Shulman R, McKenzie C A, Landa J, Bourne R S, Jones A, Borthwick M, Tomlin M, Jani Y H, West D, Bates I
University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Pharmacy, London, NW1 2BU, United Kingdom.
Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Kings College London, London, SE1 9NH, United Kingdom; Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, Pharmacy and Critical Care, London, SE1 7EH, United Kingdom.
J Crit Care. 2015 Aug;30(4):808-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2015.04.008. Epub 2015 Apr 18.
The purpose was to describe clinical pharmacist interventions across a range of critical care units (CCUs) throughout the United Kingdom, to identify CCU medication error rate and prescription optimization, and to identify the type and impact of each intervention in the prevention of harm and improvement of patient therapy.
A prospective observational study was undertaken in 21 UK CCUs from November 5 to 18, 2012. A data collection web portal was designed where the specialist critical care pharmacist reported all interventions at their site. Each intervention was classified as medication error, optimization, or consult. In addition, a clinical impact scale was used to code the interventions. Interventions were scored as low impact, moderate impact, high impact, and life saving. The final coding was moderated by blinded independent multidisciplinary trialists.
A total of 20517 prescriptions were reviewed with 3294 interventions recorded during the weekdays. This resulted in an overall intervention rate of 16.1%: 6.8% were classified as medication errors, 8.3% optimizations, and 1.0% consults. The interventions were classified as low impact (34.0%), moderate impact (46.7%), and high impact (19.3%); and 1 case was life saving. Almost three quarters of interventions were to optimize the effectiveness of and improve safety of pharmacotherapy.
This observational study demonstrated that both medication error resolution and pharmacist-led optimization rates were substantial. Almost 1 in 6 prescriptions required an intervention from the clinical pharmacist. The error rate was slightly lower than an earlier UK prescribing error study (EQUIP). Two thirds of the interventions were of moderate to high impact.
本研究旨在描述全英国一系列重症监护病房(CCU)中临床药师的干预措施,确定CCU的用药错误率和处方优化情况,并确定每种干预措施在预防伤害和改善患者治疗方面的类型及影响。
2012年11月5日至18日,在英国21个CCU进行了一项前瞻性观察研究。设计了一个数据收集网络门户,由重症监护专科药师报告其所在科室的所有干预措施。每项干预措施分为用药错误、优化或咨询。此外,使用临床影响量表对干预措施进行编码。干预措施分为低影响、中度影响、高影响和挽救生命四类。最终编码由不知情的独立多学科试验人员进行审核。
共审查了20517张处方,工作日期间记录了3294项干预措施。总体干预率为16.1%:6.8%被归类为用药错误,8.3%为优化,1.0%为咨询。干预措施分为低影响(34.0%)、中度影响(46.7%)和高影响(19.3%);有1例属于挽救生命的情况。近四分之三的干预措施旨在优化药物治疗的有效性并提高安全性。
这项观察性研究表明,用药错误解决率和药师主导的优化率都很高。几乎每6张处方中就有1张需要临床药师进行干预。错误率略低于英国早期的一项处方错误研究(EQUIP)。三分之二的干预措施具有中度至高度影响。