Author(s)

Chiara Inserra, Antonio Solinas, Chiara Panciroli, Branden Nemecek, David Zimmerman, J.Douglas Bricker, Piera Polidori

Why was it done?

Successful implementation of clinical pharmacy services are associated with improved prescribing practices. SIFO includes clinical pharmacy in their mission to line up with Section 4 of the European Statement on Hospital Pharmacy and is striving for implementation through advanced trainings for IHPs. The aim of this EP was to provide real world clinical pharmacy training to IHPs.

What was done?

Through international collaboration between Duquesne University School of Pharmacy in Pittsburgh (PA-USA) and the Italian Society of Hospital Pharmacy (SIFO) a clinical pharmacy exchange programme (EP) was established to provide clinical education to Italian pharmacists interested in advancing the profession. From 2010 to 2018, SIFO provided several grants to allow Italian hospital pharmacists (IHPs) to participate. In 2018, three IHPs from across Italy were selected for a 1 month experience to gain experience and insight into practices that they may use in their facilities.

How was it done?

The clinical training was created by Duquesne University to provide IHPs educational and first-hand clinical skills based on American clinical pharmacy practice and education. The training was individualised for IHPs’ interests including didactics and practical training. Sessions to discuss IHPs’ progress were conducted with the Dean and faculty of the programme.

What has been achieved?

IHPs had the chance to observe American pharmacy education and compare it to the Italian one. American university training was practical, well-coordinated with clinical activities, and based on a trustful teacher-student relationship. During practical training IHPs shadowed American Clinical Pharmacists (ACP) specialized in different areas: Infectious Disease, Cardiology, Oncology, Emergency Medicine, Internal Medicine, Community Pharmacy, Ambulatory Care. They were able to observe how ACPs validate prescriptions and are actively engaged in direct patient care, participating in bedside multidisciplinary rounds and making recommendations on therapies (drug interactions, dose adjustments, antibiotic selection). IHPs saw how technology investments, prioritisation of care, and availability of skilled personnel underlie American hospital pharmacy practice.

What next?

IHPs gained baseline clinical pharmacy skills to enhance care at their facilities; however, the widespread implementation of clinical pharmacy in Italy requires education reform, enhanced resources and integration of pharmacists within a multidisciplinary team. Implementation of small projects through collaboration with universities should be considered in the Italian hospital setting.

Author(s)

Mia P von Hallas, Trine RH Andersen

Why was it done?

Physicians in acute wards have limited time to see all patients. Time for medication history, reconciliation and review is limited, due to great patient turnover. The physicians did not consider the pharmacist medication review alone as a contribution to the workflow or to relieve the high workload.

What was done?

Through user surveys among the physicians in the Acute Ward, pharmacist tasks were adjusted to benefit the physician’s high work flow. Before the survey, pharmacists performed medication reviews which were communicated to the physician. The adjusted pharmacist tasks on the ward includes medication history, reconciliation and transfer of the medication to the electronic medicine module (Epic), securing up-to-date medicine data during hospitalisation.

How was it done?

A questionnaire was developed regarding four areas (Pharmacist competencies, Pharmacist tasks, Pharmacist medication review, Multidisciplinary teamwork) and distributed among the physicians. Based on the anonymous responses, the pharmacists adjusted their tasks to include medication history, medication reconciliation and transfer of medication to Epic, complying with the suggestions in the questionnaire survey. Obstacles were low percentage of respondents (15/33 (45%) prior to the initiative and 12/39 (31 %) after), and the large replacement of junior physicians in the period between surveys.

What has been achieved?

Pharmacists feel more part of the multidisciplinary team and attitudes towards the pharmacist service among physicians has changed. A new survey after implementation of the new workflow showed that 73% found medication reconciliation was a pharmacist task, compared to 29% before. After implementation, 90% of physicians believed that pharmacists could do medication review (67% before intervention). The acknowledgement that pharmacists were able to transfer medication to Epic was increased from 20% to 90%. The attitude has changed from considering pharmacists as medication advisers to considering pharmacists as part of the multidisciplinary team in the ward.

