Markus L. Lampert

Drug-related problems in hospitals: a review of the recent literature.

Problems associated with pharmacotherapy (in particular, medication errors and adverse drug events) are frequent and are associated with increased costs for treatment.Analysis of original publications published between 1990 and 2005 on the topics of medication errors and/or adverse drug events in hospitalised patients, focusing on the frequency of, risk factors for and avoidance of such problems associated with pharmacotherapy, indicated that medication errors occurred in a mean of 5.7% of all episodes of drug administration, but with a high variability among the 35 studies retrieved. This variability was explained by the methods by which medication errors were detected (systematic screening of patients versus chart review or spontaneous reporting) and by the way drugs were administered (intravenously administered drugs are associated with the highest error frequencies). Errors occurred throughout the whole medication process, with administration errors accounting for more than half of all errors. Important risk factors included insufficient pharmacological knowledge of health professionals, errors in the patient charts or documentation by nurses and inadequate pharmacy services.Adverse events or reactions, on the other hand, affected 6.1 patients per 100 hospitalised and also showed a high variability among the 46 studies retrieved. This variability could also be explained by the different methods of assessment of the frequency of adverse drug events or reactions, as well as by the different wards on which the studies were performed. Important risk factors for adverse drug events or reactions included polypharmacy, female sex, drugs with a narrow therapeutic range, renal elimination of drugs, age >65 years and use of anticoagulants or diuretics.Since medication errors are strong risk factors for preventable adverse drug events or reactions, strategies have to be put in place for their reduction. Such strategies include ensuring that all persons involved in the medication process (nurses, pharmacists and physicians) have good pharmacological knowledge, computerisation of the entire medication process, and the engagement of a sufficient number of clinical pharmacists on the wards.

Inappropriate prescribing : a systematic overview of published assessment tools

BackgroundCriteria to assess the appropriateness of prescriptions might serve as a helpful guideline during professional training and in daily practice, with the aim to improve a patient’s pharmacotherapy.ObjectiveTo create a comprehensive and structured overview of existing tools to assess inappropriate prescribing.MethodSystematic literature search in Pubmed (1991–2013). The following properties of the tools were extracted and mapped in a structured way: approach (explicit, implicit), development method (consensus technique, expert panel, literature based), focused patient group, health care setting, and covered aspects of inappropriate prescribing.ResultsThe literature search resulted in 46 tools to assess inappropriate prescribing.Twenty-eight (61%) of 46 tools were explicit, 8 (17%) were implicit and 10 (22%) used a mixed approach. Thirty-six (78%) tools named older people as target patients and 10 (22%) tools did not specify the target age group. Four (8.5%) tools were designed to detect inappropriate prescribing in hospitalised patients, 9 (19.5%) focused on patients in ambulatory care and 6 (13%) were developed for use in long-term care. Twenty-seven (59%) tools did not specify the health care setting. Consensus methods were applied in the development of 19 tools (41%), the others were based on either simple expert panels (13; 28%) or on a literature search (11; 24%). For three tools (7%) the development method was not described.ConclusionThis overview reveals the characteristics of 46 assessment tools and can serve as a summary to assist readers in choosing a tool, either for research purposes or for daily practice use.

Outcomes of early switching from intravenous to oral antibiotics on medical wards

