey tool was sent in round 1 to the Delphi experts’ panel for review. Based on received recommendations, the tool was updated and sent for round 2 review and consensus. The developed tool was then piloted to test the practicability of the tool before running the survey on large sample size (second project). The study was approved by the King Saud University Medical Centre IRB ethics committee [20/0153/IRB].

What has been achieved?

After using the Delphi technique two major changes happened to the survey. 1) Section A was removed (high alert medications). 2) A new section was added (ISMP publications) with some minor changes. Launching a pilot survey on thirty healthcare practitioners (physicians n=11, pharmacists n=10, nurses n=9) resulted in further minor changes by adding two new columns. The final tool was a survey consists of six sections including Demographics, Prescription, Dispensing, Administration, Monitoring and Quality, and Targeted Medication Safety Best Practices for Hospitals. All combined 86 questions with the determined time to answer the survey is in the range of 25-30 minutes. Overall feedback of the pilot survey was good.

What next?

This initiative “STOP ME” will have a significant impact in the field of medication safety research and will build awareness among institutes in Saudi Arabia that are lacking important strategies that prevent MEs

Why was it done?

Falls in older people are a significant public health problem due to their high prevalence, the injuries they cause and the associated economic burden. They are often caused by multifactorial risks, being the Fall-Risk-Increasing-Drugs (FRIDs) one of the most significant ones. The aim of this initiative is to reduce FRIDs prescriptions among elderly at risk of falling, by assessing their individual Benefit-Risk Balance.

What was done?

A circuit was designed and implemented to review and optimize the medication of patients admitted to hospital after a fall.

How was it done?

On an everyday basis, the Health Management Unit of our tertiary university hospital sends a list of fall-related hospital admissions to the clinical pharmacists (CP), who review those patients’ medication and identify FRIDs (drugs affecting central nervous system, hypoglycemic/antihypertensive agents, among others). Electronic Health Records (EHR) are consulted to evaluate if medication could have had a role in those falls. When a patient’s medication is subject to any optimization, CP contact the referring physician to propose therapeutic modifications. This pharmacist-doctor communication is carried out during the hospitalization period in case of Internal Medicine admissions and by an administrative appointment with the primary care physician (PCP) when patients are admitted in other units, such as Traumatology or Neurosurgery. The PCP evaluates the medication review report attached by CP in patients’ EHR and modifies medication if necessary.

What has been achieved?

Between May and September 2021, 114 patients were admitted to hospital due to a fall. After excluding 10 institutionalized patients (pharmaceutical care provided by their own team), 6 patients having fallen after alcohol consumption or intentional drug overdose, and 7 palliative patients, the medication of 91 patients was reviewed. The mean age was 80 and the 64.8% were female. An average of 3 FRIDs was identified per patient. 52 pharmaceutical interventions were made, mainly dose reductions and FRIDs deprescribing suggestions.

What next?

This initiative is feasible and potentially beneficial for patients’ health care. Medication review leads to the identification of not only FRIDs, but also different drug related problems. We look forward to assessing the impact of our practice in terms of interventions accepted; drug-related negative outcomes avoided and decreased hospital readmissions.

Author(s)

Carla Pinto, João Godinho, Luzia Fernandes, Patricia Vieira, Isabel Ferreira, Inês Sousa, Carolina Vieira, Ana Sardinha

Why was it done?

To promote a more effective notification process than the spontaneous reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions and contribute to the knowledge of the safety profile of medicines.
Covid-19 vaccines are medicines under additional monitoring, labelled with a black inverted triangle and expected to play a major role in the control of COVID-19 pandemic due to SARS-Cov2 virus.
This new medicine was administrated in a short time period and simultaneously to a large number of individuals in the beginning of vaccination period in Portugal (January 2021), to patients and healthcare professionals of our haemodialysis centers.

What was done?

Development and implementation of a proactive pharmacovigilance program to identify suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to a covid-19 vaccine administration in haemodialysis centers patients and healthcare professionals.

How was it done?

Maintaining spontaneous report for immediate suspected ADRs, pharmaceutical services developed a form to collect suspected ADRs in the following 7 days after each dose administration. It was applied to each vaccinated exactly 7 days after the administration of each dose. To simplify its filling and application, overcoming workload and lack of resources in this pandemic setting, information was displayed with check mark boxes, including the list of described ADRs sorted by frequency, duration intervals and blank space for unexpected reactions.
Due to the large amount and variability of individuals and centers, the form was distributed in paper and online formats and applied to vaccinated patients by doctors or nurses.
Pharmacists validated the forms to notify the national pharmacovigilance system for serious or unexpected ADRs.

What has been achieved?

From the 9469 covid-19 vaccine administrations we obtained 6962 filled forms (74% of vaccinations) from which 38% (2666 forms) had suspected ADRs. 2nd dose had a lower participation rate of about 10%. These participation rates where due to no filled forms in cases of no symptoms.

What next?

Apply this proactive pharmacovigilance model in the integration in the institution of future medicines under additional monitoring will allow better knowledge of occurrence of adverse reactions, improving safety of medicines.
For the best outcomes program must be adapted to each medicine’s specification, considering even simpler tools to obtain information when there are no symptoms to report.

Author(s)

Noe Garin, Laia Lopez-Vinardell, Pau Riera, Adrian Plaza, Ivan Castellvi-Barranco, Jose Mateo-Arranz, M. Antonia Mangues

Why was it done?

APS is a rare disease with a high risk of thromboembolism. Recently, some data suggested an increased risk of thrombotic events with direct-acting anticoagulants (DOAC) compared with vitamin K antagonists in APS. Some agencies advise against the use of DOACs in these patients.

This methodology can be extrapolated to other risk situations, so this was a first step with AI to further detection of safety issues.

What was done?

We implemented an Artificial intelligence (AI) tool based on natural language processing (SAVANA®) to identify patients at risk of thromboembolism, defined as Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS) diagnosis treated with direct-acting anticoagulants (DOAC). SAVANA® is an AI tool able to extract information contained in free-text from electronic clinical records.

A prior operation work was conducted, involving: direction, pharmacy, documentation, IT, SAVANA®, data protection. The work and previous meetings evaluated: feasibility, previous requirements, privacy issues, IT involvement and contract signings.

How was it done?

The implementation consisted of:
– Transference of medical record information to the SAVANA® cloud.
– Identification of the health problem (APS) and initial search.
– Search algorithm optimization in a multidisciplinary team.
– Evaluation of the search by SAVANA® by peer review in a sample of randomly selected cases (n=200).
– Precision and sensitivity analysis. Algorithm improvement.
– Obtaining the Gold Standard and validation.
– Definitive search for the detection of patients with APS in treatment with DOACs and performance of interventions.

What has been achieved?

The project implementation is at a very advanced stage. The algorithm has currently been evaluated and is being refined after precision and sensitivity analysis. Final validation and definitive identification of patients at risk is expected at the end of 2021. Patients detected during the implementation method have been evaluated with the haematology team.

What next?

This methodology can be implemented in any centre with computerized medical records. The use of AI is the only tool available for the identification of certain groups of patients when health problems are not coded. In other cases, its use regarding the extraction of lists allows a great capacity for analysis, absence of biases derived from human error, guarantee of reproducibility and complementary data obtention, mainly in samples of high size.