What next?

The questionnaire survey will be repeated annually to continually improve the workflow and contribution of clinical pharmacist services to the heathcare professional team in the acute ward.

Pdf

Author(s)

Thibault Stala, Niels Martignene, Céline Monchy, Anne-Laure Lefebvre, Geoffrey Strobbe, Ali Hammoudi, Frédéric Feutry, Malgorzata Cucchi, Guillaume Marliot

Why was it done?

In France, hospitalisations’ reimbursement is linked to care severity. In this context, health care must be as comprehensive as possible on the comorbidities’ registration. As part of prescription validation, the clinical pharmacist can easily highlight comorbidities associated with specific treatments, in order to improve their codification and consequently to better valorise hospital stays.

What was done?

This work involves evaluating the ability of the clinical pharmacist to detect comorbidities related to certain treatments.

How was it done?

Six comorbidities, associated with the prescription of specific therapies, were chosen: – Dyskalaemia (potassium or polystyrene sulfonate prescriptions); – Neuropathic pain (NP) or anxio-depressive disorder (ADP) (amitriptyline, anafranil, pregabalin, gabapentin, duloxetine or capsaicin prescriptions); – Iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) (injectable iron prescriptions); – Hypovolaemia (HV) (ringer Lactate, serum albumin or gelatin prescriptions); – Hypercalcaemia (HC) (bisphosphonate and/or calcitonin prescriptions); – Severe infection (Inf) (linezolid, daptomycin, teicoplanin, aztreonam and carbapenem prescriptions). Retrospectively, all stays ending between 01/01/2019 and 31/03/2019, and containing at least one prescription of the previously mentioned therapies, were considered. Then, the medical records were analysed to verify the presence of the comorbidity corresponding to the prescribed drug(s). The coding was checked, otherwise, the comorbidity was added. Finally, the revaluation of the stays’ cost has been estimated.

What has been achieved?

The number of stays by suspected comorbidity, based on prescribed treatments, is : – 175 dyskalaemia; – 231 NP or ADP; – 155 IDA; – 124 hypovolaemia; – 41 hypercalcaemia; – 16 severe infection hypovolaemia and severe infection were quickly set apart because of the difficulty to confirm these comorbidities with the only retrospective medical record information. No stay with IDA or hypercalcaemia has been revalorised. The price of a single stay with dyskalaemia has been increased, by €530. However, NP or ADP has increased the cost of 6 to 13 stays, resulting in a total revaluation of €6000 to €11,000.

What next?

The stays’ remuneration is the hospitals’ main source of income. This work makes it possible to quickly determine if the clinical pharmacist can bring added value in the field of hospital stays’ pricing. The next step is the transition to forward looking. It would also be possible to assess other comorbidities.

Author(s)

Andreas von Ameln-Mayerhofer, Martin Breuling, Ina Geist

Why was it done?

In the context of antibiotic stewardship, rapid oralisation of a parenteral antibiotic is recommended in many antibiotic stewardship guidelines. Such a sequence therapy is easy to implement if both application pathways lead to comparable efficacy levels at the site of infection. However, this does not apply to all anti-infectives, in particular some beta-lactam antibiotics represent a challenge in therapy. Additionally, the information about this topic is very sparse in the literature.

What was done?

In order to achieve an improvement in antimicrobial prescriptions, we have addressed possible problems regarding oralisation of antibiotics. For this purpose, we graphically compared the simulated efficacy levels of parenteral and oral forms of beta-lactams.

How was it done?

We programmed a computer based procedure that allows a simulation of plasma levels of antibiotics upon intravenous versus oral administration. Based on the obtained data and EUCAST-based MIC-distributions for a set of bacteria, we assessed the respective putative clinical actions.

What has been achieved?

Our simulations show that some oral beta-lactams do not reach the PK/PD condition of a sufficient therapy (fT>MHK) in the approved dosage. The simulations have been used for education seminars with physicians and partly led to an improvement in oralisation procedures. Additionally, an oralisation standard has been established.

