Pdf

Author(s)

Thewodros Leka

Why was it done?

Population Health Management is about improving population health by data driven planning and delivery of proactive care to achieve maximum impact.
The aim was to Introduce ‘Making Every Contact Count’ approach in the pre-assessment unit of engaging in conversations with patients about their lifestyle and providing the tools and information they need to make meaningful changes in managing
 Hypertension, Diabetes
 Smoking, Consuming alcohol, high BMI
 Regular physical exercise, Healthy eating schedule
 Adherence to prescribed medicines
In addition, establish link with the community public health team for continuous intervention and support.

What was done?

We proposed to the hospital executive management board to develop and test a novel clinical nurse and pharmacist led ‘Population Health Management clinic’ for the hospital that is grounded in connections to key stakeholders in the community, so that patients are followed up to get lifestyle change interventions to improve their illnesses and medication adherence. The board approved the funding and we established the first of its kind population health management clinic in the hospital.

How was it done?

Obtaining funding for the project was an obstacle.
We surveyed 1,000 patients who attended the pre-assessment unit during the year.
31% were hypertensive, 13% diabetic, 12% were smokers, 29% had anxiety/ depression, 51% drink alcohol more than recommended limit; 50% have BMI >29; 41% were not adherent in taking their regular medicines, 41% do not practice any physical exercise and 50% said they do not follow healthy eating. We presented the audit data to the hospital executive management board proposing to develop a ‘Population Health Management clinic’. The board approved the funding as they found that this is a step forward to improve the health of the population.

What has been achieved?

Since the initiation of the project, the concept of proactive health intervention and life style change approach is well established in the hospital becoming daily practice of the pre-assessment team.

What next?

Establishing Population health management clinic in surgical pre-assessment unit provides a unique ‘teachable moment’, where a patient can be encouraged by a perioperative team to make positive and lasting changes to their lifestyle and medication adherence.

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.

Pdf

Why was it done?

Kidney disease carries a significant worldwide health burden. In more the incidence of stage III chronic kidney disease in more than 9%. Many hospitals in Oman have special units of nephrology but clinical pharmacy services for these patients are almost none. It was important to upskill practicing pharmacists’ knowledge and skills to provide comprehensive pharmaceutical care for patients with renal diseases.

What was done?

An online 8-week course was developed by an experienced and certified renal clinical pharmacist with an aim of enhancing the knowledge and skills of pharmacists practising in primary, secondary and tertiary care hospitals in Oman. The course covered all the topics required to develop the skills of the pharmacists to enable them to deal with renal prescriptions and be able to intervene in any medication related problem in patients with kidney diseases. Before and after knowledge assessment was done for the participants to enable justify the benefits of the Course. Towards the end of the course a satisfaction survey was also completed by the participants to provide ensure achieving desired outcomes.

How was it done?

The course was hybrid and the beginning with some sessions carried out face-to-face and some online.
The course included topics such as acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, drug induced kidney diseases, medication management in renal replacement therapy and kidney disease complications. The course was interactive with case study discussions, question and answer sessions and some assignments done by the participants at home. The course was designed based on Kirkpatrick foundational principles with consideration of the four levels of learning.

What has been achieved?

Twenty pharmacists participated in the first cohort and 23 in the second cohort. The attendance was more than 90% throughout the course. The pharmacists were keen to learn and ask questions. There was a clear difference in knowledge before and after the course with only 19% of participants passing the pre-course assessment compared to more than 80% of participants passing the post-course assessment.

What next?

The course was highly appreciated by the participants and would run the course and regular intervals with considerations to applications from the Gulf region since they share similar practice and disease burden.

Author(s)

Sonja Guntschnig, Aaron Courtenay, Ahmed Abuelhana, Michael Scott

Why was it done?

The service was established as part of the implementation of a new pharmacy into the hospital. The aim of this good practice initiative was to introduce multidisciplinary work on the wards and provide clinical pharmacy support for the ward personnel. Furthermore, it determined what types of clinical pharmacy interventions are needed at a rural 360-bed hospital in Austria, and assessed the physicians’ acceptance rate of the pharmacists’ suggestions.

What was done?

A new clinical pharmacy service (CPS) was introduced into Tauernklinikum Zell am See.

How was it done?

Data on 550 interventions made by one clinical pharmacist were collected by convenience sampling over a one-year period and rated on a six-point clinical significance scale. A subset of 26 interventions was rated for clinical significance by four independent physicians to determine inter-rater reliability (IRR). A two-way model inter-rater reliability analysis was performed for the four different physician assessments using SPSS to determine intra-class correlation (ICC).

