Search

Opioid prescribing requires careful planning to minimise the risk of serious adverse outcomes. However, documentation of discharge opioid plans for patients and their general practitioners (GPs) is inconsistent, particularly when opioids are commenced in the emergency department or after surgery. We describe an initiative to promote consistent discharge opioid plan communication by implementing an opioid management plan (OMP) in our hospital's electronic medical record. Completion of an electronic form by the prescriber generates an OMP note in the medical history, which is used by the pharmacist to provide tailored opioid patient education. The OMP also populates the discharge summary that is sent to the GP and the Australian national digital health record platform, My Health Record. Preliminary evaluation shows incorporating OMP documentation into routine workflows has assisted prescribers to consistently document the plan for supplied opioids, supporting continuity of care. Workflow optimisation is ongoing to further improve discharge summary documentation and provision of patient‐friendly written information. This study was conducted as a quality improvement project and audits conducted as part of the project were approved by Austin Health's Office for Research (Project No: LNR/18/Austin/155). Informed patient consent was not required by Austin Health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pharmacist‐assisted prescribing (also known as pharmacist charting) has been adopted widely across Australia. The perspectives of medical and nursing staff, however, is poorly understood. Aim: To explore the perceived benefits and drawbacks of pharmacist‐assisted prescribing on admission and discharge, from the perspective of hospital medical officers (HMOs) and nurses. Methods: Face‐to‐face, semi‐structured interviews were conducted with orthopaedic junior HMOs, the orthogeriatric HMO and nurses during a study evaluating pharmacist‐assisted prescribing in an orthopaedic unit. Participants were individually interviewed to explore the perceived impacts of pharmacist‐assisted prescribing on patient safety, workflow and HMO skill development. Interviews were audio‐recorded and verbatim transcriptions were analysed independently by two investigators using a simple thematic analysis. Results: Interviews were conducted with six HMOs and six nurses. Emergent themes highlighted various factors which may affect the ability of HMOs to prescribe medications accurately and in a timely manner when there is no pharmacist assisting with prescribing, and the impact of pharmacist‐assisted prescribing on patient flow, safety and staff workload. Participants felt that having a pharmacist assist with prescribing improved patient safety by reducing prescribing errors and admission charting delays, and assisted with patient flow by reducing delays in discharging patients. Participants felt that pharmacist‐assisted prescribing reduced their workload. They noted a drawback was the potential to de‐skill HMOs, but felt this was outweighed by the benefits. Conclusions: Hospital medical officers and nurses reported that pharmacist‐assisted prescribing had benefits on patient safety, patient flow and workload and that these outweigh the potential drawbacks of potentially de‐skilling junior HMOs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To explore wastage of hospital‐supplied medications for patients discharged to residential care facilities (RCFs). Methods: Telephone interviews with staff at 52 RCFs and nine community pharmacies after patients were discharged from three hospitals in metropolitan Victoria, Australia, with medication supplied in original packs. Results: Hospital‐supplied medication was used by most RCFs, for a median of 48 hours, while waiting for community pharmacies to deliver medications packed in the RCFs' preferred dose administration aid system (unit‐dose or multi‐dose blister packs or sachets). All RCFs reported sending unused hospital‐supplied medications to their community pharmacy. Six of the nine community pharmacies (managing 83% patients) indicated they did not reuse hospital‐supplied medications, with the exception of select difficult‐to‐source medications. Conclusion: There was significant wastage of hospital‐supplied discharge medications. Changes to the way hospital discharge medications are funded and quantities supplied are needed to ensure continuity of medication administration while minimising financial and environmental impacts of medication wastage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The "Pharmacy Technician and Assistant Role Redesign within Australian Hospitals Project" outcomes were released in November 2016. Aim: To assess pharmacy staff attitudes towards expanded hospital pharmacy technician (HPT) roles