What next?

Our next step is to develop a special prescription form for oral antibiotics which will enable us to control prescription behaviour even more effectively. We plan to monitor the prescription habits for anti-infectives more closely before and after establishing the prescription form.

Pdf

Author(s)

Pernille Printzlau, Nanna Skyttegaard Mortensen, Signe Kristensen, Troels Bygum Knudsen, Nathalie King Otoo

Why was it done?

When the pharmacists make medication reviews it is often a long, detailed review with several interventions. A tool that would quickly give the physician an overview of the interventions suggested by the pharmacist was needed. Furthermore, a tool was needed in the process of shared decision making between the physician and the patient regarding the possibilities of deprescribing.

What was done?

We made a tool to improve the interdisciplinary collaboration around medication reviews and to help the process of shared decision making. The tool categorises interventions suggested by the pharmacist in red-yellow-green boxes, indicating the order of the interventions recommended by the pharmacist.

How was it done?

The tool was developed and tested by using the Model of Improvement. The physician stated that the tool gave him the needed overview and, in his experience, furthermore added value by visualising the interventions to the patient. Patients were interviewed after the consultation to evaluate how they perceived the tool and whether they felt involved in the decision making regarding their treatment and deprescribing.

What has been achieved?

A manageable and operationalisable tool for the physician to get a quick overview of the interventions suggested by the pharmacist. Furthermore, the tool visualises the interventions to the patient and supports the process of shared decision making during the consultation.

What next?

At our hospital we have clinical pharmacists making medication reviews at several different wards. The next step is to distribute the tool to pharmacists at other wards to strengthen the interdisciplinary collaboration and ensure the largest profit of the pharmacist’s medication reviews. We are also working on developing a similar tool to categorise found side effects to help the physician when deprescribing.

Author(s)

Mohammed Almeziny, Maha Aljuhanei , Fahad Alkharji

Why was it done?

Smart infusion pumps have been introduced to prevent medication errors and they have been widely adopted by healthcare. They incorporate safeguards such as soft and hard dosage limits.

What was done?

A smart pump was implemented in a tertiary hospital.

How was it done?

A task group was formulated from all involved parties to cover all issues related to practice, and it involved nursing and pharmacy staff to overcome all obstacles that may face the project; in addition the information technology (IT) department was involved to determine the facilitation of all technical issues. At the beginning the group faced two main barriers: creating the initial drug library which was a significant amount of work for the pharmacy, then uploading the drug library. In addition, all these works were to be carried out manually by the medical engineering. The quantitative data available from the smart pump software were used to improve drug library use. The team started to collect feedback from and communicate feedback to direct care nurses about drug library usage via e-mail, staff meetings, a “whatsapp” group and one-on-one conversations. This included asking nurses why the drug library was not being used regularly. The most frequent responses included “The pump is hard to use,” “The list doesn’t have the medications I need and, “It’s just easier to use the rate-based programming feature”.

What has been achieved?

The pump library usage percentage for total infusions was raised from a baseline of 2.85% to 30.97% in the first week. After careful review by the nursing, pharmacy, and medical leadership, some changes to the library were made. These included standardising drug concentrations in the pump library and providing ongoing staff education as well as implementing the best practices cited in the ISMP’s guidelines for the use of smart pumps; and running daily usage and weekly soft limit override reports from the pump library. Furthermore, a new category, “feeding”, was added to pump library; finally all medications and plain fluids were added to the pump library.

What next?

A Bar-Code Medication Administration System is needed (BCMA), to ensure the right patient gets the correct drug, dose and route at the right time.

Pdf

Author(s)

Iván Maray Mateos, Miguel Alaguero Calero, Adrián Rodriguez Ferreras, Cristina Calzón Blanco, Cristina Álvarez Asteinza, Lucía Velasco Roces, Ana Lozano Blazquez

Why was it done?

