Skip to content

ANALYSIS OF DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN DATABASES OF DRUG-PLANT INTERACTIONS: A NEW TOOL THAT FACILITATES DAILY DECISION MAKING

European Statement

Clinical Pharmacy Services

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.

Impact of a specialist pharmacist on hepato-pancreatico-biliary (HpB) surgical ward rounds at a large tertiary liver centre.

European Statement

Clinical Pharmacy Services

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.

Early detection of prerenal acute kidney injury (AKI) inpatients through multidisciplinary action.

Pdf

PDF Icon

European Statement

Clinical Pharmacy Services

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.

THE IMPACT OF A WARD SATELLITE PHARMACY ON CLINICAL PHARMACY SERVICES AND POTENTIAL COST BENEFIET (submitted in 2019)

Pdf

PDF Icon

European Statement

Patient Safety and Quality Assurance

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.

HOSPITAL PHARMACY CONTRIBUTION TO CLINICAL TRIALS: TYPIFICATION OF MEDICATION INCIDENTS AND PHARMACEUTICAL INTERVENTIONS IN A CLINICAL TRIAL UNIT

Pdf

PDF Icon

European Statement

Patient Safety and Quality Assurance

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.