scholarly journals Value of pharmacy services upon admission to an orthopedic surgery unit

Author(s):  
Ahmad El Ouweini ◽  
Lamis R. Karaoui ◽  
Nibal Chamoun ◽  
Chahine Assi ◽  
Kaissar Yammine ◽  
...  

Abstract Background In Lebanon, the role of the pharmacist remains underestimated in the medication reconciliation process, especially in surgical departments. This study aims to assess the impact of pharmacist-conducted medication reconciliation performed within 48 h of hospital admission to the orthopedic surgical department. Methods This was a prospective single-arm study conducted in a tertiary-care teaching hospital in Lebanon between October 2019 and April 2020. Participants were adult inpatients hospitalized for orthopedic surgeries with ≥ 1 outpatient medications. Properly trained pharmacy resident obtained the Best Possible Medication History (BPMH) and led the reconciliation process. The primary endpoint was the number of reconciliation errors (REs) identified. Descriptive statistics were used to report participants’ responses and relevant findings. Linear regression was performed with the number of REs as a continuous dependent variable using backward method. Results were assumed to be significant when p was < 0.05. Results The study included 100 patients with a mean age of 73.8 years, admitted for elective (54%) or emergency (46%) surgeries. Half of the study population had ≥ 5 home medications. The mean time for taking BPMH was around 8 min. A total of 110 REs were identified in 74 patient cases. The most common discrepancies consisted of medication omission (89.1%) and the most common medications involved were antihyperlipidemic agents. Twenty-four REs were judged as clinically significant, and four as serious. The most common interventions included the addition of a medication (71.9%). Most of the relayed interventions (84.5%) were accepted. The number of home medications was the only variable significantly associated with the number of REs (β 0.492; p < 0.001). Conclusion Pharmacy-led medication reconciliation upon admission to orthopedic surgery department can reduce reconciliation errors and improve medication safety. Trial registration Retrospectively registered in the Lebanon Clinical Trials Registry (LBCTR2020124680).

2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adriane N. Irwin ◽  
Youngyoon Ham ◽  
Theresa M. Gerrity

Background Collection of a complete and accurate medication history is an essential component of the medication reconciliation process. The role of pharmacy technicians in supporting medication reconciliation has been the subject of recent interest. Purpose The purpose of this article is to review the existing literature on pharmacy technician involvement in the medication reconciliation process and to summarize outcomes on the quality and accuracy of pharmacy technician–collected medication histories. Method A literature review was conducted using MEDLINE and Academic Search Premier (1948 – April 2015). Results Sixteen papers were identified, with 12 containing a formal evaluation of outcomes. Three were purely descriptive, and 9 compared the pharmacy technician's performance to pharmacists, nurses, physicians, and/or interdisciplinary teams. Studies used a variety of endpoints, but they demonstrated similar or improved outcomes by engaging pharmacy technicians. Evidence demonstrates that trained pharmacy technicians are able to gather medication histories with similar completeness and accuracy to other health care professionals. Conclusion The use of pharmacy technicians may be a viable strategy for developing and expanding medication reconciliation processes with appropriate supervision. Future efforts should focus on evaluating the impact of expanded roles for pharmacy technicians in the health care system; assessing the need for standardization of pharmacy technician education, training, and certification; and obtaining clarification from state pharmacy boards regarding these expanded roles.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana Crego Vita ◽  
Carlos Rodríguez-Moro ◽  
José Adolfo Orelana Gómez-Rico ◽  
Rafael García-Cañas ◽  
Monica Huecas Martínez ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic In Spain, especially in Madrid, suddenly affected all the activity of the hospital including the suspension of all non-urgent surgical procedures. What´s more crucial, the urgent procedures were seriously obstructed by to factors: the mandatory protection measures (individual protection clothes, facemasks, and their initial stockout, etc), the redesigned flow of the patients in and out the operation room specially because the advisable diagnosis study of severe acute respiratory syndrome related Coronavirus 2 in each patient.Methods We review the patients treated in our orthopedic department during the outbreak of Coronavirus disease 19. Based in our early experience and the emergency situation with high contagious rate in Madrid, Spain, we have built a list of considerations and recommendations to guide orthopaedic units in their resumption of their regular activity, focusing at the moment of reintroduce elective surgeries, during the contained epidemic phases.Results The mortality rate in Coronavirus disease 19 patients was 3/9 and in the non Coronavirus disease group 4/23 developed pneumonia by Coronavirus2 (1 dead). There are no guidelines in literature for orthopedic surgeons in the postpandemic phase.Conclusion Coronavirus disease 19 patients have an elevated morbidity and mortality, surgery during this pandemia can facilitate pneumonia by Coronavirus2. The return-to-practice measures in the orthopedic units must take into account this fact. We recommend for each orthopedic surgery department to create a flowchart, as ours, in order to restart surgical activity.