Intravenous drugs in the paediatric population bring up additional issues than the usual in adults. In their prescription, not only does the dose have to be adapted to the patient’s weight, the volume in which the drug is diluted must also be adapted to the reduced fluids requirement without jeopardising the stability of the mixture. In view of these facts, IV drug prescription in paediatrics implies a higher risk of medication errors. This new prescribing system simplifies prescription and reduces risks.

What was done?

Development of an assisted prescription system of intravenous mixtures adapted to paediatric patients in which both the drug dose and the diluent volume are automatically calculated according to the patient’s weight.

How was it done?

A literature review of drug dosing in paediatrics and their stability in different diluents was performed. For every drug the following parameters were considered: maximum dose in children (mg/kg), maximum concentration allowed (mg/ml), common doses and volumes in adults. Using these values, a system was built which calculated drug dose and diluent volume according to the patient’s weight and the maximum concentration allowed for stability reasons. For safety and to ease the preparation, the diluent volume in millilitres was rounded up to the next 10. In order to avoid overdosing overweight or older paediatric patients, maximum dose and diluent volume were narrowed down to the usual quantities in adults. Ultimately, this system was integrated in the electronic prescription system. A protocol was created, named “drug name” IV mixture PEDIATRICS. So, by selecting this protocol in a specific patient, the target dose and the diluent volume are automatically calculated.

What has been achieved?

This system was implemented for 38 drugs. From July 2018 to April 2019, 910 IV mixtures have been prescribed from the following Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) groups: A02 Drugs for acid related disorders (39), J01 Antibacterials for systemic use (287), J02 Antimycotics for systemic use (3), J05 Antivirals for systemic use (8), A04 Antiemetics and antinauseants (175), N02 Analgesics (395), N03 Antiepileptics (3).

What next?

This method could be implemented in other electronic prescription programmes. The system must be updated by the Pharmacy Department, introducing new drugs and constantly reviewing stability databases, posology regimens, and information regarding dilution of parenteral drugs.

Pdf

Author(s)

Sarah POGGIO, Anne-Sylvie DUMENIL, Sandrine ROY, Claire HENRY

Why was it done?

BPMH on admission has been performed in these departments since 2011. An analysis of the process and prescriber use of BPMH highlighted an underutilisation; average consultation rate was 29.8%. The main reasons were the online publishing interval of the BMPH and competition with the AC report which also displays medication. A previous study showed a 70% rate of patients with unintended differences between BMPH and the AC report.

What was done?

We redesigned the pharmaceutical care process for programmed patient circuits in orthopaedic and visceral surgery by providing the “best possible medication history” (BPMH) in the patient’s electronical medical record (EMR) before anaesthesia consultation (AC).

How was it done?

Due to a lack of coordination, we exchanged using surgery with anaesthesia schedules to select patients, thus improving prioritisation. We created support documents for students, describing how to conduct a phone interview in order to reassure unfamiliar patients, to gather useful data (GP, pharmacy, prescription) to produce a BPMH, to visit inpatients when admitted to confirm the BPMH’s accuracy and to assess patient satisfaction with the process. We trained 6 students and presented our work at an anaesthetist staff meeting.

What has been achieved?

Among 195 patients included from June to October 2019, 70.2% BPMH before admission were successfully published online (137/195), 67 went through the complete care path (from home to discharging), 12 never came for AC and/or surgery, 58 were published but waiting for patient’s admission and 58 failed. The reasons we failed to publish on time included inability to reach patients (31.6%), lack of sources (21.1%), time shortage before AC (17.6%), surgery cancellation (14.0%) and refusal (7.3%). 1.58 (±0.85) calls were needed to reach a patient, 13 BPMH required modification after admission (19%), and patient satisfaction on average was 5.11/6 when asked whether the call, the medication management during hospitalisation and the confirmation interview went well. Finally, the consultation rate of BMPH evolved from 29.8% in 2017 to 72% since we changed practices.

What next?

Implementing this new process in the care path streamlines information transfer between the different stakeholders (anaesthetists, surgeons, pharmacists) and provides a better integration of pharmaceutical care in surgery wards as an efficient support system for prescribers.