in a Victorian metropolitan teaching hospital. Method: An electronic questionnaire circulated to all pharmacists, interns and HPTs remained open for 4 weeks during September 2018. Questions focused on three key domains: HPT involvement in final accuracy checking of inpatient supplies and manufactured items, drugs of addiction (DA) management and clinical support roles. The hospital's Office for Research deemed the study a quality improvement activity. Results: The questionnaire was undertaken by 61 of 122 (50%) pharmacy staff. Fewer than 10% of respondents believed that HPTs are adequately used in current practice. Final accuracy checking technicians for inpatient medication supplies was supported by 82% of respondents. HPTs signing entries into dispensary DA registers for discharge and outpatient prescriptions was supported by 81% of respondents. Best possible medication history taking conducted by an HPT was supported by 52% of respondents, but support differed between pharmacists and HPTs, with 38 and 92% supportive, respectively (p < 0.01). Forty percent of respondents supported HPT involvement in patient medication counselling. Key themes identified from qualitative data included: the need for clarification of legal and indemnity issues, training and credentialing and professional attributes for expanded HPT roles. Conclusion: These findings are informing HPT role expansion within the pharmacy department and have identified potential barriers to change. Such findings may be useful to pharmacy departments undertaking similar role redesign work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine medications used by ED doctors to improve work and academic performance, and to manage stress and anxiety. Methods: We undertook an online, voluntary, anonymous survey of ACEM fellows and trainees. Results: One hundred and thirty‐nine (46.5%) respondents used a medication under examination. Sleep aids included melatonin (19.1% of respondents) and benzodiazepines (8.7%). Medications to improve performance included modafinil (4.7%), pseudoephedrine (2.0%), melatonin (2.0%) and beta blockers (1.3%). Some medications were taken prior to shifts. Medications to manage stress and anxiety included benzodiazepines (3.0%) and beta blockers (2.0%). Conclusion: Medication use is common and support for some doctors may be required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: To assess the accuracy of medication information sources available for adult patients presenting to the ED, compared to a best possible medication history (BPMH). Methods: This prospective observational study was undertaken in the ED of a major tertiary‐referral teaching hospital. A convenience sample of consecutive adult patients taking one or more regular medications was included. A BPMH was ascertained using patient/carer interviews, where available, and confirmed with one or more other sources. For residential care facility (RCF) patients, the RCF medication chart and at least one other source were used. Information sources compared with the BPMH were community pharmacy dispensing history, patient's own medications, patient's medication list, general practitioner letter, medications stored in and labelled on dose administration aids (DAAs) and the RCF chart. Number of discrepancies per patient for each source was determined by comparing medications and dose regimens to those documented in the BPMH. Results: A total of 455 patients (median age 71 years) took a median of six ‘regular’ and two ‘as required’ medications. The median number (range) of discrepancies per patient for regular medication names and dosages were RCF chart 0 (0–3), DAA contents 2.0 (0–9), patient's medication list 2.5 (0–16), DAA medications label 3.0 (0–7), community pharmacy history 3.0 (0–19), general practitioner letter 3.0 (0–18) and patient's own medications 4.0 (0–16). Overall, 40.4% of discrepancies were deemed ‘moderate’ or ‘high’ clinical significance. Omission errors accounted for 55.6% of discrepancies. Conclusions: A combination of sources is essential to determine the BPMH. RCF charts provided the most accurate information. Other sources had two to four regular medication‐related discrepancies per patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Rationale, aims, and objectives: Whilst many dose omissions cause no patient harm, inappropriate dose omissions have been associated with increased length of hospital stay, risk of sepsis, and mortality. This study aimed to comprehensively describe the prevalence and nature of omitted doses overall and of high risk medication dose omissions in an organization using an electronic Medication Management System. Methods: A retrospective cross‐sectional study was undertaken in an Australian tertiary referral health service. All routinely documented