2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kanachai Boonpiraks ◽  
Yanin Nawachartkosit ◽  
Dhave Setabutr

Abstract Background To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on patient management at an Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery Department at a tertiary care center in Southeast Asia. This is a retrospective review. Patient load and diagnosis at the Outpatient Division of the Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery Department were reviewed at the height of the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patient-specific data was then compared during the same timeframe one year prior. Patients were then grouped into an additional subspecialty subgroup based upon their diagnosis. Descriptive statistics were analyzed. Results A total of 819 cases were identified in 2019 during the study period. At the peak of the first wave, cases fell to 483, constituting a 41% decrease between the years (p value = 0.083). The largest decrease was in Otology cases with a drop by 53% (p value = 0.047), with the smallest decrease noted in General cases. Laryngology visits overall showed an increase in cases by 41.7%. Moreover, new visits decreased by 35.5%, with the largest decrease in new Laryngology visits and new Head and Neck Oncology cases. New visits for general issues had the smallest drop in patients, decreasing by only 21% (p value = 0.006) Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic caused a significant decrease in overall cases in the Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery outpatient department. Thus, in anticipation of future outbreaks, interventions may be tailored according to these trends.


2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 394-398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anmol Chhabra ◽  
Andrea Quinn ◽  
Amanda Ries

Background: Accurate history collection is integral to medication reconciliation. Studies support pharmacy involvement in the process, but assessment of global time spent is limited. The authors hypothesized the location of a medication-focused interview would impact time spent. Methods: The objective was to compare time spent by pharmacists and nurses based on the location of a medication-focused interview. Time spent by the interviewing pharmacist, admitting nurse, and centralized pharmacist verifying admission orders was collected. Patient groups were based on whether the interview was conducted in the emergency department (ED) or medical floor. The primary end point was a composite of the 3 time points. Secondary end points were individual time components and number and types of transcription discrepancies identified during medical floor interviews. Results: Pharmacists and nurses spent an average of ten fewer minutes per ED patient versus a medical floor patient ( P = .028). Secondary end points were not statistically significant. Transcription discrepancies were identified at a rate of 1 in 4 medications. Post hoc analysis revealed the time spent by pharmacists and nurses was 2.4 minutes shorter per medication when interviewed in the ED ( P < .001). Discussion: The primary outcome was statistically and clinically significant. Limitations included inability to blind and lack of cost-saving analysis. Conclusion: Pharmacist involvement in ED medication reconciliation leads to time savings during the admission process.


2014 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 98-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison D. Provine ◽  
Elisabeth M. Simmons ◽  
Palak H. Bhagat

OBJECTIVE: This was a single-center, prospective, pilot study aiming to evaluate the impact of pharmacist involvement in the admission medication history and reconciliation process and to quantify discrepancies found by pharmacists when compared to information collected by other health care providers at a pediatric institution. METHODS: A pharmacist completed a thorough medication history and reconciled discrepancies with the medical team. Discrepancies included incorrect medication, dose, route, frequency; omitted information; missing medications; or any other inconsistencies outside of these categories. Information was documented in the electronic medical record via a standardized template, and pertinent discrepancies were communicated with the medical team. RESULTS: Of the 100 medication histories included in the study, a total of 309 discrepancies were identified and corrected in the electronic medical record. The median length of time it took pharmacists to complete the medication history process was 15 minutes per patient (interquartile range, 10–20 minutes). Thirty discrepancies were determined as pertinent and were reported as intervened on and communicated to the medical team. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that pharmacist-obtained admission medication histories and reconciliation have the potential to prevent potentially significant adverse drug reactions and have a positive impact on patient care.Index terms admission, history, medication, pharmacist, reconciliation


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4552-4552
Author(s):  
Lamont J. Barlow ◽  
Edan Shapiro ◽  
Jennifer Ahn ◽  
Mitchell C. Benson ◽  
James M. McKiernan

4552 Background: Internal review of outside pathology slides is a common practice among urologic oncologists at tertiary care facilities, and discrepancies have a potential to directly affect the choice of treatment. While repeat prostate biopsy review has been extensively studied, there is little data available on the impact of repeat reviews of bladder biopsies. The purpose of the current study is to perform a standardized comparison of original and internal pathology reviews of identical bladder specimens to characterize the impact of repeat review on treatment decisions. Methods: Using the Columbia Urologic Oncology Database, a retrospective analysis of 91 consecutive patients who underwent bladder resections at outside institutions from 2008-2012 with secondary referral to a single urologist and internal review at our institution was conducted. Characteristics of both original pathology reports and internal reviews were collected and compared by blinded reviewers. A discrepancy in one of the following characteristics was considered treatment-altering: presence of muscularis in specimen or tumor involvement in muscularis. Additional clinically-significant discrepancies including presence of secondary histology, carcinoma in situ, lymphovascular invasion, micropapillary features, tumor stage, and overall accumulative discrepancy rate were also analyzed. Results: Median time from original procedure to internal review was 34 days (range: 9-368). 56/91 (62%) patients had at least one of the predefined clinically-significant discrepancies. 27/91 (30%) patients had at least one treatment-altering discrepancy, including 25 with discrepant muscle in specimen and 11 with discrepant muscle invasion. Regarding tumor stage, 8 patients were upstaged, 71 were unchanged, and 12 were downstaged on internal review. Conclusions: Repeat pathologic review of primary bladder specimens at a tertiary care center has the potential to alter clinical care for the majority of patients. Further studies are needed to determine if these discrepancies and the decisions they influence have a significant impact on patient outcomes.


