43
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      On-ward participation of a hospital pharmacist in a Dutch intensive care unit reduces prescribing errors and related patient harm: an intervention study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) are at high risk for prescribing errors and related adverse drug events (ADEs). An effective intervention to decrease this risk, based on studies conducted mainly in North America, is on-ward participation of a clinical pharmacist in an ICU team. As the Dutch Healthcare System is organized differently and the on-ward role of hospital pharmacists in Dutch ICU teams is not well established, we conducted an intervention study to investigate whether participation of a hospital pharmacist can also be an effective approach in reducing prescribing errors and related patient harm (preventable ADEs) in this specific setting.

          Methods

          A prospective study compared a baseline period with an intervention period. During the intervention period, an ICU hospital pharmacist reviewed medication orders for patients admitted to the ICU, noted issues related to prescribing, formulated recommendations and discussed those during patient review meetings with the attending ICU physicians. Prescribing issues were scored as prescribing errors when consensus was reached between the ICU hospital pharmacist and ICU physicians.

          Results

          During the 8.5-month study period, medication orders for 1,173 patients were reviewed. The ICU hospital pharmacist made a total of 659 recommendations. During the intervention period, the rate of consensus between the ICU hospital pharmacist and ICU physicians was 74%. The incidence of prescribing errors during the intervention period was significantly lower than during the baseline period: 62.5 per 1,000 monitored patient-days versus 190.5 per 1,000 monitored patient-days, respectively ( P < 0.001). Preventable ADEs (patient harm, National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention severity categories E and F) were reduced from 4.0 per 1,000 monitored patient-days during the baseline period to 1.0 per 1,000 monitored patient-days during the intervention period ( P = 0.25). Per monitored patient-day, the intervention itself cost €3, but might have saved €26 to €40 by preventing ADEs.

          Conclusions

          On-ward participation of a hospital pharmacist in a Dutch ICU was associated with significant reductions in prescribing errors and related patient harm (preventable ADEs) at acceptable costs per monitored patient-day.

          Trial registration number

          ISRCTN92487665

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Pharmacist participation on physician rounds and adverse drug events in the intensive care unit.

          Pharmacist review of medication orders in the intensive care unit (ICU) has been shown to prevent errors, and pharmacist consultation has reduced drug costs. However, whether pharmacist participation in the ICU at the time of drug prescribing reduces adverse events has not been studied. To measure the effect of pharmacist participation on medical rounds in the ICU on the rate of preventable adverse drug events (ADEs) caused by ordering errors. Before-after comparison between phase 1 (baseline) and phase 2 (after intervention implemented) and phase 2 comparison with a control unit that did not receive the intervention. A medical ICU (study unit) and a coronary care unit (control unit) in a large urban teaching hospital. Seventy-five patients randomly selected from each of 3 groups: all admissions to the study unit from February 1, 1993, through July 31, 1993 (baseline) and all admissions to the study unit (postintervention) and control unit from October 1, 1994, through July 7, 1995. In addition, 50 patients were selected at random from the control unit during the baseline period. A senior pharmacist made rounds with the ICU team and remained in the ICU for consultation in the morning, and was available on call throughout the day. Preventable ADEs due to ordering (prescribing) errors and the number, type, and acceptance of interventions made by the pharmacist. Preventable ADEs were identified by review of medical records of the randomly selected patients during both preintervention and postintervention phases. Pharmacists recorded all recommendations, which were then analyzed by type and acceptance. The rate of preventable ordering ADEs decreased by 66% from 10.4 per 1000 patient-days (95% confidence interval [CI], 7-14) before the intervention to 3.5 (95% CI, 1-5; P<.001) after the intervention. In the control unit, the rate was essentially unchanged during the same time periods: 10.9 (95% CI, 6-16) and 12.4 (95% CI, 8-17) per 1000 patient-days. The pharmacist made 366 recommendations related to drug ordering, of which 362 (99%) were accepted by physicians. The presence of a pharmacist on rounds as a full member of the patient care team in a medical ICU was associated with a substantially lower rate of ADEs caused by prescribing errors. Nearly all the changes were readily accepted by physicians.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The costs of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Adverse Drug Events Prevention Study Group.