electronic inpatient dose administration records from 1st July 2014 to 30th June 2015 were included. Period prevalence and characteristics of dose omissions overall and of high‐risk medication dose omissions were determined. Results: During the study period, 3.3 million inpatient doses were scheduled for administration, with doses endorsed as “not given” comprising 6.2% of all scheduled doses. Non‐valid dose omissions (medication not available or no justification documented) comprised 1.2% of scheduled doses. Patient refusal accounted for one third of all dose omissions, while for 12% no explanation was provided and 7% were endorsed “medication not available”. High‐risk medications accounted for 20% of all dose omissions. One in 20 antimicrobial doses scheduled were omitted, and of these, 17% were due to patient refusal. Conclusion: The period prevalence of dose omissions in this large study after electronic Medication Management System implementation is similar to that found when paper charts were used. Although most dose omissions appear appropriate, many orders were not given due to patient refusal or with no documented justification. Interventions to minimize unintentional dose omissions are indicated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An interim residential care medication administration chart (IRCMAC), usually handwritten by hospital medical officers, is provided by some hospitals to reduce the risk of medication administration delays and errors for patients discharged to residential care facilities (RCFs). Aim: To describe a novel method for IRCMAC preparation; and to determine the percentage of patients discharged from hospital to RCFs who received an IRCMAC, the accuracy of the IRCMAC, and the time IRCMAC preparation added to the pharmacy discharge process. Method: Software and processes were developed to enable integration of IRCMAC preparation into the pharmacy discharge process, with auto-population of the IRCMAC with patient, prescriber and medication data. The percentage of patients for whom RCF staff reported receiving an IRCMAC over a 3-month study period was determined by telephone interview 24 to 72 hours post-discharge. Accuracy was determined by retrospective comparison of a random sample of IRCMACs with pharmacist reviewed and reconciled discharge prescriptions to identify discrepancies. Time added to pharmacy discharge processes was recorded prospectively by pharmacy staff. Results: RCF staff reported receiving IRCMACs for 214/226 (95%) patients discharged to 84 RCFs. The medication discrepancy rate (excluding nutritional supplements) in 76 randomly selected IRCMACs was 9/877 (1%). The IRCMAC took a mean of 8.7 (SD 4.1) minutes to prepare. Conclusion: Accurate IRCMACs can be provided for a high percentage of patients discharged to RCFs by hospital pharmacists using a semi-automated process linked to dispensing software. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To undertake and evaluate a multifaceted intervention to encourage paramedics to bring patients' own medications (POM) to the ED. Method: Adult patients were enrolled in each of the pre-intervention (March 2006) and post-intervention (December 2006) periods if they were brought to ED by ambulance, taking four or more medications, admitted to hospital and were not referred to a pharmacist prior to the admission medication chart being written. ED pharmacists determined patients' regular medication and details of medications brought in by ambulance. Medication charts were assessed for discrepancies related to medications taken prior to presentation. These were recorded as errors if a change was made to the medication chart after discussion with the prescriber. The intervention, conducted in October and November 2006, involved meetings with Metropolitan Ambulance Service * team managers and dissemination of promotional material. Paramedics of the Metropolitan Ambulance Service were participants for the intervention. Main outcome measures were: percentage of regular medications incorrectly prescribed; and percentage of POM brought to ED by paramedics. Results: One hundred patients were enrolled in each of the pre- and post-intervention periods. The percentage of regular medications incorrectly prescribed significantly decreased from 18.9% (151/800, 95% CI 16–22%) to 8.8% (73/834, 95% CI 7–11%) in the pre- and post-intervention periods, respectively ( P < 0.001). Pre-intervention, paramedics brought some or all POM to ED in 67.0% (67/100, 95% CI 57–76%) of cases compared with 87.0% (87/100, 95% CI 78–93%) of cases, post-intervention. Conclusion: The multifaceted intervention encouraging paramedics to bring POM to ED was effective. POM were brought into ED more frequently and prescribing errors reduced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]