Objectives To evaluate outcomes following implementation of a checklist with criteria for switching from intravenous (iv) to oral antibiotics on unselected patients on two general medical wards. Methods During a 12 month intervention study, a printed checklist of criteria for switching on the third day of iv treatment was placed in the medical charts. The decision to switch was left to the discretion of the attending physician. Outcome parameters of a 4 month control phase before intervention were compared with the equivalent 4 month period during the intervention phase to control for seasonal confounding (before–after study; April to July of 2006 and 2007, respectively): 250 episodes (215 patients) during the intervention period were compared with the control group of 176 episodes (162 patients). The main outcome measure was the duration of iv therapy. Additionally, safety, adherence to the checklist, reasons against switching patients and antibiotic cost were analysed during the whole year of the intervention (n = 698 episodes). Results In 38% (246/646) of episodes of continued iv antibiotic therapy, patients met all criteria for switching to oral antibiotics on the third day, and 151/246 (61.4%) were switched. The number of days of iv antibiotic treatment were reduced by 19% (95% confidence interval 9%–29%, P = 0.001; 6.0–5.0 days in median) with no increase in complications. The main reasons against switching were persisting fever (41%, n = 187) and absence of clinical improvement (41%, n = 185). Conclusions On general medical wards, a checklist with bedside criteria for switching to oral antibiotics can shorten the duration of iv therapy without any negative effect on treatment outcome. The criteria were successfully applied to all patients on the wards, independently of the indication (empirical or directed treatment), the type of (presumed) infection, the underlying disease or the group of antibiotics being used.

Classification of drug-related problems with new prescriptions using a modified PCNE classification system

Objectives To explore and classify drug-related problems (DRPs) with new prescriptions detected in community pharmacies using a modified PCNE (Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe) classification system. Setting Sixty-four Swiss community pharmacies offering internships for pharmacy students. Main outcome measures Occurrence, nature and pharmacist’s management of DRPs. Methods Fifth-year pharmacy students collected consecutively hospital discharge and primary care prescriptions. After training, they documented clinical and technical DRPs, causes and interventions. Results Prescriptions of 616 patients (43.0% discharged from hospital) were analysed. The patients’ median age was 56 years and they received a median of 3 (range 2–19) different drugs. In 121 (19.6%) prescriptions 141 clinical DRPs were detected. The most frequent clinical DRPs were potential drug–drug interactions (DDIs) (37.6%), drug choice (24.8%) and drug use problems (15.6%). These clinical DRPs led to a total of 299 interventions. There were 222 prescriptions (36.0%) that showed 278 technical DRPs, resulting in a total of 417 interventions. Most frequent technical DRPs were missing or unclear package size or therapy duration (32.7%) and missing or unclear dosing/application instructions (30.9%). Most DRPs (75.4%) could be managed by the pharmacist alone. The number of prescribed drugs was the main factor with an influence on the frequency of clinical and technical DRPs. Conclusion Clinical and technical DRPs are frequently observed in primary care as well as in hospital discharge prescriptions. The modified PCNE classification system, especially the amendment with a technical DRP category, proved to be useful and allowed the classification of all DRPs. Neither the setting (hospital discharge vs. primary care) nor the quality of electronically printed prescriptions, but only the number of prescribed drugs influenced the occurrence of clinical or technical DRPs.

Determination of risk factors for drug-related problems: a multidisciplinary triangulation process.

Introduction and objectives Drug-related problems (DRPs) constitute a frequent safety issue among hospitalised patients leading to patient harm and increased healthcare costs. Because many DRPs are preventable, the specific risk factors that facilitate their occurrence are of considerable interest. The objective of our study was to assess risk factors for the occurrence of DRPs with the intention to identify patients at risk for DRPs to guide and target preventive measures where they are needed most in patients. Design Triangulation process using a mixed methods approach. Methods We conducted an expert panel, using the nominal group technique (NGT) and a qualitative analysis, to gather risk factors for DRPs. The expert panel consisted of two consultant hospital physicians (internal medicine and geriatrics), one emergency physician, one independent general practitioner, one clinical pharmacologist, one clinical pharmacist, one registered nurse, one home care nurse and two independent community pharmacists. The literature was searched for additional risk factors. Gathered factors from the literature search and the NGT were assembled and validated in a two-round Delphi questionnaire. Results The NGT resulted in the identification of 33 items with 13 additional risk factors from the qualitative analysis of the discussion. The literature search delivered another 39 risk factors. The 85 risk factors were refined to produce 42 statements for the Delphi online questionnaire. Of these, 27 risk factors were judged to be ‘important’ or ‘rather important’. Conclusions The gathered risk factors may help to characterise and identify patients at risk for DRPs and may enable clinical pharmacists to guide and target preventive measures in order to limit the occurrence of DRPs. As a further step, these risk factors will serve as the basis for a screening tool to identify patients at risk for DRPs.

