PINCER trial: a cluster randomised trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a pharmacist-led IT-based intervention with simple feedback in reducing rates of clinically important errors in medicines management in general practices

Background: Medication errors in general practice are an important source of potentially preventable morbidity and mortality. Building on previous descriptive, qualitative and pilot work, we sought to investigate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and likely generalisability of a complex pharm acist-led IT-based intervention aiming to improve prescribing safety in general practice. Objectives: We sought to: • Test the hypothesis that a pharmacist-led IT-based complex intervention using educational outreach and practical support is more effective than simple feedback in reducing the proportion of patients at risk from errors in prescribing and medicines management in general practice. • Conduct an economic evaluation of the cost per error avoided, from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS). • Analyse data recorded by pharmacists, summarising the proportions of patients judged to be at clinical risk, the actions recommended by pharmacists, and actions completed in the practices. • Explore the views and experiences of healthcare professionals and NHS managers concerning the intervention; investigate potential explanations for the observed effects, and inform decisions on the future roll-out of the pharmacist-led intervention • Examine secular trends in the outcome measures of interest allowing for informal comparison between trial practices and practices that did not participate in the trial contributing to the QRESEARCH database. Methods Two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial of 72 English general practices with embedded economic analysis and longitudinal descriptive and qualitative analysis. Informal comparison of the trial findings with a national descriptive study investigating secular trends undertaken using data from practices contributing to the QRESEARCH database. The main outcomes of interest were prescribing errors and medication monitoring errors at six- and 12-months following the intervention. Results: Participants in the pharmacist intervention arm practices were significantly less likely to have been prescribed a non-selective NSAID without a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) if they had a history of peptic ulcer (OR 0.58, 95%CI 0.38, 0.89), to have been prescribed a beta-blocker if they had asthma (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58, 0.91) or (in those aged 75 years and older) to have been prescribed an ACE inhibitor or diuretic without a measurement of urea and electrolytes in the last 15 months (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34, 0.78). The economic analysis suggests that the PINCER pharmacist intervention has 95% probability of being cost effective if the decision-maker’s ceiling willingness to pay reaches £75 (6 months) or £85 (12 months) per error avoided. The intervention addressed an issue that was important to professionals and their teams and was delivered in a way that was acceptable to practices with minimum disruption of normal work processes. Comparison of the trial findings with changes seen in QRESEARCH practices indicated that any reductions achieved in the simple feedback arm were likely, in the main, to have been related to secular trends rather than the intervention. Conclusions Compared with simple feedback, the pharmacist-led intervention resulted in reductions in proportions of patients at risk of prescribing and monitoring errors for the primary outcome measures and the composite secondary outcome measures at six-months and (with the exception of the NSAID/peptic ulcer outcome measure) 12-months post-intervention. The intervention is acceptable to pharmacists and practices, and is likely to be seen as costeffective by decision makers.

A pharmacist-led information technology intervention for medication errors (PINCER): a multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background: Medication errors are common in primary care and are associated with considerable risk of patient harm. We tested whether a pharmacist-led, information technology-based intervention was more effective than simple feedback in reducing the number of patients at risk of measures related to hazardous prescribing and inadequate blood-test monitoring of medicines 6 months after the intervention. Methods: In this pragmatic, cluster randomised trial general practices in the UK were stratified by research site and list size, and randomly assigned by a web-based randomisation service in block sizes of two or four to one of two groups. The practices were allocated to either computer-generated simple feedback for at-risk patients (control) or a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER), composed of feedback, educational outreach, and dedicated support. The allocation was masked to general practices, patients, pharmacists, researchers, and statisticians. Primary outcomes were the proportions of patients at 6 months after the intervention who had had any of three clinically important errors: non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) prescribed to those with a history of peptic ulcer without co-prescription of a proton-pump inhibitor; β blockers prescribed to those with a history of asthma; long-term prescription of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or loop diuretics to those 75 years or older without assessment of urea and electrolytes in the preceding 15 months. The cost per error avoided was estimated by incremental cost-eff ectiveness analysis. This study is registered with Controlled-Trials.com, number ISRCTN21785299. Findings: 72 general practices with a combined list size of 480 942 patients were randomised. At 6 months’ follow-up, patients in the PINCER group were significantly less likely to have been prescribed a non-selective NSAID if they had a history of peptic ulcer without gastroprotection (OR 0∙58, 95% CI 0∙38–0∙89); a β blocker if they had asthma (0∙73, 0∙58–0∙91); or an ACE inhibitor or loop diuretic without appropriate monitoring (0∙51, 0∙34–0∙78). PINCER has a 95% probability of being cost eff ective if the decision-maker’s ceiling willingness to pay reaches £75 per error avoided at 6 months. Interpretation: The PINCER intervention is an effective method for reducing a range of medication errors in general practices with computerised clinical records. Funding: Patient Safety Research Portfolio, Department of Health, England.

