Cargando…
Patient prioritisation for hospital pharmacy services: current approaches in the UK
OBJECTIVES: To survey and explore current approaches to deployment of pharmaceutical care prioritisation tools in acute hospitals in the UK. METHODS: A national online survey was circulated electronically to chief pharmacists of hospitals to determine if they use a prioritisation tool or process. Wh...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8640403/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33262131 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2020-002365 |
_version_ | 1784609329614159872 |
---|---|
author | Abuzour, Aseel S Hoad-Reddick, Gillian Shahid, Memona Steinke, Douglas T Tully, Mary P Williams, Steven David Lewis, Penny J |
author_facet | Abuzour, Aseel S Hoad-Reddick, Gillian Shahid, Memona Steinke, Douglas T Tully, Mary P Williams, Steven David Lewis, Penny J |
author_sort | Abuzour, Aseel S |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To survey and explore current approaches to deployment of pharmaceutical care prioritisation tools in acute hospitals in the UK. METHODS: A national online survey was circulated electronically to chief pharmacists of hospitals to determine if they use a prioritisation tool or process. Where such mechanisms exist, respondents were invited to participate in a semistructured telephone interview to explore the development, evaluation and application of their tool and share relevant documentation. Interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Seventy hospitals (70/130) used a tool or process to prioritise clinical pharmacy services. Thirty-six interviews were conducted, and two were excluded. The majority of tools had been developed in-house. Few hospitals had undertaken formal evaluations of their prioritisation tool. Pharmacy prioritisation tools ranged in complexity and often included a combination of pharmacy service prioritisation, such as medicines reconciliation, and a section to assign an individual patient prioritisation level. Determining the priority of a patient based on the identification of set indicators instilled confidence in pharmacists by ensuring they were not missing high-risk patients. Electronic prioritisation tools were especially useful at retrieving real-time data to prioritise workload, improving workflow and ensuring continuity in patient care. Drawbacks of using prioritisation tools included lack of tool sensitivity across certain specialties and time spent using the tool if not all information was accessible. CONCLUSIONS: Prioritisation tools were seen to be useful for prioritising workload and ensuring the right patients are seen at the right time. As few hospitals had formally evaluated their tools, it is important to rigorously and systematically develop an evidence-based prioritisation tool that is both useable and acceptable. Further research to evaluate such tools would be needed to ensure it improves patient health outcomes and efficiency in pharmacy services. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8640403 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-86404032021-12-15 Patient prioritisation for hospital pharmacy services: current approaches in the UK Abuzour, Aseel S Hoad-Reddick, Gillian Shahid, Memona Steinke, Douglas T Tully, Mary P Williams, Steven David Lewis, Penny J Eur J Hosp Pharm Original Research OBJECTIVES: To survey and explore current approaches to deployment of pharmaceutical care prioritisation tools in acute hospitals in the UK. METHODS: A national online survey was circulated electronically to chief pharmacists of hospitals to determine if they use a prioritisation tool or process. Where such mechanisms exist, respondents were invited to participate in a semistructured telephone interview to explore the development, evaluation and application of their tool and share relevant documentation. Interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Seventy hospitals (70/130) used a tool or process to prioritise clinical pharmacy services. Thirty-six interviews were conducted, and two were excluded. The majority of tools had been developed in-house. Few hospitals had undertaken formal evaluations of their prioritisation tool. Pharmacy prioritisation tools ranged in complexity and often included a combination of pharmacy service prioritisation, such as medicines reconciliation, and a section to assign an individual patient prioritisation level. Determining the priority of a patient based on the identification of set indicators instilled confidence in pharmacists by ensuring they were not missing high-risk patients. Electronic prioritisation tools were especially useful at retrieving real-time data to prioritise workload, improving workflow and ensuring continuity in patient care. Drawbacks of using prioritisation tools included lack of tool sensitivity across certain specialties and time spent using the tool if not all information was accessible. CONCLUSIONS: Prioritisation tools were seen to be useful for prioritising workload and ensuring the right patients are seen at the right time. As few hospitals had formally evaluated their tools, it is important to rigorously and systematically develop an evidence-based prioritisation tool that is both useable and acceptable. Further research to evaluate such tools would be needed to ensure it improves patient health outcomes and efficiency in pharmacy services. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-11 2020-12-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8640403/ /pubmed/33262131 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2020-002365 Text en © European Association of Hospital Pharmacists 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Abuzour, Aseel S Hoad-Reddick, Gillian Shahid, Memona Steinke, Douglas T Tully, Mary P Williams, Steven David Lewis, Penny J Patient prioritisation for hospital pharmacy services: current approaches in the UK |
title | Patient prioritisation for hospital pharmacy services: current approaches in the UK |
title_full | Patient prioritisation for hospital pharmacy services: current approaches in the UK |
title_fullStr | Patient prioritisation for hospital pharmacy services: current approaches in the UK |
title_full_unstemmed | Patient prioritisation for hospital pharmacy services: current approaches in the UK |
title_short | Patient prioritisation for hospital pharmacy services: current approaches in the UK |
title_sort | patient prioritisation for hospital pharmacy services: current approaches in the uk |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8640403/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33262131 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2020-002365 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT abuzouraseels patientprioritisationforhospitalpharmacyservicescurrentapproachesintheuk AT hoadreddickgillian patientprioritisationforhospitalpharmacyservicescurrentapproachesintheuk AT shahidmemona patientprioritisationforhospitalpharmacyservicescurrentapproachesintheuk AT steinkedouglast patientprioritisationforhospitalpharmacyservicescurrentapproachesintheuk AT tullymaryp patientprioritisationforhospitalpharmacyservicescurrentapproachesintheuk AT williamsstevendavid patientprioritisationforhospitalpharmacyservicescurrentapproachesintheuk AT lewispennyj patientprioritisationforhospitalpharmacyservicescurrentapproachesintheuk |