Pdf

Author(s)

Michael Scott, Glenda Fleming, Catherine Harrison

Why was it done?

There is a wide recognition that there are significant issues with regard to the issue of medicines, such as the fact that 30−50% of medicines are not taken as required. Thus the DoH decided to set up MOIC as a vehicle to focus activities in order to address this issue and optimise medicines use.

What was done?

A Regional Medicines Optimisation Innovation Centre (MOIC) was set up in 2015 by the Department of Health (DoH) in Northern Ireland as a key enabler for the Government policy document namely the Medicines Optimisation Quality Framework.

How was it done?

The DoH requested the Northern Health and Social Care Trust to locate the centre within the Trust based on the fact that there had been a long standing academic practice centre with the School of Pharmacy at Queens University of Belfast. Barriers that had to be addressed were highlighting the regional nature of the centre, to get engagement with all sectors of the service and building relationships with other key organisations, including the private sector. Initial core funding was provided by the DoH.

What has been achieved?

MOIC has successfully evaluated improved systems with regard to hospital pharmacy such as doctor-light discharge (90 minutes faster), post-discharge telephone follow-up (30 day readmission rate reduced by 9.9%), and medicines optimisation in older people service in care home settings (reduced Emergency Department attendances and medicines costs). In addition MOIC has been successful in 3 EU funding bids relating to medicines optimisation and has published over 30 papers. It has also been accredited as a Statement Implementation Learning Collaborative Centre (SILCC) site and also a Centre of Excellence by the Spanish Hospital Pharmacists Association. MOIC has also successfully worked with the private sector including pharmaceutical, device and technology companies. It has also been accredited as a knowledge provided by Invest NI.

What next?

MOIC has delivered on its key initial objectives, related to medicines optimisation with good collaborative work across health, academia and commercial organisations, in the UK and Europe. It will have a key role in meeting the WHO Global Challenge of reducing medication-related harm by 50% by 2023 for the region and further optimising medicines systems.

This approach with government policy support could be relatively easily established in any other region.

Pdf

Author(s)

Marguerite VAILLANT, Sophie GUILMIN CREPON, Benoit BRETHON , Julie ROUPRET-SERZEC

Why was it done?

In order to obtain a safe patient care pathway, we wish to implement proactive and/or retroactive DR for patients followed in the Hemato-Immunology Department of the University Hospital Center Robert Debre.

What was done?

Formalise and integrate drug reconciliation (DR). Evaluate the feasibility of the project, the impact of DR on the safety of patient care and the satisfaction of patients and health professionals.

How was it done?

Prospective cohort study. The different steps are: identification of eligible patients, collection of information on the patient’s drug history and ongoing treatments from the health partners involved in his or her care, entry drug reconciliation (EDR) during the entry pharmaceutical consultation, conciliation of exit drugs during the return pharmaceutical consultation, transmission of information to the local center and pharmacist or home hospitalisation, evaluation of stakeholder satisfaction and the impact of the intervention.

What has been achieved?

Thirty patients included between August and October 2019, or 30 conciliations performed. Concerning the EDR: all hospitalisation reports and previous prescriptions are consulted (100%), 6 EDR (20%) take place in pro-active mode, the average duration of an EDR is 43 minutes. Concerning the discharge drug reconciliation (DDR): 30 DDR (100%) take place in pro-active mode, the average duration of a DDR is 52 minutes, all prescriptions and intake plans are sent to community centres and pharmacists or home hospitalisation (100%). Of all the conciliations performed: 4 sources of information used by conciliation, 11 drugs prescribed on average per prescription, 8 intentional and 6 unintentional discrepancies identified by prescription. Concerning the evaluation of satisfaction: all community centres are satisfied (100%), 26 city professionals (87%), 21 hospital professionals (70%), 27 patients (90%).

What next?

In order to ensure that DR is permanently included in the service, a communication and information tool must be developed. This, made available to the entire team, will serve as a traceability support, decompartmentalise practices and improve patient care.