Mapping clinical pharmacy practice in Swiss hospitals: a cross-sectional study

Background Clinical pharmacy activities developed significantly in the last decade. The extent and organisation of these activities in Switzerland remained unknown. Objectives To map clinical pharmacy services (CPS) provided in Swiss hospitals and to discuss their development focusing on different cultural regions and healthcare systems. Methods We enrolled all chief hospital pharmacists affiliated with the Swiss Society of Public Health Administration and Hospital Pharmacists (n=47) for an online survey. We asked them to describe the extent and organisation of CPS concerning patient-related, therapy-related or process-related activities, the structural organisation and the available human resources. Results The survey took place from March to April 2013. It was completed by 44 chief hospital pharmacists (return rate 94%), representing the hospital landscape in Switzerland comprehensively. Thirty-three (75%) hospitals offered regular CPS and seven (16%) planned to do so. Institutions in regions without drug-dispensing physicians rather employed pharmacists assigned with clinical activities (n=20, 22% of 135.3 full-time equivalent (FTE)) than regions with partial (n=8, 7% of 35.8 FTE) or unrestricted drug dispensing by physicians (n=16, 6% of 68.1 FTE, p=0.026). Of hospitals with implemented CPS, 73% had weekly interprofessional ward rounds, and in 9.1%, clinical pharmacists daily reconciled medicines at patient discharge. Conclusions Our data show regional differences in the implementation and pattern of CPS. A significant correlation to drug dispensing by physicians in ambulatory care and human resources provided for CPS was found. While interprofessional ward rounds were performed periodically, seamless care activities by clinical pharmacists remained insufficiently established.

Drug-Associated Risk Tool: development and validation of a self-assessment questionnaire to screen for hospitalised patients at risk for drug-related problems

Introduction Identifying patients with a high risk for drug-related problems (DRPs) might optimise the allocation of targeted pharmaceutical care during the hospital stay and on discharge. Objective To develop a self-assessment screening tool to identify patients at risk for DRPs and validate the tool regarding feasibility, acceptability and the reliability of the patients’ answers. Design Prospective validation study. Setting Two mid-sized hospitals (300–400 beds). Participants 195 patients, exclusion criteria: under 18 years old, patients with a health status not allowing a meaningful communication (eg, delirium, acute psychosis, advanced dementia, aphasia, clouded consciousness state), palliative or terminally ill patients. Methods Twenty-seven risk factors for the development of DRPs, identified in a previous study, provided the basis of the self-assessment questionnaire, the Drug-Associated Risk Tool (DART). Consenting patients filled in DART, and we compared their answers with objective patient data from medical records and laboratory data. Results One hundred and sixty-four patients filled in DART V.1.0 in an average time of 7 min. After a first validation, we identified statements with a low sensitivity and revised the wording of the questions related to heart insufficiency, renal impairment or liver impairment. The revised DART (V.2.0) was validated in 31 patients presenting heart insufficiency, renal impairment or liver impairment as comorbidity and reached an average specificity of 88% (range 27–100) and an average sensitivity of 67% (range 21–100). Conclusions DART showed a satisfying feasibility and reliability. The specificity of the statements was mostly high. The sensitivity varied and was higher in statements concerning diseases that require regular disease control and attention to self-care and drug management. Asking patients about their conditions, medications and related problems can facilitate getting a first, broad picture of the risk for DRPs and possible pharmaceutical needs.

