Clinical pharmacy services in critical care: results of an observational study comparing ward-based with remote pharmacy services

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists are essential team members in critical care and contribute to the safety of pharmacotherapy for this vulnerable group of patients, but little is known about remote pharmacy services in intensive care units (ICU). AIM: We compared the acceptance of pharmacist interventions (PI...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hilgarth, Heike, Wichmann, Dominic, Baehr, Michael, Kluge, Stefan, Langebrake, Claudia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2023
Materias:
Research Article
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10366025/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37029858
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-023-01559-z
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Pharmacists are essential team members in critical care and contribute to the safety of pharmacotherapy for this vulnerable group of patients, but little is known about remote pharmacy services in intensive care units (ICU). AIM: We compared the acceptance of pharmacist interventions (PI) in ICU patients working remotely with ward-based service. We evaluated both pharmacy services, including further information on PI, including reasons, actions and impact. METHOD: Over 5 months, a prospective single-centre observational study divided into two sequential phases (remote and ward-based) was performed on two ICU wards at a university hospital. After a structured medication review, PI identified were addressed to healthcare professionals. For documentation, the national database (ADKA-DokuPIK) was used. Acceptance was used as the primary endpoint. All data were analysed using descriptive methods. RESULTS: In total, 605 PI resulted from 1023 medication reviews. Acceptance was 75% (228/304) for remote and 88% (265/301; p < 0.001) for ward-based services. Non-inferiority was not demonstrated. Most commonly, drug- (44% and 36%) and dose-related (36% and 35%) reasons were documented. Frequently, drugs were stopped/paused (31% and 29%) and dosage changed (31% and 30%). PI were classified as “error, no harm” (National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention [NCC MERP] categories B to D; 83% and 81%). The severity and clinical relevance were at least ranked as "significant" (68% and 66%) and at least as "important" for patients (77% and 83%). CONCLUSION: The way pharmacy services are provided influences the acceptance of PI. Remote pharmacy services may be seen as an addition, but acceptance rates in remote services failed to show non-inferiority. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11096-023-01559-z.

Ejemplares similares