A pilot study to assess the appropriateness of prescribing from a collaborative pharmacist prescribing study in a surgical pre admission clinic

Background Current evidence to support non-medical prescribing is predominantly qualitative, with little evaluation of appropriateness. This study aims to evaluate the appropriateness of prescribing, and significance of omissions, from a doctor pharmacist collaborative prescribing model in an elective surgery pre admission clinic (PAC). Method A modified version of the Medication Appropriate Index (MAI) was developed, piloted and subsequently used by an expert panel, comprised of a surgeon, anaesthetist, clinical pharmacologist, pharmacist, resident medical officer (RMO) and clinical nurse. The tool was used to rate the appropriateness of prescribing of medications, and the significance of omissions in a 5% sample (N=19) of the total cohort from a randomised, controlled two arm trial of doctor-pharmacist collaborative prescribing. Results When reviewer assessments were combined, 32 out of 294 (10.9%) medications assessed for appropriateness in the control arm were classed as inappropriate, compared to 13 of 266 (4.9%) in the intervention arm. Out of 89 regular medications in the control arm, 25 (28%) were omitted from the medication charts, compared to 1 out of 55 (2%) in the intervention arm (p<0.001, fishers exact) On average, 52% of omissions in the control arm were judged to have potential for patient harm or ward inconvenience. Conclusion For the appropriateness of prescribing, overall results were similar between arms, as judged by individual panel members. Medication charts in the control arm contained significantly more omissions than in the intervention arm, a number of which were rated by the panel members as having the potential for patient harm or ward inconvenience.