A pilot study to evaluate the self-medication system for liver transplant patients at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham

Background and Objective: Medication non-compliance is a considerable obstacle in achievinga therapeutic goal, whichcan result in poorerhealthcare outcomes, increased expenditure, wastage and potential for medication resistance. The UK Government’s Audit Commission’s publication ‘A Spoonful of Sugar’1 addresses these issues and promotes self-medication systems as a possible solution. The self-medication system within the Liver Transplant Unit (LTU) was implemented to induct patients onto new post- transplantation medication regimes ready for discharge. The system involves initial consultations with both the Liver Transplant Pharmacist and Trans- plant Co-ordinator, supported with additional advice as and when necessary. Design: Following ethical approval, evaluation of the self-medication sys- tem for liver transplant patients was conducted between January and March 2004 via two methods: audit and structured post-transplantation interview. The audit enabled any discrepancies between current Hospital guidelines and Liver Transplant Unit (LTU) practices to be highlighted. Patient interviews generated a retrospective insight into patient acceptance of the self-medication system. Setting: LTU, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, England. Main Outcome Measures: LTU compliance with Hospital self-medication guidelines and patient insight into self-medication system. Results: A total of seven patients were audited. Findings illustrated that self- medication by transplant patients is a complex process which was not fully addressed by current Hospital self-medication guidelines. Twenty-three patients were interviewed, showing an overwhelming positive attitude to- wards participating in their own care and a high level of understanding towards their individual medication regimes. Following a drugs counselling session, 100% of patients understood why they were taking their medica- tion, and their doses, 95% understood how to take their medication and 85% were aware of potential side effects. Conclusions: From this pilot evaluation it can be stated that the LTU self-medication system is appreciated by patients and assists them in fully understanding their medication regimes. There appear to be no major defects in the system. However areas such as communication barriers and on-going internet education were illustrated as areas for possible future investigation. References: 1. Audit Commission. A spoonful of sugar – medicines management in NHS hospitals. London: Audit Commission; 2001.

The Aston Medication Adherence Study:mapping the adherence patterns of an inner-city population

Background: The Aston Medication Adherence Study was designed to examine non-adherence to prescribed medicines within an inner-city population using general practice (GP) prescribing data. Objective: To examine non-adherence patterns to prescribed oralmedications within three chronic disease states and to compare differences in adherence levels between various patient groups to assist the routine identification of low adherence amongst patients within the Heart of Birmingham teaching Primary Care Trust (HoBtPCT). Setting: Patients within the area covered by HoBtPCT (England) prescribed medication for dyslipidaemia, type-2 diabetes and hypothyroidism, between 2000 and 2010 inclusively. HoBtPCT's population was disproportionately young,with seventy per cent of residents fromBlack and Minority Ethnic groups. Method: Systematic computational analysis of all medication issue data from 76 GP surgeries dichotomised patients into two groups (adherent and non-adherent) for each pharmacotherapeutic agent within the treatment groups. Dichotomised groupings were further analysed by recorded patient demographics to identify predictors of lower adherence levels. Results were compared to an analysis of a self-reportmeasure of adherence [using the Modified Morisky Scale© (MMAS-8)] and clinical value data (cholesterol values) from GP surgery records. Main outcome: Adherence levels for different patient demographics, for patients within specific longterm treatment groups. Results: Analysis within all three groups showed that for patients with the following characteristics, adherence levels were statistically lower than for others; patients: younger than 60 years of age; whose religion is coded as "Islam"; whose ethnicity is coded as one of the Asian groupings or as "Caribbean", "Other Black" and "African"; whose primary language is coded as "Urdu" or "Bengali"; and whose postcodes indicate that they live within the most socioeconomically deprived areas of HoBtPCT. Statistically significant correlations between adherence status and results from the selfreport measure of adherence and of clinical value data analysis were found. Conclusion: Using data fromGP prescribing systems, a computerised tool to calculate individual adherence levels for oral pharmacotherapy for the treatment of diabetes, dyslipidaemia and hypothyroidism has been developed.The tool has been used to establish nonadherence levels within the three treatment groups and the demographic characteristics indicative of lower adherence levels, which in turn will enable the targeting of interventional support within HoBtPCT. © Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij ter bevordering der Pharmacie 2013.

Medication errors in mental healthcare:a systematic review

Methods: It has been estimated that medication error harms 1-2% of patients admitted to general hospitals. There has been no previous systematic review of the incidence, cause or type of medication error in mental healthcare services. Methods: A systematic literature search for studies that examined the incidence or cause of medication error in one or more stage(s) of the medication-management process in the setting of a community or hospital-based mental healthcare service was undertaken. The results in the context of the design of the study and the denominator used were examined. Results: All studies examined medication management processes, as opposed to outcomes. The reported rate of error was highest in studies that retrospectively examined drug charts, intermediate in those that relied on reporting by pharmacists to identify error and lowest in those that relied on organisational incident reporting systems. Only a few of the errors identified by the studies caused actual harm, mostly because they were detected and remedial action was taken before the patient received the drug. The focus of the research was on inpatients and prescriptions dispensed by mental health pharmacists. Conclusion: Research about medication error in mental healthcare is limited. In particular, very little is known about the incidence of error in non-hospital settings or about the harm caused by it. Evidence is available from other sources that a substantial number of adverse drug events are caused by psychotropic drugs. Some of these are preventable and might probably, therefore, be due to medication error. On the basis of this and features of the organisation of mental healthcare that might predispose to medication error, priorities for future research are suggested.