Hospital José Joaquim Fernandes, Unidade Local de Saúde do Baixo Alentejo, Beja, Portugal.
iMed.ULisboa and Departamento de Farmácia, Farmacologia e Tecnologias de Saúde, Faculdade de Farmácia, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2024 Mar;90(3):722-739. doi: 10.1111/bcp.15934. Epub 2023 Nov 23.
The practice of documenting pharmacist interventions (PIs) has been endorsed by many hospital pharmacists' societies and organizations worldwide. Current systems for recording PIs have been developed to generate data on better patient and healthcare outcomes, but harmonization and transferability are apparently minimal. The present work aims to provide a descriptive and comprehensive overview of the currently utilized PI documentation and classification tools contributing to increased evidence systematization. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Studies from 2008, after the release of the Basel Statements, were included if interventions were made by hospital or clinical pharmacists in a global hospital setting. Publications quality assessment was accomplished using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A total of 26 studies were included. Three studies did not refer to the documentation/classification method, 10 used an in-house developed documentation/classification method, seven used externally developed documentation/classification tools and six described method validation or translation. Evidence confirmed that most documentation/classification systems are designed in-house, but external development and validation of PI systems to be used in hospital practice is gradually increasing. Reports on validated PI documentation/classification tools that are being used in hospital clinical practice are limited, including in countries with advanced hospital pharmacy practice. Needs and gaps in practice were identified. Further research should be conducted to understand why using validated documentation/classification methods is not a disseminated practice, knowing patients' and organizational advantages.
记录药师干预(PI)的做法已得到全球许多医院药剂师协会和组织的认可。目前用于记录 PI 的系统旨在生成有关改善患者和医疗保健结果的数据,但显然协调和可转移性最低。本工作旨在提供目前用于增加证据系统化的 PI 文档记录和分类工具的描述性和全面概述。在 PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science 和 Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature 中进行了系统的文献检索。如果干预措施是由全球医院环境中的医院或临床药师进行的,则包括 2008 年巴塞尔声明发布后的研究。使用混合方法评估工具评估出版物质量。共纳入 26 项研究。有三项研究未提及文档分类方法,十项研究使用了内部开发的文档分类方法,七项研究使用了外部开发的文档分类工具,六项研究描述了方法验证或翻译。证据证实,大多数文档分类系统都是内部设计的,但外部开发和验证可用于医院实践的 PI 系统的做法正在逐渐增加。关于在医院临床实践中使用的经过验证的 PI 文档分类工具的报告很少,包括在医院药学实践先进的国家也是如此。确定了实践中的需求和差距。应进一步研究为什么使用经过验证的文档分类方法不是一种传播实践,而要了解患者和组织的优势。