Department of Pharmacy, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
BMJ Open. 2013 Jul 11;3(7). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003027. Print 2013.
Current evidence to support non-medical prescribing is predominantly qualitative, with little evaluation of accuracy, safety and appropriateness. Our aim was to evaluate a new model of service for the Australia healthcare system, of inpatient medication prescribing by a pharmacist in an elective surgery preadmission clinic (PAC) against usual care, using an endorsed performance framework.
Single centre, randomised controlled, two-arm trial.
Elective surgery PAC in a Brisbane-based tertiary hospital.
400 adults scheduled for elective surgery were randomised to intervention or control.
A pharmacist generated the inpatient medication chart to reflect the patient's regular medication, made a plan for medication perioperatively and prescribed venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis. In the control arm, the medication chart was generated by the Resident Medical Officers.
Primary outcome was frequency of omissions and prescribing errors when compared against the medication history. The clinical significance of omissions was also analysed. Secondary outcome was appropriateness of VTE prophylaxis prescribing.
There were significantly less unintended omissions of medications: 11 of 887 (1.2%) intervention orders compared with 383 of 1217 (31.5%) control (p<0.001). There were significantly less prescribing errors involving selection of drug, dose or frequency: 2 in 857 (0.2%) intervention orders compared with 51 in 807 (6.3%) control (p<0.001). Orders with at least one component of the prescription missing, incorrect or unclear occurred in 208 of 904 (23%) intervention orders and 445 of 1034 (43%) controls (p<0.001). VTE prophylaxis on admission to the ward was appropriate in 93% of intervention patients and 90% controls (p=0.29).
Medication charts in the intervention arm contained fewer clinically significant omissions, and prescribing errors, when compared with controls. There was no difference in appropriateness of VTE prophylaxis on admission between the two groups.
Registered with ANZCTR-ACTR Number ACTRN12609000426280.
目前支持非医疗处方的证据主要是定性的,很少评估准确性、安全性和适当性。我们的目的是评估澳大利亚医疗保健系统中新的服务模式,即在择期手术预入院诊所(PAC)中由药剂师进行住院患者药物处方,与常规护理相比,使用认可的绩效框架。
单中心、随机对照、双臂试验。
布里斯班一家三级医院的择期手术 PAC。
400 名计划接受择期手术的成年人被随机分配到干预组或对照组。
药剂师生成住院患者用药图表,反映患者的常规用药,制定围手术期用药计划,并开具静脉血栓栓塞(VTE)预防药物。在对照组中,用药图表由住院医师生成。
与用药史相比,干预组的用药遗漏和处方错误明显较少:干预组的 887 项医嘱中有 11 项(1.2%),而对照组的 1217 项医嘱中有 383 项(31.5%)(p<0.001)。涉及药物选择、剂量或频率的处方错误明显较少:干预组的 857 项医嘱中有 2 项(0.2%),而对照组的 807 项医嘱中有 51 项(6.3%)(p<0.001)。至少有一个处方成分缺失、不正确或不明确的医嘱在干预组的 904 项医嘱中有 208 项(23%),在对照组的 1034 项医嘱中有 445 项(43%)(p<0.001)。入院时给予 VTE 预防治疗的干预组患者中有 93%,对照组中有 90%(p=0.29)是合适的。
与对照组相比,干预组的用药图表中临床意义上的遗漏和处方错误明显较少。两组入院时 VTE 预防治疗的适当性无差异。
在澳大利亚新西兰临床试验注册中心(ANZCTR-ACTR)注册号为 ACTRN12609000426280。