Economic evaluations of clinical pharmacy services in Ireland, 2007-2015

Introduction The concept of this thesis was driven by stagnation within the Irish healthcare system. Multiple reports from pharmacy organisations had outlined possible future directions for the profession but progress was minimal, especially in comparison with other countries. The author’s directive was to evaluate the economic impact of a series of clinical pharmacy services (CPS) in hospital and community settings. Methods A systematic review of economic evaluations of clinical pharmacy services in hospital patients was undertaken to gain insight into recent research in the field. Eligible studies were evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), to establish the quality, consistency and transparency of relevant research. A retrospective analysis of an internal hospital pharmacy interventions database was conducted. A method first described by Nesbit et al. was implemented to estimate the level of cost avoidance achieved. A cost-effectiveness analysis based on data from a randomised controlled trial of a pharmacist-supervised patient self-testing (PST) of warfarin therapy is presented. Outcome measure was the incremental cost associated with six months of intervention management. A similar cost-effectiveness analysis based on previously published RCT data was used to evaluate a novel structured pharmacist review of medication in older hospitalised patients. Cost-effectiveness analysis was presented in the form of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). An ICER is an additional cost per unit effect, in the case of this study, the cost of preventing an additional non-trivial ADR in hospital. A method described by Preaud et al. was adapted to estimate the clinical and economic benefit gained from vaccination of patients by a community pharmacist in Ireland in 2013/14. Sample demographic data was obtained from a national chain of community pharmacies and applied to overall national vaccination data. Results Systematic review identified twenty studies which were eligible for inclusion. Overall, pharmacist interventions had a positive impact on hospital budgets. Only three studies (15%) were deemed to be “good-quality” studies. No ‘novel’ clinical pharmacist intervention was identified during the course of this review. Analysis of internal hospital database identified 4,257 interventions documented on 2,147 individual patients over a 12 month period. Substantial cost avoidance of €710,000 was generated over a 1 year period from the perspective of the health care provider. Mean cost avoidance of €166 per intervention was generated. The cost of providing these interventions was €82,000. Substantial net cost-benefits of €626,279 and a cost-benefit ratio of 8.64 : 1 were generated based on this evaluation of pharmacist interventions. Results from an evaluation of a novel pharmacist-led form of warfarin management indicated indicated that on a per patient basis, PST was slightly more expensive than established anticoagulant management. On a per patient basis over a six month period, PST resulted in an incremental cost of €59.08 in comparison with routine care. Overall cost of managing a patient through pharmacist-supervised PST for a six month period is €226.45. However, for this increase in cost a clinically significant improvement in care was provided. Patients achieved a significantly higher time in therapeutic range during the PST arm in comparison with routine care, (72 ± 19.7% vs 59 ± 13.5%). Difference in overall cost was minimal and PST was the dominant strategy in some scenarios examined during sensitivity analysis. Structured pharmacist review of medication was determined to be dominant in comparison to usual pharmaceutical care. Even if the healthcare payer was unwilling to pay any money for the prevention of an ADR, the intervention strategy is still likely to be cost-effective (probability of being determined cost-effective = 0.707). Implementation of pharmacist-led influenza vaccination has resulted in substantial clinical and economic benefits to the healthcare system. The majority of patients (64.9%) who availed of this service had identifiable influenza-related risk factors. Of patients with influenza-related risk factors, age ≥65 year was the most commonly cited risk factor. Pharmacist vaccination services averted a total of 848 influenza cases across all age groups during the 2013/2014 influenza season. Due to receipt of vaccination in a pharmacy setting, 444 influenza-related GP visits were prevented. In terms of more serious influenza-associated events, 11 hospitalisations and five influenza-related deaths were averted. Costs averted were approximately €305,000. These were principally wider societal-related costs associated with lost productivity. Conclusion Overall, clinical pharmacy services are adding value to the Irish healthcare system in both hospital and community settings, but provision of additional funding for new services would enable them to offer a great deal more.

Time-limited home-care reablement services for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults

Background: Reablement, also known as restorative care, is one possible approach to home-care services for older adults at risk of functional decline. Unlike traditional home-care services, reablement is frequently time-limited (usually six to 12 weeks) and aims to maximise independence by offering an intensive multidisciplinary, person-centred and goal-directed intervention. Objectives: To assess the effects of time-limited home-care reablement services (up to 12 weeks) for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults (aged 65 years or more) when compared to usual home-care or wait-list control group. Search methods: We searched the following databases with no language restrictions during April to June 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (OvidSP); Embase (OvidSP); PsycINFO (OvidSP); ERIC; Sociological Abstracts; ProQuest Dissertations and Theses; CINAHL (EBSCOhost); SIGLE (OpenGrey); AgeLine and Social Care Online. We also searched the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews as well as contacting authors in the field. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised or quasi-randomised trials of time-limited reablement services for older adults (aged 65 years or more) delivered in their home; and incorporated a usual home-care or wait-list control group. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of individual studies and considered quality of the evidence using GRADE. We contacted study authors for additional information where needed. Main results: Two studies, comparing reablement with usual home-care services with 811 participants, met our eligibility criteria for inclusion; we also identified three potentially eligible studies, but findings were not yet available. One included study was conducted in Western Australia with 750 participants (mean age 82.29 years). The second study was conducted in Norway (61 participants; mean age 79 years). We are very uncertain as to the effects of reablement compared with usual care as the evidence was of very low quality for all of the outcomes reported. The main findings were as follows. Functional status: very low quality evidence suggested that reablement may be slightly more effective than usual care in improving function at nine to 12 months (lower scores reflect greater independence; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53 to -0.06; 2 studies with 249 participants). Adverse events: reablement may make little or no difference to mortality at 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.29; 2 studies with 811 participants) or rates of unplanned hospital admission at 24 months (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03; 1 study with 750 participants). The very low quality evidence also means we are uncertain whether reablement may influence quality of life (SMD -0.23; 95% CI -0.48 to 0.02; 2 trials with 249 participants) or living arrangements (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.34; 1 study with 750 participants) at time points up to 12 months. People receiving reablement may be slightly less likely to have been approved for a higher level of personal care than people receiving usual care over the 24 months' follow-up (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; 1 trial, 750 participants). Similarly, although there may be a small reduction in total aggregated home and healthcare costs over the 24-month follow-up (reablement: AUD 19,888; usual care: AUD 22,757; 1 trial with 750 participants), we are uncertain about the size and importance of these effects as the results were based on very low quality evidence. Neither study reported user satisfaction with the service. Authors' conclusions: There is considerable uncertainty regarding the effects of reablement as the evidence was of very low quality according to our GRADE ratings. Therefore, the effectiveness of reablement services cannot be supported or refuted until more robust evidence becomes available. There is an urgent need for high quality trials across different health and social care systems due to the increasingly high profile of reablement services in policy and practice in several countries.