In traditional hospital practice most of the burden of drug therapy decision making falls on the physician. However, studies have shown that physicians sometimes make errors in prescribing drugs.1-2 While most errors are harmless or are intercepted, some result in adverse drug events (ADEs). The pharmacist's role in prescribing is typically reactive: responding to prescription errors long after the decision has been made for patients about whom he or she has little direct clinical knowledge. Thus, the specialized knowledge of the pharmacist is not utilized when it would be most useful: at the time of ordering.
Studies show that pharmacist retrospective review of medication orders prevents errors.3-5 However, the pharmacist's impact might be substantially greater if he or she could provide input earlier, at the time of prescribing. It has been shown that pharmacist consultation with physicians and others in an intensive care unit (ICU) resulted in a net saving from reduced drug use of $10,011 in a 3-month period.6 However, we know of no controlled studies that have evaluated the effect of pharmacist participation on the key outcome measure of error prevention—the rate of ADEs.
For these reasons, we conducted a controlled clinical trial of the efficacy of pharmacist participation in physician rounds in a medical ICU as part of a continuing study of systems changes to prevent ADEs. The ADE rate is higher among patients in ICUs, both because they have pathophysiological abnormalities and often receive many drugs.
We asked the following questions: (1) Is pharmacist participation on rounds associated with a reduction in the rate of preventable ADEs? (2) What types of interventions does the pharmacist make? and (3) Is pharmacist participation on ICU rounds accepted by physicians and nurses?
Comments
In previous studies, we demonstrated that nearly half of preventable ADEs resulted from errors in the prescribing process.1 Prescribing errors frequently have a cascade effect, causing errors downstream in dispensing or administration. The major cause of prescribing errors was physicians' lack of essential drug and patient information at the time of ordering.2
One method of providing such information is computerized physician order entry, which has been shown to reduce the rate of serious medication errors by more than half.9 Evans et al10 have demonstrated that a computer-assisted management program for antibiotics can substantially reduce excessive use and misuse of antibiotics as well as reduce length of hospital stay and costs. However, most hospitals do not yet have computerized ordering by physicians, so incorporation of the pharmacist into the patient care team is a more feasible alternative at present, especially in units with high medication use.
We estimated the financial impact of the 66% reduction in ADEs. The cost of an ADE has been estimated at $2000 to $2500 per event in 1993.11-12 However, the cost of a preventable ADE, one due to an error, was estimated at $4685.9 For the year 1995 , we estimate that 58 ADEs were prevented. At $4685 each, the cost reduction in this single unit would be approximately $270,000 per year. The intervention required no additional resources and represented a different use of the existing pharmacist's time. Rather than spending time checking and correcting orders after they had been sent to the pharmacy, the pharmacist was involved at the time the order was written. While participating in rounds as a member of the patient care team, the pharmacist reduced ADEs both by preventing errors and by intercepting them. He prevented errors by providing information about doses, interactions, indications, and drug alternatives to physicians at the time of ordering. He intercepted errors by immediately reviewing all orders and correcting deficiencies before the orders were transmitted to the pharmacy. In addition, the pharmacist prevented nursing medication errors by providing ready consultation to the nursing staff and teaching drug safety.
Finally, the on-site pharmacist took overall responsibility for medication safety, spotting unsafe conditions and identifying needs for process improvement. For example, during the study period the pharmacist identified 12 systems errors in pharmacy function and 6 ADEs that probably would not have otherwise been discovered.
The presence of the pharmacist on rounds was well accepted by physicians, as evidenced by the fact that 99% of the recommendations were accepted. While staff perceptions were not evaluated systematically, in our experience, nurses also accepted this role easily, appreciating the reduction in extra work, such as telephoning physicians to have orders corrected. The pharmacist in this study had to overcome the traditional impression of the medical staff that pharmacists may be primarily concerned with costs. This academic medical ICU environment had the added challenge of dealing with a new group of house staff, fellows, and attending physicians every few weeks. In ICUs where the attending physicians are permanent and fellows are assigned for many months, acceptance might be enhanced.
Our study has several limitations. We studied only 1 ICU in 1 teaching hospital. Adverse drug events are more common in teaching hospitals than in community hospitals13 and occur more frequently in ICUs,1 so these findings are not generalizable to all types of units or all types of hospitals. However, the magnitude of the impact of the pharmacist's presence was so great that a substantial effect would probably be found in ICUs in other hospitals. Second, our results do not represent the full extent of preventable ADEs, since record review does not capture all events, nor does it capture most potential ADEs, the "near misses," because they are seldom recorded in patient charts. Third, physicians and nurses in this ICU function as a team and make rounds together. Pharmacist participation would be more difficult to arrange in units where multiple physicians make rounds at different times. Finally, the success of the pharmacist intervention depends on interpersonal relationships. Thus, the personality and cooperativeness of the pharmacist and the medical staff are critical factors in making this system work, especially at the beginning. Similar prevention of ADEs prompted by a designated ICU pharmacist probably would be less likely to occur in ICUs in which staff are not part of a multidisciplinary team and when ICU staff are not open to the important role that the pharmacist can play in optimizing ICU management.