Description and process evaluation of pharmacists’ interventions in a pharmacist-led information technology-enabled multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial for reducing medication errors in general practice (PINCER trial)

Objective To undertake a process evaluation of pharmacists' recommendations arising in the context of a complex IT-enabled pharmacist-delivered randomised controlled trial (PINCER trial) to reduce the risk of hazardous medicines management in general practices. Methods PINCER pharmacists manually recorded patients’ demographics, details of interventions recommended, actions undertaken by practice staff and time taken to manage individual cases of hazardous medicines management. Data were coded and double entered into SPSS v15, and then summarised using percentages for categorical data (with 95% CI) and, as appropriate, means (SD) or medians (IQR) for continuous data. Key findings Pharmacists spent a median of 20 minutes (IQR 10, 30) reviewing medical records, recommending interventions and completing actions in each case of hazardous medicines management. Pharmacists judged 72% (95%CI 70, 74) (1463/2026) of cases of hazardous medicines management to be clinically relevant. Pharmacists recommended 2105 interventions in 74% (95%CI 73, 76) (1516/2038) of cases and 1685 actions were taken in 61% (95%CI 59, 63) (1246/2038) of cases; 66% (95%CI 64, 68) (1383/2105) of interventions recommended by pharmacists were completed and 5% (95%CI 4, 6) (104/2105) of recommendations were accepted by general practitioners (GPs), but not completed at the end of the pharmacists’ placement; the remaining recommendations were rejected or considered not relevant by GPs. Conclusions The outcome measures were used to target pharmacist activity in general practice towards patients at risk from hazardous medicines management. Recommendations from trained PINCER pharmacists were found to be broadly acceptable to GPs and led to ameliorative action in the majority of cases. It seems likely that the approach used by the PINCER pharmacists could be employed by other practice pharmacists following appropriate training.

Role of the clinical pharmacist in detection of drug therapy problemas in critically impatients: experience report

This is an experience report on clinical pharmacy in New York, United States of America, in a teaching hospital, describing the results of drug therapy monitoring in critically ill patients, as well as interventions to solve or prevent identified drug therapy problems. The cross-sectional study was conducted by the clinical staff at the Surgical Intensive Care Unit during August 20th to 24th, 2012. Blood counts, serum levels of certain antibiotics, microbiological cultures and their antibiotic susceptibility, possible drug interactions, dosage of each drug prescribed and the compatibility between the route of administration and pharmaceutical form were assessed daily through review of electronic medical records. Twenty seven patients were followed up and 16 drug therapy problems were identified: Unnecessary drug therapy (seven), adverse drug reaction (four), needs additional drug therapy (two), noncompliance (two) and dosage too low (one). After evaluation, the drug therapy problems and their pharmaceutical interventions were reported to clinical pharmaceutical responsible for the Surgical ICU, as well as the multidisciplinary team. Further, the clinical outcomes were monitored and interventions were classified as to its acceptance. Data demonstrate that clinical pharmacists can contribute to the security and proper use of medications, as the trigger tools for intensive monitoring helps in early detection of drug therapy problems and patient safety.

Medication reconciliation and adherence: a call for clinical pharmacist

Introduction and Objectives: With the population ageing, there is a growing number of people who have several comorbidities and make use of a variety of drugs. These factors lead to a greater predisposition to adverse drug events, as well as to medication errors. The clinical pharmacist is the most indicated health professional to target these issues. The aims of this study were to analyze the profile of medication reconciliation and assess the role of the clinical pharmacist regarding medication adherence. Material and Methods: Prospective observational cohort study conducted from Jan-Mar 2013 at the Surgical Clinic of the University Hospital of the University of Sao Paulo. 117 admitted patients - over the age of 18 years, under continuous medication use and with length of hospitalization up to 120h - were included. Discrepancies were classified as intentional/unintentional and according to their risk to cause harm, and interventions were divided into accepted/not accepted. Medication adherence was measured by Morisky questionnaire. Results and Conclusions: Only 30% of hospital prescriptions showed no discrepancies between the medications that the patient was using at home and those which were being prescribed at the hospital and more than one third of those had the potential to cause moderate discomfort or clinical deterioration. One third of total discrepancies were classified as unintentional. About 90% of the interventions were accepted by the medical staff. In addition, about 63% of patients had poor adherence to drug therapy. The study revealed the importance of the medication reconciliation at patient admission, ensuring greater safety and therapeutic efficacy of the treatment during hospitalization, and orienting the patient at discharge, assuring the therapy safety.