Contribution of Patient Interviews as Part of a Comprehensive Approach to the Identification of Drug-Related Problems on Geriatric Wards

BackgroundInappropriate prescribing is linked to increased risks for adverse drug reactions and hospitalisation. Combining explicit and implicit criteria of inappropriate prescribing with the information obtained in patient interviews seems beneficial with regard to the identification of drug-related problems (DRPs) in hospitalised patients.ObjectiveWe aimed to investigate the inclusion of pharmacist interviews as part of medication reviews (including the use of explicit and implicit criteria of inappropriate prescribing) to identify DRPs in older inpatients.MethodsClinical medication reviews were performed on geriatric and associated physical and neurological rehabilitation wards in a regional secondary care hospital. Data from electronic medical records, laboratory data, and current treatment regimens were complemented with a novel structured patient interview performed by a clinical pharmacist. The structured interview questioned patients on administration issues, prescribed medication, self-medication, and allergies. The reviews included the use of current treatment guidelines, the Medication Appropriateness Index, the Screening Tool of Older People’s Prescriptions (STOPP, v2), and the Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment (START, v2). The potential relevance of the DRPs was estimated using the German version of the CLEO tool.ResultsIn 110 patients, 595 DRPs were identified, averaging 5.4 per patient (range 0–17). The structured interviews identified 249 DRPs (41.8%), of which 227 were not identified by any other source of information. The majority of DRPs (213/249, i.e. 85.5%) identified by patient interview were estimated to be of minor clinical relevance (i.e. limited adherence, knowledge, quality of life, or satisfaction).ConclusionWe demonstrated that structured patient interviews identified additional DRPs that other sources did not identify. Embedded within a comprehensive approach, the structured patient interviews were needed as data resource for over one-third of all DRPs.

Assessing the ability of the Drug-Associated Risk Tool (DART) questionnaire to stratify hospitalised older patients according to their risk of drug-related problems: a cross-sectional validation study

Objectives The Drug-Associated Risk Tool (DART) has been developed as a self-administered questionnaire for patients with the aim of stratifying patients according to their risk of drug-related problems (DRPs). We aimed to validate the ability of the questionnaire to distinguish between hospitalised patients showing lower and higher numbers of DRPs. Design Cross-sectional study assessing the questionnaire’s concurrent criterion validity. Setting Five geriatric and the associated physical and neurological rehabilitation wards of a Swiss regional secondary care hospital with 617 beds. Participants We recruited 110 patients from a total of 437 admissions. Exclusion criteria were insufficient knowledge in spoken or written German, medical conditions preventing meaningful conversations and already receiving pharmacy services. Interventions Comprehensive pharmacist-led clinical medication reviews were performed, including patient interviews, to identify potential and manifest DRPs. A cluster analysis was conducted to assess the discriminatory potential of the DART to group patients according to number (low and high) of identified DRPs. A subsequent discriminatory function analysis was performed to reduce the number of items. We determined which DART items may be used to trigger what type of medication review. Results Recruited patients had a median age of 79 years and were prescribed a median of 11 drugs. Patients with a median DART score of 10 and a median of 3 DRPs represented one cluster, whereas patients with a median DART score of 15 and a median of 8 DRPs represented another cluster. Discriminatory function analysis reduced the questionnaire to five items with a moderate to strong correlation with the number of DRPs per patient (Spearman’s rank correlation ρ=0.44). Additional items were associated with patients benefiting from interviews. Conclusions As a self-administered questionnaire for patients, the DART may be used to stratify hospitalised non-acute older patients in groups of having low and high likelihood of DRPs. The analyses showed that a short form of the DART can be used instead of the full tool to identify older inpatients at risk for DRPs. Additional eight items from the DART may be used to initiate additional clinical pharmacy services. The linkage between certain DART questions and type of medication review enables pharmacist resource allocation.

Clinical pharmacy and pharmaceutical care : Patient-oriented application of pharmaceutical expertise

Clinical Pharmacy is a health speciality describing the activities and services of the clinical pharmacist to develop and promote the rational and appropriate use of drugs, medicinal products, and devices by the individual as well as by the society. Very closely related to the term of clinical pharmacy is the concept of pharmaceutical care. This means a new pharmacy practice paradigm which puts the patient into the centre. In the course of this practice, a pharmacist takes responsibility for a patients drug-related needs with the aim of achieving definite outcomes that improve a patients quality of life. At the University of Basel, clinical pharmacy and pharmaceutical care have developed constantly over the last twenty years. Examples from research and practice are given in this article, and areas for future work are outlined.