What has been achieved?

Prompt acceptance rate by the physicians involved was 71.3% (392/550). In 26.9% (148/550) of all cases, the physician considered a change. The overall average score for all 550 clinical pharmaceutical interventions taken was 2.2. ICC significance scores were correlated with the pharmacist’s scores, ICC for consistency was 0.732 and 0.732 for absolute agreement, thus both can be considered as “good”. Potential for cost reduction associated with the recommended pharmaceutical changes, namely with medication being stopped or dose reduction was 32.7% (180/550) and 25.1% (138/550), respectively.

What next?

There is great potential and a definite need for the expansion of CPS in Austria. Only 15.8% of Austrian hospitals have a pharmacy department with even less offering CPS. Many countries have demonstrated the benefits of CPS in hospitals over the past 30 and more years. The need for increased pharmacist staffing in Austrian hospitals needs to be demonstrated to Austrian stakeholders.

Author(s)

JUDIT PERALES PASCUAL, ANA PÉREZ LÓPEZ, HERMINIA NAVARRO AZNAREZ, ELENA HERRANZ BAYO, MARIA PEREZ MORENO, CARLOS-IGNACIO DIAZ CALDERON HORCADA, Mª REYES ABAD SAZATORNIL

Why was it done?

In 2019 the UPEX attended a large volume of patients without a scheduled appointment, long waits were generated and the pharmacotherapeutic follow-up was complicated. The purpose was to implement an appointment management module to avoid crowds, excessive waiting times, allowing better organizational management of care and knowledge of patients in each type of consultation.

What was done?

An outpatient is a patient who goes to the outpatient unit of their Hospital Pharmacy Service to collect a drug for hospital use/diagnosis or foreign drug (it will be administered without health personnel intervention).

An appointment management system was implemented in accordance with the objectives of the SAMPA project (Service for Registration and Promotion of Adherence to Medicines for Elderly Patients), included in the European STOPandGo project.

How was it done?

Creating a cross-cutting system for the entire clinical circuit from prescription to dispensing involved a great deal computer involvement. Although it began to be used in November 2018, it was not used by the mostly part of prescribing doctors until the end of 2020.
Now, when the patient leaves medical consultation, he/she will go to the pharmacy and will be seen by a pharmacist. Besides, the program will propose a return appointment when it calculates that the patient has a week’s worth of medication, thus preventing the patient from running out of medication. The pharmacist will decide if the patient needs pharmacotherapeutic follow-up.

What has been achieved?

In 2019, 5 services cited patients while in 2020 it was 14; the percentage of patients attending pharmacy cited increased from 73.2%(2019) to 79.4%(2020).
Currently, the pharmacist knows in advance which scheduled patients he has and can establish a better organizational care management and determine in advance if the patient needs a close pharmacotherapeutic follow-up. Additionally, with this system an average waiting time of 03:55min was achieved (in 2019 appointments with waits >30min were recorded).

What next?

The implementation of the appointment management system has made possible to achieve better organizational management of care,avoid crowds,excessive waiting times, and provide better patient care and pharmacotherapeutic follow-up. The proposed solution can be extended to other hospitals.

Author(s)

Belén Serna Serrano, Victoria Lerma Gaude, Ana Valladolid Walsh, Cristina Del Pozo Carlavilla, Juan Manuel Collado Sanz, Héctor Alabort Ayllón, Eduardo Tébar Martínez, Andrea Drozdz Vergara

Why was it done?

In the pharmacist-patient clinical interview (CI), DP-I revision is frequent due to consumption increase of phytotherapy in recent years. The aim of the initiative was to study the degree of discrepancy (DD) based on the severity criteria (SC) found about the recommendations on the management of DP-I. Nowadays there are multiple databases with lack of unification. Patients diagnosed of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) are frequently interviewed by the pharmacist and they often take herbal medicines (HM).

What was done?

We unified the information collected from the commonly consulted databases of drug-plant interactions (DP-I) whose information could be scarce or contradictory, by creating a tool based on the most consulted plants in our clinical practice (CP).

How was it done?

To create our own DP-I tool, the sources consulted were:
– Our own plant database based on CP. A total of 56 plants.
– Six official databases of DP-I: (A)-Phytotherapy official monographs, (B)-MedInteract®, (C)-Micromedex®, (D)-UpToDate-Lexicomp® (E)-Medscape®.

