Results: The participants (61.7%) are aware of the use of risk assessment procedures as a coping strategy for medicine shortages, and named the particular risk assessment procedure they are familiar with failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) (26.4%), root cause analysis (RCA) (23.5%), the healthcare FMEA (HFMEA) (14.7%), and the hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) (14.7%). Only 29.4% report risk assessment as integrated into mitigation strategy protocols. Risk assessment is typically conducted within multidisciplinary teams (35.3%). Whereas 14.7% participants were aware of legislation stipulating risk assessment implementation in shortages, 88.2% claimed not to have reported their findings to their respective official institutions. 85.3% consider risk assessment a useful mitigation strategy. Conclusion: The study indicates a lack of systematically organized tools used to prospectively analyze clinical as well as operationalized risk stemming from medicine shortages in healthcare. There is also a lack of legal instruments and sufficient data confirming the necessity and usefulness of risk assessment in mitigating medicine shortages in Europe.
The European Summit on Hospital Pharmacy 'examined and determined' what the role of hospital pharmacy practice should be in today's Europe, and the Statements were agreed by hospital pharmacists and external stakeholders. However, their implementation is challenging. The 2014 European Association of Hospital Pharmacists (EAHP) General Assembly dedicated considerable time to determining the most difficult and important issues. For 20 years the EAHP Survey has been the main tool to identify the state-of-art of the profession throughout Europe, but it is now time to rethink survey procedures so that it will provide EAHP and its members with quicker and more relevant feedback and information. Therefore, a new model with a 3-year cycle has been developed and approved by the General Assembly. A set of questions that can be properly evaluated should be devised and a benchmarking tool built. Many other issues also need to be resolved in the next few months.
ObjectivesThe 2015 EAHP Statement Survey was related to Sections 2, 5 and 6 of the European Statements of Hospital Pharmacy. In addition to the collection of statistical data about the level of implementation of the Statements, it was also intended to identify important barriers to their implementation. MethodsThe online questionnaire was sent to all hospital pharmacies in EAHP member countries. Data were analysed by researchers from Keele University School of Pharmacy, UK and the EAHP Survey Group. ResultsThere were a total of 949 responses (response rate of 18 %). In the first part of the Survey, the authors collected data about the hospital pharmacy setting. While almost half of hospital pharmacies served over 500 beds, 80% of hospital pharmacies had 10 or less pharmacists. In section B, the authors gathered evidence about the degree of implementation of Sections 2, 5 and 6 of the European Statements and the main barriers to and drivers of implementation. Five questions with the lowest implementation level were then further analysed.Only five countries had 50% or more of hospital pharmacies reporting that the hospital pharmacists routinely publish hospital pharmacy practice research. 67 % of participants stated that they had contingency plans for medicines shortages. The majority of countries (20) have less than half of respondents using computerised decision support to reduce the risk of medication errors. When asked if an audit had been undertaken in the last three years to identify priorities in medicines use processes, the mean percentage of positive responses for a country was 58%. ConclusionsEAHP has gained an informative overview of the implementation level as well as the barriers to and drivers of implementation in Sections 2, 5 and 6. This is essential to inform the plans for EAHP to best support their implementation.
No abstract
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.