            To assess the additional resource utilization associated with an adverse drug event (ADE). Nested case-control study within a prospective cohort study. The cohort included 4108 admissions to a stratified random sample of 11 medical and surgical units in 2 tertiary-care hospitals over a 6-month period. Cases were patients with an ADE, and the control for each case was the patient on the same unit as the case with the most similar pre-event length of stay. Postevent length of stay and total costs. Incidents were detected by self-report stimulated by nurses and pharmacists and by daily chart review, and were classified as to whether they represented ADEs. Information on length of stay and charges was obtained from billing data, and costs were estimated by multiplying components of charges times hospital-specific ratios of costs to charges. During the study period, there were 247 ADEs among 207 admissions. After outliers and multiple episodes were excluded, there were 190 ADEs, of which 60 were preventable. In paired regression analyses adjusting for multiple factors, including severity, comorbidity, and case mix, the additional length of stay associated with an ADE was 2.2 days (P=.04), and the increase in cost associated with an ADE was $3244 (P=.04). For preventable ADEs, the increases were 4.6 days in length of stay (P=.03) and $5857 in total cost (P=.07). After adjusting for our sampling strategy, the estimated postevent costs attributable to an ADE were $2595 for all ADEs and $4685 for preventable ADEs. Based on these costs and data about the incidence of ADEs, we estimate that the annual costs attributable to all ADEs and preventable ADEs for a 700-bed teaching hospital are $5.6 million and $2.8 million, respectively. The substantial costs of ADEs to hospitals justify investment in efforts to prevent these events. Moreover, these estimates are conservative because they do not include the costs of injuries to patients or malpractice costs.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Standardisation of costs: the Dutch Manual for Costing in economic evaluations.

              The lack of a uniform costing methodology is often considered a weakness of economic evaluations that hinders the interpretation and comparison of studies. Standardisation is therefore an important topic within the methodology of economic evaluations and in national guidelines that formulate the formal requirements for studies to be considered when deciding on the reimbursement of new medical therapies. Recently, the Dutch Manual for Costing: Methods and Standard Costs for Economic Evaluations in Health Care (further referred to as "the manual") has been published, in addition to the Dutch guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research. The objectives of this article are to describe the main content of the manual and to discuss some key issues of the manual in relation to the standardisation of costs. The manual introduces a six-step procedure for costing. These steps concern: the scope of the study;the choice of cost categories;the identification of units;the measurement of resource use;the monetary valuation of units; andthe calculation of unit costs. Each step consists of a number of choices and these together define the approach taken. In addition to a description of the costing process, five key issues regarding the standardisation of costs are distinguished. These are the use of basic principles, methods for measurement and valuation, standard costs (average prices of healthcare services), standard values (values that can be used within unit cost calculations), and the reporting of outcomes. The use of the basic principles, standard values and minimal requirements for reporting outcomes, as defined in the manual, are obligatory in studies that support submissions to acquire reimbursement for new pharmaceuticals. Whether to use standard costs, and the choice of a particular method to measure or value costs, is left mainly to the investigator, depending on the specific study setting. In conclusion, several instruments are available to increase standardisation in costing methodology among studies. These instruments have to be used in such a way that a balance is found between standardisation and the specific setting in which a study is performed. The way in which the Dutch manual tries to reach this balance can serve as an illustration for other countries.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Crit Care
                Critical Care
                BioMed Central
                1364-8535
                1466-609X
                2010
                4 October 2010
                : 14
                : 5
                : R174
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Hospital Pharmacy, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [2 ]Department of Intensive Care, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [3 ]Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [4 ]Department of Quality and Process Innovation, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                Article
                cc9278
                10.1186/cc9278
                3219276
                20920322
                4e8adab6-2562-4a6e-8729-267b8345e4bd
                Copyright ©2010 Klopotowska et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 20 April 2010
                : 29 June 2010
                : 4 October 2010
                Categories
                Research

                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                Emergency medicine & Trauma

                Comments

                Comment on this article