In order to unify the DP-I information consulted and to be able to identify the DD (0 to 2), the SC for all databases were unified in 3 levels: if the database had 5 levels (1=1-2; 2=3-4; 3=5) or 4 levels (1=1-2; 2=3; 3=4). In first place we decided to test this tool with a small sample size of drugs (6 drugs commonly used for the treatment of MS) to check whether the discrepancy between the databases usually consulted was significant or not.

What has been achieved?

Finally, 6 DP-I were detected with Hypericum perforatum (HP) and Echinacea angustifolia (EA):

The DD seems to be similar between A-B databases and greater respect to the rest of them. Depending on the database consulted the pharmacist’s performance could change and consequently, pharmaceutical care may be affected. Since this tool was implemented in our CP, none of our MS patients have taken HP or EA, therefore, it has not been necessary to modify their treatment because of DP-I.

What next?

This tool could speed up the pharmacological review of possible DP-I and improve decision-making for the care of MS patients. Our next step is to increase the sample of analysed drugs commonly used in other pathologies, such as antiretroviral drugs.

Author(s)

Connor Thompson, Alison Orr

Why was it done?

Surgical patients are at risk of medication-related adverse events, with some of these patients having co-morbidities requiring long-term medications prior to surgery. Published data suggests pharmacist interventions can reduce adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and medication errors and reduce hospital length of stay.

What was done?

The effect of implementing a pharmacist into the HpB surgical ward round (WR) was unknown, this would also support ongoing service development projects in liver pharmacy on patient pathways.

This study aimed to establish the range and clinical impact of interventions made by the specialist pharmacist when attending HpB post-surgical WR as part of ongoing pharmacy engagement and service development.

How was it done?

A prospective study looking at interventions of a specialist pharmacist on WR over a one-month period, attending two WR per week. Review of all post-surgical HpB on an inpatient ward. All interventions collated and categorised based on commonality.

What has been achieved?

Over the course of data collection, the pharmacist reviewed 140 patients and made 477 interventions as part of the WR. This included 45 history medications being started, identification of 32 ADRs to current treatment, 16 instances of vancomycin dose adjustments, confirmation of anticoagulation for 17 patients and addition of 101 antibiotic stop dates contributing to better antimicrobial stewardship. There were also 70 instances of a nurse/doctor/patient requiring additional information on medication treatments.

What next?

This has highlighted the scale of interventions a pharmacist can make on a WR. Emphasising not only adjustment of medications but also the need for medication related information by healthcare professionals and patients alike.

Moving forward a pharmacist will attend at least two WR per week, with potential scope for support in pre-assessment and post-operative clinics to review weaning of analgesia and long-term management of pancreatic replacement for example.

With the recent announcement regarding new standards for the initial education and training of pharmacists in the UK, it would be valuable to assess the impact of a prescribing pharmacist on these WR.

Pdf

Author(s)

MARGARITA BELTRAN GARCÍA, NATALIA MARTÍN FERNÁNDEZ, MERCEDES SALGUEIRO LAZO, SANTIAGO SANDOVAL FERNÁNDEZ DEL CASTILLO, MIGUEL ÁNGEL CALLEJA HERNÁNDEZ, ANTONIO LEÓN JUSTEL

Why was it done?

AKI is an underdiagnosed syndrome due to delay in detection and late referral to the nephrology unit. A real-time electronic alert system integrated into a multidisciplinary protocol could be useful for early identification and diagnosis.
Among the risk factors associated with AKI is the use of nephrotoxic drugs such as NSAIDs and COX-2, ACE inhibitors and ARA-II, Cyclosporine and Tacrolimus.

What was done?

A multidisciplinary protocol was established for the detection and early action of prerenal AKI inpatients with hospital and Primary Care monitoring.

How was it done?

An authomatic electronic tool, agreed between Biochemistry and Nefrology units, was designed for the selection of AKI patients. The pharmacist was contacted when a prerenal AKI was detected, who generated an alert in the electronic prescription system in order to recommend actions related to prescribed nephrotoxics drugs. An analysis was request to check renal function in these patients, after 48 hours in the hospital and after 1 month of discharge from the Primary Care.
There were many previous meetings and the leadership of each unit was maintained in the participation of strategies.

What has been achieved?

The aim was to improve the detection of prerenal AKI in inpatients and increase the quality of healthcare in these patients.
For this 3-month pilot phase, were selected 3 clinical unit and 9 prerenal AKI cases have been detected. The most frequent risk factors were: 9 cases due to volume deplection, 6 due to nephrotoxic drugs use and 3 due to chronic kidney damage (CKD). The measures adopted were: add fluid therapy in all cases, cancel nephrotoxic drugs and modify the diuretic drugs prescription in 6 of 7 cases. There was only 1 death.

