Purpose: Pharmacist-led medication reviews in hospitals have shown improvement in patient outcomes. The aim of this study is to describe the prevalence and nature of pharmacist interventions (PIs) following a medication review in an Irish teaching hospital. Methods: PIs were recorded over a six-month period in 2015. PIs were assessed by a panel of healthcare professionals (n = 5) to estimate the potential of adverse drug events (ADEs). Descriptive statistics were used for the variables and the chi square test for independence was used to analyse for any association between the variables. Results: Of the 1216 patients (55.8% female; median age 68 years (interquartile range 24 years)) who received a medication review, 313 interventions were identified in 213 patients. 412 medicines were associated with PIs, of which drugs for obstructive airway disease (n = 82), analgesics (n = 56), and antibacterial products for systemic use (n = 50) were the most prevalent. A statistically significant association was found between PI and patient’s age ≥65 years (p = 0.000), as well as female gender (p = 0.037). A total of 60.7% of the PIs had a medium or high likelihood of causing an ADE. Conclusion: Pharmacist-led medication review in a hospital setting prevented ADEs. Patients ≥65 years of age and female patients benefited the most from the interventions.

this study using individual patient data shows that the use of electric profiling beds, abnormal mental states and difficulty transferring from bed are the main predictors of bedrail use in acute hospitals. Inappropriate use of bedrails is common in those with cognitive impairment or with agitation.

To measure the net benefit of a pharmacist-led medication review in acute public hospitals. To identify and measure the resources used when completing a pharmacist-led medication review, an observational study was conducted in an acute urban university teaching hospital. Health Information and Quality Authority guidelines were used to value resources used in a pharmacist-led medication review. Model inputs included demographic data, probability of adverse drug events associated with the pharmacist interventions, estimates of future discharges and cost data. The cost of a pharmacist-led medication review and savings generated from avoidance of adverse drug events were estimated and projected over a 5-year period, using hospital discharge rates taken from the hospital inpatient enquiry system and the census of population. Using the per-patient cost of a medication review, the annual cost of delivering a biweekly medication review is projected to vary between €6 m and €6.4 m over a 5-year period from 2017 to 2021. The per-patient net benefit of a biweekly medication review is €45.88. Therefore, the projected annual net benefit of a biweekly medication review is between €29.5 m and €31.2 m over the 5-year period of 2017 to 2021. Introducing a pharmacist-led medication review for each inpatient saves in the short and longer term. The results are consistent with previous findings. Substantial savings were estimated, regardless of variation in model parameters tested in sensitivity analysis.

Objective: dimensional guidelines for bedrails have been developed to minimise the risk of patient entrapment within the bed. We examined whether bedrails in a large Irish teaching hospital complied with these standards. Design and setting: survey of 60 accessible beds in six hospital wards. Methods: a specialised cone and cylinder tool that mimics the size and weight of a small adult neck and head was used to determine gaps in the four zones most associated with entrapment. Results: the number of failures for each zone was 15 beds for zone 1 (any space between the perimeters of the rail); 42 beds for zone 2 (the space under the rail); 41 beds for zone 3 (the space between the inside surface of the bedrail and the mattress) and 13 beds for zone 4 (the space between the mattress and rail at the end of the rail). Failures were more common with hydraulic adjusted than with electric profiling beds. Mattresses that were the wrong size (usually too narrow) or too soft and bedrails that were loose or were poorly maintained accounted for many failures. Conclusion: many beds used in our hospital did not comply with dimensional standards to minimise entrapment risks. This emphasises the need for careful selection of patients for whom bedrails are to be used as well as the need for monitoring and maintenance of bed systems.

To measure the net benefit of a pharmacist-led medication review in acute public hospitals. To identify and measure the resources used when completing a pharmacist-led medication review, an observational study was conducted in an acute urban university teaching hospital. Health Information and Quality Authority guidelines were used to value resources used in a pharmacist-led medication review. Model inputs included demographic data, probability of adverse drug events associated with the pharmacist interventions, estimates of future discharges and cost data. The cost of a pharmacist-led medication review and savings generated from avoidance of adverse drug events were estimated and projected over a 5-year period, using hospital discharge rates taken from the hospital inpatient enquiry system and the census of population. Using the per-patient cost of a medication review, the annual cost of delivering a bi-weekly medication review is projected to vary between €6 m and €6.4 m over a 5-year period from 2017 to 2021. The per-patient net benefit of a bi-weekly medication review is €45.88. Therefore, the projected annual net benefit of a bi-weekly medication review is between €29.5 m and €31.2 m over the 5-year period of 2017 to 2021. Introducing a pharmacist-led medication review for each inpatient saves in the short and longer term. The results are consistent with previous findings. Substantial savings were estimated, regardless of variation in model parameters tested in sensitivity analysis.