We conclude that participation of a pharmacist on medical rounds can be a powerful means of reducing the risk of ADEs.
Studies show that pharmacist retrospective review of medication orders prevents errors.3-5 However, the pharmacist's impact might be substantially greater if he or she could provide input earlier, at the time of prescribing. It has been shown that pharmacist consultation with physicians and others in an intensive care unit (ICU) resulted in a net saving from reduced drug use of $10,011 in a 3-month period.6 However, we know of no controlled studies that have evaluated the effect of pharmacist participation on the key outcome measure of error prevention—the rate of ADEs.
For these reasons, we conducted a controlled clinical trial of the efficacy of pharmacist participation in physician rounds in a medical ICU as part of a continuing study of systems changes to prevent ADEs. The ADE rate is higher among patients in ICUs, both because they have pathophysiological abnormalities and often receive many drugs.
We asked the following questions: (1) Is pharmacist participation on rounds associated with a reduction in the rate of preventable ADEs? (2) What types of interventions does the pharmacist make? and (3) Is pharmacist participation on ICU rounds accepted by physicians and nurses?
Comments
In previous studies, we demonstrated that nearly half of preventable ADEs resulted from errors in the prescribing process.1 Prescribing errors frequently have a cascade effect, causing errors downstream in dispensing or administration. The major cause of prescribing errors was physicians' lack of essential drug and patient information at the time of ordering.2
One method of providing such information is computerized physician order entry, which has been shown to reduce the rate of serious medication errors by more than half.9 Evans et al10 have demonstrated that a computer-assisted management program for antibiotics can substantially reduce excessive use and misuse of antibiotics as well as reduce length of hospital stay and costs. However, most hospitals do not yet have computerized ordering by physicians, so incorporation of the pharmacist into the patient care team is a more feasible alternative at present, especially in units with high medication use.
We estimated the financial impact of the 66% reduction in ADEs. The cost of an ADE has been estimated at $2000 to $2500 per event in 1993.11-12 However, the cost of a preventable ADE, one due to an error, was estimated at $4685.9 For the year 1995 , we estimate that 58 ADEs were prevented. At $4685 each, the cost reduction in this single unit would be approximately $270,000 per year. The intervention required no additional resources and represented a different use of the existing pharmacist's time. Rather than spending time checking and correcting orders after they had been sent to the pharmacy, the pharmacist was involved at the time the order was written. While participating in rounds as a member of the patient care team, the pharmacist reduced ADEs both by preventing errors and by intercepting them. He prevented errors by providing information about doses, interactions, indications, and drug alternatives to physicians at the time of ordering. He intercepted errors by immediately reviewing all orders and correcting deficiencies before the orders were transmitted to the pharmacy. In addition, the pharmacist prevented nursing medication errors by providing ready consultation to the nursing staff and teaching drug safety.
Finally, the on-site pharmacist took overall responsibility for medication safety, spotting unsafe conditions and identifying needs for process improvement. For example, during the study period the pharmacist identified 12 systems errors in pharmacy function and 6 ADEs that probably would not have otherwise been discovered.
The presence of the pharmacist on rounds was well accepted by physicians, as evidenced by the fact that 99% of the recommendations were accepted. While staff perceptions were not evaluated systematically, in our experience, nurses also accepted this role easily, appreciating the reduction in extra work, such as telephoning physicians to have orders corrected. The pharmacist in this study had to overcome the traditional impression of the medical staff that pharmacists may be primarily concerned with costs. This academic medical ICU environment had the added challenge of dealing with a new group of house staff, fellows, and attending physicians every few weeks. In ICUs where the attending physicians are permanent and fellows are assigned for many months, acceptance might be enhanced.
Our study has several limitations. We studied only 1 ICU in 1 teaching hospital. Adverse drug events are more common in teaching hospitals than in community hospitals13 and occur more frequently in ICUs,1 so these findings are not generalizable to all types of units or all types of hospitals. However, the magnitude of the impact of the pharmacist's presence was so great that a substantial effect would probably be found in ICUs in other hospitals. Second, our results do not represent the full extent of preventable ADEs, since record review does not capture all events, nor does it capture most potential ADEs, the "near misses," because they are seldom recorded in patient charts. Third, physicians and nurses in this ICU function as a team and make rounds together. Pharmacist participation would be more difficult to arrange in units where multiple physicians make rounds at different times. Finally, the success of the pharmacist intervention depends on interpersonal relationships. Thus, the personality and cooperativeness of the pharmacist and the medical staff are critical factors in making this system work, especially at the beginning. Similar prevention of ADEs prompted by a designated ICU pharmacist probably would be less likely to occur in ICUs in which staff are not part of a multidisciplinary team and when ICU staff are not open to the important role that the pharmacist can play in optimizing ICU management.
We conclude that participation of a pharmacist on medical rounds can be a powerful means of reducing the risk of ADEs.
1 comment:
ADE such as ADR Non compliance
Post a Comment