Abstract:Background and aim Verifying and reviewing a patients medication list can detect and reduce drug related problems (DRPs). However little is known about its effects in patients using oral chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of these interventions and the adapted Medication Appropriateness Index (aMAI) as a tool to carry out a medication review. Methods A case-control study was carried out. The hospital pharmacist performed a medication reconciliation and medication review, using the a… Show more
“…Another cause for lower frequencies of medication errors in the randomized AMBORA trial compared to clinical routine might be that physicians' referral to or patients' participation in the AMBORA trial within a study environment might have caused a partial avoidance of medication errors, indicating an even higher actual potential for errors and patient harm (see 10 ) in clinical practice. In line with our findings, a recent analysis found a similarly high overall number of 2.4 medication errors per patient treated with OAT in clinical routine 23 . The distribution of important error characteristics within the complete medication was comparable in our primary analysis ( Figure ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…In line with our findings, a recent analysis found a similarly high overall number of 2.4 medication errors per patient treated with OAT in clinical routine. 23 The distribution of important error characteristics within the complete medication was comparable in our primary analysis (Figure 2). Interestingly, the overall percentage of drug-drug/drug-food interactions in the AMBORA Center was slightly smaller compared to the RCT (24.0% vs. 29.8%, Figure 2).…”
The randomized AMBORA trial showed that medication errors are frequent in patients treated with oral antitumor therapeutics and that they can be substantially reduced by an intensified clinical pharmacological/pharmaceutical care program. While randomized controlled trials are essential to generate clinical evidence, their generalizability in real‐world is not always given. The AMBORA care program was implemented in clinical routine within the AMBORA Competence and Consultation Center (AMBORA Center) at the Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen‐EMN, allowing a thorough comparison of medication error frequencies and characteristics. Our primary analysis compared data at therapy initiation of new oral antitumor therapeutics from the AMBORA trial intervention group (n = 98) and the AMBORA Center (n = 142). Medication errors involving the oral antitumor therapeutics were twofold higher in real‐world compared to the randomized controlled trial (mean 0.83 ± 0.80 per patient vs. 0.41 ± 0.53, P < 0.001). We observed more complex oral antitumor therapeutic regimens, a higher median number of medications, and a higher ECOG status in clinical routine vs. the randomized trial. A high percentage of medication errors was completely solved in both groups (85.7% vs. 88.3%, ns). Medication error characteristics within the complete medication (oral antitumor therapeutics and concomitant medication) were similar in both groups (e.g., patient‐related causes, drug–drug/drug–food interactions). Taken together, medication errors were even more frequent in clinical routine than in the randomized controlled trial and a high rate was solved in clinical routine by a clinical pharmacological/pharmaceutical care program.
“…Another cause for lower frequencies of medication errors in the randomized AMBORA trial compared to clinical routine might be that physicians' referral to or patients' participation in the AMBORA trial within a study environment might have caused a partial avoidance of medication errors, indicating an even higher actual potential for errors and patient harm (see 10 ) in clinical practice. In line with our findings, a recent analysis found a similarly high overall number of 2.4 medication errors per patient treated with OAT in clinical routine 23 . The distribution of important error characteristics within the complete medication was comparable in our primary analysis ( Figure ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…In line with our findings, a recent analysis found a similarly high overall number of 2.4 medication errors per patient treated with OAT in clinical routine. 23 The distribution of important error characteristics within the complete medication was comparable in our primary analysis (Figure 2). Interestingly, the overall percentage of drug-drug/drug-food interactions in the AMBORA Center was slightly smaller compared to the RCT (24.0% vs. 29.8%, Figure 2).…”
The randomized AMBORA trial showed that medication errors are frequent in patients treated with oral antitumor therapeutics and that they can be substantially reduced by an intensified clinical pharmacological/pharmaceutical care program. While randomized controlled trials are essential to generate clinical evidence, their generalizability in real‐world is not always given. The AMBORA care program was implemented in clinical routine within the AMBORA Competence and Consultation Center (AMBORA Center) at the Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen‐EMN, allowing a thorough comparison of medication error frequencies and characteristics. Our primary analysis compared data at therapy initiation of new oral antitumor therapeutics from the AMBORA trial intervention group (n = 98) and the AMBORA Center (n = 142). Medication errors involving the oral antitumor therapeutics were twofold higher in real‐world compared to the randomized controlled trial (mean 0.83 ± 0.80 per patient vs. 0.41 ± 0.53, P < 0.001). We observed more complex oral antitumor therapeutic regimens, a higher median number of medications, and a higher ECOG status in clinical routine vs. the randomized trial. A high percentage of medication errors was completely solved in both groups (85.7% vs. 88.3%, ns). Medication error characteristics within the complete medication (oral antitumor therapeutics and concomitant medication) were similar in both groups (e.g., patient‐related causes, drug–drug/drug–food interactions). Taken together, medication errors were even more frequent in clinical routine than in the randomized controlled trial and a high rate was solved in clinical routine by a clinical pharmacological/pharmaceutical care program.
“…10 This results in additional costs for health care systems. [11][12][13] Previous studies have already highlighted the importance of the role of a CP for this purpose. 7,[14][15][16] Including a CP in evaluating prescriptions significantly reduces prescription errors and drug-related problems, thus increasing patient safety.…”
Purpose
The shortage of nursing staff as well as the slow progress in the German health care system’s digitalisation has gained much attention due to COVID-19. Patient-specific medication management using the unit-dose dispensing system (UDDS) has the potential for a lasting and positive influence on both digitalisation and the relief of nursing staff.
Methods
Nursing staff UDDS-acceptance was determined via a validated online survey. For the evaluation of stock keeping on the wards, the delivery quantities were determined for a comparative period before and after the introduction of the UDDS. The time required for on-ward medication-related processes on ward before and after the introduction of UDDS was recorded based on a survey form and the nursing relief in full-time equivalent (FTE) was calculated using the data obtained.
Results
We show that nurses appreciate the UDDS and confirm a significant reduction in drug stocks on the wards. The UDDS reduces the time needed to dispense medications from 4.52 ± 0.35 min to 1.67 ± 0.15 min/day/patient. In relation to the entire medication process, this corresponds to a reduction of 50% per day and per patient. Based on 40,000 patients/year and a supply of 1,125 beds with unit-dose blisters, 7.36 FTE nursing staff can be relieved per year. In contrast, 6.5 FTE in the hospital pharmacy are required for supplying the hospitals.
Conclusion
UDDS is well accepted by nurses, reduces stock levels on ward, and fulfils criteria as a nursing-relief measure.
“…[1][2][3][4][5] It provides essential medicines and supplies for chronic and emergency conditions, [6] preventing drugrelated mortality and mobility and voiding the unnecessary cost burden of healthcare services. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Pharmacy services are highly demanded in crises and disasters such as natural disasters and public health emergencies. [14,15] During crises, various challenges might occur, such as medication supply chain disruption, the high load of patients, destruction of pharmacy infrastructure, and offside communication and information about medication availability.…”
Objectives: To the Crisis and Disaster Management policy and procedures in pharmacy practice as a new initiative in Saudi Arabia. Methods: It was a narrative review of pharmacy practice's Crisis and Disaster Management policy and procedures. Literature searched various databases, including PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar. The search period is from the 1960s until 06 December 2023. The term is in full-text English and includes Case Reports
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.