Background The Institute for Healthcare Improvement identifies medication reconciliation as the shared responsibility of nurses, pharmacists, and physicians, where each has a defined role. The study aims to assess the clinical impact of pharmacy-led medication reconciliation performed on day one of hospital admission to the internal medicine service. Methods This is a pilot prospective study conducted at two tertiary care teaching hospitals in Lebanon. Student pharmacists who were properly trained and closely supervised, collected the medication history, and pharmacists at the corresponding sites performed the reconciliation process. Interventions related to the unintended discrepancies were relayed to the medical team. The main outcome was the number of unintended discrepancies identified. The time needed for medication history, and the information sources used to complete the Best Possible Medication History were also assessed. The unintended discrepancies were classified by medication class and route of medication administration, by potential severity, and by proximal cause leading to the discrepancy. For the bivariate and multivariable analysis, the dependent variable was the incidence of unintended discrepancies. The “total number of unintended discrepancies” was dichotomized into yes (≥ 1 unintended discrepancy) or no (0 unintended discrepancies). Independent variables tested for their association with the dependent variable consisted of the following: gender, age, creatinine clearance, number of home medications, allergies, previous adverse drug reactions, and number of information sources used to obtain the BPMH. Results were assumed to be significant when p was < 0.05. Results During the study period, 204 patients were included, and 195 unintended discrepancies were identified. The most common discrepancies consisted of medication omission (71.8%), and the most common agents involved were dietary supplements (27.7%). Around 36% of the unintended discrepancies were judged as clinically significant, and only 1% were judged as serious. The most common interventions included the addition of a medication (71.8%) and the adjustment of a dose (12.8%). The number of home medications was significantly associated with the occurrence of unintended discrepancies (ORa = 1.11 (1.03–1.19) p = 0.007). Conclusions Pharmacy-led medication reconciliation upon admission, along with student pharmacist involvement and physician communication can reduce unintended discrepancies and improve medication safety and patient outcomes. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4323-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Pharmacists' involvement in patient care has improved the quality of care and reduced medication errors. However, this has required a lot of work that could not have been accomplished without documentation of interventions. Several means of documenting errors have been proposed in the literature but without a consistent comprehensive process. Recently, the American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) recognized that pharmacy practice lacks a consistent process for direct patient care and discussed several options for a pharmaceutical care plan, essentially encompassing medication therapy assessment, development and implementation of a pharmaceutical care plan and finally evaluation of the outcome. Therefore, as per the recommendations of ACCP, we sought to retrospectively analyze interventions by grouping them according to medication related problems (MRP) and their nodes such as prescribing; administering; monitoring; documenting and dispensing. Objective The aim of this study is to report interventions according to medication error (ME) nodes and show the impact of pharmacy interventions in reducing MRPs. Setting The study was conducted at the cardiology and infectious diseases services at a teaching hospital located in Beirut, Lebanon. Methods Intervention documentation was completed by pharmacy students on infectious diseases and cardiology rotations then reviewed by clinical pharmacists with respective specialties. Before data analysis, a new pharmacy reporting sheet was developed in order to link interventions according to MRP. Then, MRPs were grouped in the five ME nodes. During the documentation process, whether MRP had reached the patient or not may have not been reported which prevented the classification to the corresponding medication error nodes as ME. Main outcome Reduction in medication related problems across all ME nodes. Results A total of n = 1174 interventions were documented. N = 1091 interventions were classified as MRPs. Interventions were analyzed per 1000 patient days and resulted in 340 medication related problem/1000 patient days. A 72 % reduction in MRP across all ME nodes was seen. The majority of interventions were in the field of cardiology followed by infectious disease related. When interventions per ME nodes were analyzed, a high percentage of intervention acceptance was noted across all nodes especially prescribing (68.30 %) monitoring (77.7 %) and in documenting errors (79.36 %). Conclusion The role of pharmacists in reducing preventable MRPs can be shown when pharmacy interventions are analyzed according to corresponding MRP and ME nodes.