2017 ◽  
Vol 70 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole MacDonald ◽  
Leslie Manuel ◽  
Haley Brennan ◽  
Erin Musgrave ◽  
Richard Wanbon ◽  
...  

<p><strong>ABSTRACT</strong></p><p><strong>Background:</strong> Accreditation standards have outlined the need for staff in emergency departments to initiate the medication reconciliation process for patients who are at risk of adverse drug events. The authors hypothesized that a guided form could be used by non-admitted patients in the emergency department to assist with completion of a best possible medication history (BPMH).</p><p><strong>Objective:</strong> To determine the percentage of patients in the non–acute care area of the emergency department who could complete a guided BPMH form with no clinically significant discrepancies (defined as no major discrepancies and no more than 1 moderate discrepancy).</p><p><strong>Methods:</strong> This prospective exploratory study was conducted over 4 weeks in February and March 2016. Data were collected using the self-administered BPMH form, patient interviews, and a data collection form. After completion of the guided BPMH form, patients were randomly selected for interview by a pharmacy team member to ensure their self-completed BPMH forms were complete and accurate. Eligible patients were those with non-acute needs who had undergone triage to the waiting room. Patients who were already admitted and those with immediate triage to the acute care or trauma area of the emergency department were excluded.</p><p><strong>Results:</strong> Of the 160 patients who were interviewed, 146 (91.3%) completed the form with no more than 1 moderate discrepancy (but some number of minor discrepancies). There were no discrepancies in 31 (19.4%) of the BPMH forms, and 101 (63.1%) of the forms had only minor discrepancies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Most of the patients interviewed by the pharmacy team were able to complete the BPMH form with no clinically significant discrepancies. The self-administered BPMH form would be a useful tool to initiate medication reconciliation in the emergency department for this patient population, but used on its own, it would not be a reliable source of BPMH information, given the relatively low number of patients who completed the form with no discrepancies.</p><p><strong>RÉSUMÉ</strong></p><p><strong>Contexte :</strong> Les normes d’agrément ont souligné la nécessité pour le personnel des services des urgences d’amorcer le processus de bilan comparatif des médicaments chez les patients à risque d’événements indésirables liés aux médicaments. Les auteurs ont avancé que des patients au service des urgences ne requérant pas une hospitalisation pourraient remplir un formulaire dirigé et ainsi aider à établir leur meilleur schéma thérapeutique possible (MSTP).</p><p><strong>Objectif :</strong> Déterminer le pourcentage de patients dans l’aire de soins non urgents du service des urgences qui sont en mesure de remplir un formulaire dirigé de MSTP sans divergence cliniquement significative (c’est-à-dire aucune divergence majeure et pas plus d’une divergence modérée).</p><p><strong>Méthodes :</strong> La présente étude préliminaire prospective a été menée sur une période de quatre semaines en février et en mars 2016. Les données ont été recueillies à l’aide d’un formulaire autoadministré de MSTP, d’entrevue avec les patients et d’un formulaire de collecte de données. Une fois les formulaires dirigés de MSTP remplis, des patients ont été sélectionnés aléatoirement et interrogés par un des membres de l’équipe de pharmacie afin de s’assurer de l’exhaustivité et de l’exactitude des renseignements fournis de soi-même. Les patients admissibles à l’étude étaient ceux ne nécessitant pas de soins urgents et ayant passé au triage dans la salle d’attente. Les patients déjà hospitalisés et ceux dirigés immédiatement après le triage dans l’aire de soins urgents ou de trauma du service des urgences ont été exclus.</p><p><strong>Résultats :</strong> Parmi les 160 patients interrogés, 146 (91,3 %) avaient rempli le formulaire avec au plus une divergence modérée (mais un certain nombre de divergences mineures). Dans 31 (19,4 %) des formulaires de MSTP, il n’y avait aucune divergence et, dans 101 (63,1 %) des formulaires, il n’y avait que des divergences mineures.</p><p><strong>Conclusions :</strong> La plupart des patients interrogés par l’équipe de pharmacie étaient en mesure de remplir le formulaire de MSTP sans qu’apparaisse de divergence cliniquement significative. Le formulaire autoadministré de MSTP serait un outil pratique pour établir un bilan comparatif des médicaments dans le service des urgences pour cette population de patients, mais employé seul, il ne représenterait pas une source fiable d’information sur le MSTP, compte tenu du nombre relativement restreint de patients ayant rempli le formulaire sans qu’apparaisse de divergence.</p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document