[Geneva, France, pharmacist. An outline on a little-known French-Genovoise pharmacopoeia]

In the time of the French occupation of Geneva and the formation of a << Départment du Léman >> from 1798 to 1813, the physician Louis Odier published a Manual of practical medicine destined for the Health officers of the Departement. This work encloses at its end a short pharmacopoeia, till today practically unknown in the pharmaceutical bibliography, which is described here. An analysis shows that this formulary does not belong to the popular literature but is corresponding, with some exceptions, to the other similar pharmacopoeal works of the Enlightenment.

The determinants of physician and pharmacist utilization and equity of access under Korean universal health insurance

This study examines the social and behavioral determinants of two types of primary care, seeing a physician or a pharmacist, for Koreans and evaluates the equity of the Korean national health insurance system. The study applies the Aday and Andersen access framework to cross-sectional data from the 1992 Korean National Health Interview Survey (N = 21,841).^ The study found that in Korea, the elderly were most likely, and children least likely, to have used physician services. Women, household heads, those in small families, and the less educated were more likely than their counterparts to use physician and pharmacist services. Health status and need were important determinants of Koreans seeing a doctor or a pharmacist. Differences in need substantially accounted for the original differences observed between subgroups. Resources associated with having insurance coverage, a regular source of care, and place of residence (rural/urban) ameliorated to some extent the subgroup differences in the use of physicians' and pharmacists' services among Koreans. They were also major independent predictors of access. Having insurance remains a particularly important predictor of who uses physician services. Among the insured, trade-offs in the use of physician and pharmacist services were found in the current system, i.e., uninsured and poor Koreans were more likely to use pharmacist services, while insured and rural Koreans were more likely to use doctor services. Among the insured, cost sharing rates are lower for physician than for pharmacist services. Self-employed persons were less likely than government and industrial workers to use physician services. An underlying expectation under universal health insurance was that the Korean health care system would be equitable. The research results, however, did not fully support this expectation.^ The policy implications of these findings are that measures are required to extend insurance coverage to the uninsured, to equalize differences in benefit packages between health plans, and to expand the availability of physicians in rural areas. Further research is also needed to understand those who do not currently have a regular source of care and why and the access barriers that may exist for selected demographic subgroups (those in large families and unmarried or divorced/widowed persons). ^

Shall pharmacists become tradesmen? A reproduction of a series of articles that appeared in the Weekly Drug News and American Pharmacist. They were written between 1880 and 1883, together with subsequent reviews on the same subject.

Mode of access: Internet.

A prospective multicentre study of pharmacist initiated changes to drug therapy and patient management in acute care government funded hospitals

Aims To determine the cost savings of pharmacist initiated changes to hospitalized patients' drug therapy or management in eight major acute care government funded teaching hospitals in Australia. Methods This was a prospective study performed in eight hospitals examining resource implications of pharmacists' interventions assessed by an independent clinical panel. Pharmacists providing clinical services to inpatients recorded details of interventions, defined as any action that directly resulted in a change to patient management or therapy. An independent clinical review panel, convened at each participating centre, confirmed or rejected the clinical pharmacist's assessment of the impact on length of stay (LOS), readmission probability, medical procedures and laboratory monitoring and quantified the resultant changes, which were then costed. Results A total of 1399 interventions were documented. Eight hundred and thirty-five interventions impacted on drug costs alone. Five hundred and eleven interventions were evaluated by the independent panels with three quarters of these confirmed as having an impact on one or more of: length of stay, readmission probability, medical procedures or laboratory monitoring. There were 96 interventions deemed by the independent panels to have reduced LOS and 156 reduced the potential for readmission. The calculated savings was $263 221 for the eight hospitals during the period of the study. This included $150 307 for length of stay reduction, $111 848 for readmission reduction. Conclusions The annualized cost savings relating to length of stay, readmission, drugs, medical procedures and laboratory monitoring as a result of clinical pharmacist initiated changes to hospitalized patient management or therapy was $4 444 794 for eight major acute care government funded teaching hospitals in Australia.