Although primarily affecting the respiratory system, COVID-19 causes multiple organ damage. One of its grave consequences is a prothrombotic state that manifests as thrombotic, microthrombotic and thromboembolic events. Therefore, understanding the effect of antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy in the context of COVID-19 treatment is important. The aim of this rapid review was to highlight the role of thrombosis in COVID-19 and to provide new insights on the use of antithrombotic therapy in its management. A rapid systematic review was performed using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews. Papers published in English on antithrombotic agent use and COVID-19 complications were eligible. Results showed that the use of anticoagulants increased survival and reduced thromboembolic events in patients. However, despite the use of anticoagulants, patients still suffered thrombotic events likely due to heparin resistance. Data on antiplatelet use in combination with anticoagulants in the setting of COVID-19 are quite scarce. Current side effects of anticoagulation therapy emphasise the need to update treatment guidelines. In this rapid review, we address a possible modulatory role of antiplatelet and anticoagulant combination against COVID-19 pathogenesis. This combination may be an effective form of adjuvant therapy against COVID-19 infection. However, further studies are needed to elucidate potential risks and benefits associated with this combination.

BackgroundCOVID-19 is a respiratory disease that results in a prothrombotic state manifesting as thrombotic, microthrombotic and thromboembolic events. As a result, several antithrombotic modalities have been implicated in the treatment of this disease. This study aimed to identify if therapeutic anticoagulation (TAC) or concurrent use of antiplatelet and anticoagulants was associated with an improved outcome in this patient population.MethodsA retrospective observational cohort study of adult patients admitted to a single university hospital for COVID-19 infection was performed. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission or the need for mechanical ventilation. The secondary outcomes were each of the components of the primary outcome, in-hospital mortality, ICU admission, or the need for mechanical ventilation.Results242 patients were included in the study and divided into four subgroups: Therapeutic anticoagulation (TAC), prophylactic anticoagulation+antiplatelet (PACAP), TAC+antiplatelet (TACAP) and prophylactic anticoagulation (PAC) which was the reference for comparison. Multivariable Cox regression analysis and propensity matching were done and showed when compared with PAC, TACAP and TAC were associated with less in-hospital all-cause mortality with an adjusted HR (aHR) of 0.113 (95% CI 0.028 to 0.449) and 0.126 (95% CI 0.028 to 0.528), respectively. The number needed to treat in both subgroups was 11. Furthermore, PACAP was associated with a reduced risk of invasive mechanical ventilation with an aHR of 0.07 (95% CI 0.014 to 0.351). However, the was no statistically significant difference in the occurrence of major or minor bleeds, ICU admission or the composite outcome of in-hospital mortality, ICU admission or the need for mechanical ventilation.ConclusionThe use of combined anticoagulant and antiplatelet agents or TAC alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was associated with a better outcome in comparison to PAC alone without an increase in the risk of major and minor bleeds. Sufficiently powered randomised controlled trials are needed to further evaluate the safety and efficacy of combining antiplatelet and anticoagulants agents or using TAC in the management of patients with COVID-19 infection.

Background:Continuing education (CE) is an international tool that requires lifelong active participation in learning activities allowing the pharmacist to stay a major player among others. In 2014 the CE program was introduced to the pharmacists licensed in Lebanon as a mandatory requirement for re-licensure. In the absence of guidelines regarding the quality and quantity of CE programs, behavioral resistance to precipitate in the CE programs might be encountered among the pharmacists.Objective:The objective of this study is to assess the perceptions of pharmacists working in Lebanese hospitals on the continuing education preferences. The advantage of this program is to collect information that would help the Order of Pharmacy in Lebanon to upgrade the CE program in a way that is more acceptable and convenient for the pharmacists.Methods:A cross-sectional study was carried out in 2016, using a proportionate random sample of Lebanese hospital pharmacies from all governorates in Lebanon. A structured questionnaire was distributed to all hospital pharmacies in Lebanon. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all study variables. This includes the mean and standard deviation for continuous measures, counts and percentages for categorical variablesResults:A total of 107 (53.5%) participants completed the questionnaires. The majority of participants were from Beirut and Mount Lebanon. The percentage of participants working at private hospitals was (68.2%).The majority of participants who completed the questionnaire (86.2%) agreed that continuing education programs affects their way of practice and increases their knowledge. Their preferred CE types to be used in the future were the computer based ones (60.6%), interactive workshops (45.5%) and printed materials (44.9%). Their considerations for selecting the CE type is based on their interest in the topic (80.6%), the ease of access to print or online material (77.2%), or the convenience of being offered during an event (67.1%). Participants noted that barriers to attend live CEs were mainly work responsibilities (76%), travel distance (65.6%), family commitments (48.4%) and scheduling (40.6%).Conclusions:Lebanese hospital pharmacists are highly committed to CE. They consider it a practical tool for career development and advancement.