What next?

This strategy will be extended to all hospital clinical units. Data will be obtained on incidence and morbidity and mortality in these patients, as well as on length of hospital stay.

Pdf

Author(s)

Thewodros Leka, iun Grayston, Mashal Kamran, Biljana Markovic

Why was it done?

The Carter report recommended that about 80% of hospital pharmacist time should be spent on the wards to provide clinical pharmacy services. However, in our hospital’s surgical specialty at the time of this report, it was found that only 33% of pharmacist’s time was spent on clinical pharmacy services. This had a negative impact on:
• rate of medication errors and near misses
• supply of critical medicines
• pharmacist participation in productive ward rounds
• timely discharge of patients home

What was done?

The Pharmacy department made a successful business case to the Hospital executives to open a Satellite pharmacy to serve 4 surgical wards. The proposal was to recruit a dedicated clinical pharmacist and Medicines Management Technician, and set-up a dispensing satellite pharmacy.

How was it done?

The business case indicated that if funded, the new satellite pharmacy team would: • improve clinical pharmacy key performance indicators • improve patient safety • deliver a potential cost benefit Funding limitation was an obstacle and we have to convince the board.

What has been achieved?

We achieved 60−90% improvement in the objectives set in the business case as illustrated in Table 1 and 2. The pharmacy team won the annual quality improvement award of 2018. Table 1: Clinical Pharmacy Service improvement Clinical pharmacy services Service rate pre-satellite pharmacy Service rate post satellite pharmacy % of service improvement Medication errors 16/month 6/month 63% Pharmacist interventions 20/month 80/month 75% Pharmacist participation in ward round 6/month 50/month 88% Time to dispense discharge summaries 90 minutes/discharge summary 20 minutes/discharge summary 77% Number of patients counselled 15/month 75/month 80% Pharmacist available in the ward 1.5 hrs/day 7.5 hrs/day 80% Time taken to supply critical medicines 1 hour 5 minutes 91% Table 2: Potential Cost-benefit savings achieved Activities Cost-benefit savings/year (€) Reducing length of stay of patients €17,000 Reducing repeat dispensing €16,000 Effective use of nursing time €11,000 Reducing prescribing errors €103,000 Total Savings €147,000.

What next?

• Weekend working.
• Service improvements can be transferred to acute medical units and downstream medical wards. Reference Carter report.

Pdf

Author(s)

Paula Arrabal-Durán, Carmen Herrero-Domínguez-Berrueta, María Norberta Sánchez-Fresneda, Ana Mur-Mur, Ana Herranz-Alonso, María Sanjurjo-Sáez

Why was it done?

MI and PI are normally recorded in Hospital Pharmacy Services as a method for evaluating safety. Nevertheless, classical methods for reporting MI do not allow for a correct classification in the field of clinical trials. The reason is their more complex processes involving drugs compared to the processes in daily clinical practice. If there are no specific categories, the information obtained by recording usually gets lost and could not reflect exactly what occurred. In September 2016, a clinical tool to notify MI and PI was implemented in the Pharmacy Service, with the aim of unifying their classification criteria and gathering complete information for analysis and further implementation of improvement measures.

What was done?

A database to notify medication incidents (MI) and pharmaceutical interventions (PI) in the Clinical Trials Unit was developed in the Pharmacy Service of a tertiary hospital.

How was it done?

All the processes involving drugs in clinical trials were evaluated by a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). For each process, the possible incidents and their resulting effects on the patient were recorded. After that, a database was designed in Microsoft® Access with defined lists of choices to allow pharmacists notify both MI and PI that occur in the Clinical Trials Unit.

What has been achieved?

A database with the following information has been implemented:

a) Identification of the MI:
1. Date of the MI.
2. Number of patient.
3. Clinical Trial protocol.
4. Investigational product.
b) Process in which the MI took place (16 options).
c) Process in which the MI was detected (16 options).
d) Process that caused the MI (24 options).
e) Person who detected the MI (9 options).
f) Did any PI take place? (Yes/No).
g) PI performed (12 options).
h) Did the MI reach the patient? (Yes/No).
i) MI that reached the patient (21 options).
j) Patient outcome (8 options).
k) Effect in the clinical trial (4 options).

What next?

The implemented notification system will be further expanded and adapted over time.
Future aim is to analyse MI for establishing improvement measures and checking their results.