Background There is limited published data in Lebanon evaluating the impact of supplemental education for anticoagulants use, especially DOACs, on clinical outcomes such as bleeding. The study aims to assess the impact of pharmacist-conducted anticoagulation education and follow-up on bleeding and readmission rates. Methods This study was a randomized, non-blinded interventional study conducted between August 2017 and July 2019 in a tertiary care teaching Lebanese hospital. Participants were inpatients ≥18 years discharged on an oral anticoagulant for treatment. Block randomization was used. The control group received the standard nursing counseling while the intervention group additionally received pharmacy counseling. Phone call follow-ups were done on day 3 and 30 post-discharge. Primary outcomes included readmission rates and any bleeding event at day 3 and 30 post-discharge. Secondary outcomes included documented elements of education in the medical records and reported mortality upon day 30 post-discharge. Results Two hundred patients were recruited in the study (100 patients in each study arm) with a mean age of 73.9 years. In the pharmacist-counseled group, more patients contacted their physician within 3 days (14% versus 4%; p = 0.010), received explicit elements of education (p < 0.001) and documentation in the chart was better (p < 0.05). In the standard of care group, patients were more aware of their next physician appointment date (52% versus 31%, p < 0.001). No difference in bleeding rates at day 3 and 30 post-discharge was observed between the groups. Conclusions Although pharmacist-conducted anticoagulation education did not appear to reduce bleeding or readmission rates at day 30, pharmacist education significantly increased patient communication with their providers in the early days post-discharge. Trial registration Lebanon Clinical Trial Registry LBCTR2020033424. Retrospectively registered. Date of registration: 06/03/2020.

No abstract

Objectives: For decades, the role of hospital pharmacists has been instrumental in elevating pharmacy practice worldwide. Recently, the Hospital Pharmacy Section of the International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP), the European Association of Hospital Pharmacists (EAHP), and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) updated their statements about the future role and responsibilities of the pharmacy executive in hospitals and health systems. A series of surveys were conducted around the globe to better understand the current state of hospital pharmacy practice. The purpose of these surveys was to identify challenges in hospital pharmacy practice and to develop improvement strategies. The objective of this national survey is to evaluate hospital pharmacy practice in Lebanon. Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was performed among pharmacists working in hospital settings in Lebanon, from January through June 2016. Based on a literature review, a questionnaire to elicit Lebanese hospital pharmacists’ practice was developed. Results: The results showed a nonsignificant difference between university teaching and nonuniversity teaching hospitals in the processes of drug procurement, preparation, dispensing, and drug administration. However, statistically significant differences were observed between university teaching and nonuniversity teaching hospitals with respect to having clinical pharmacists ( P < .001) and highly qualified personnel ( P < .005). Pharmacy services in teaching hospitals seemed to be more advanced cooperating with affiliated medical schools. Furthermore, teaching hospitals were more likely to have pharmacists providing information about the safety of the medications used ( P = .029). Although not statistically significant, there was a higher trend toward having a designated champion for medication safety ( P = .052). Conclusion: The results of our survey showed that teaching hospitals were more compliant with the International Statements of Hospital Pharmacy Practice compared with nonteaching hospitals. There is room for improvement especially if the application of the accreditation standards for safe hospital pharmacy practice becomes mandatory for all hospitals, which is expected to standardize pharmacy practice and secure both medication and patient safety.