PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10104389

Documenting concurrent clinical pharmacy interventions.

Abstract

The documentation of clinical pharmacy activities is an important issue and the authors describe a relatively simple and easily implemented method of documenting concurrent clinical pharmacy interventions. This quality assurance measure was added to the quality assurance calendar of a tertiary care medical center/teaching hospital to: (1) document to the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations that the pharmacy department is involved in direct patient care, and (2) demonstrate to hospital administrators that pharmacists are an integral and necessary component of the health care team. At least 115 of 428 (27%) documented interventions during 1988 prevented patients from suffering potentially serious side effects and adverse drug reactions. Physicians and nurses initiated consultations by contacting pharmacists, either by phone or in person, and asking them to: (1) recommend dosages for renally impaired patients; (2) monitor patients receiving medications such as aminoglycosides, digoxin, and phenytoin; (3) suggest appropriate doses for specific indications; (4) recommend a formulary drug for a specific condition; and (5) provide drug information. Pharmacists initiated consultations by contacting physicians and nurses, either by phone or in person, to clarify an order or make recommendations regarding drug therapy. Nurses, pharmacists, and physicians initiated 37%, 33%, and 30% of the clinical interventions, respectively. Most of the physician (89%) and nurse (82%) initiated interventions were requests for drug information, whereas most of the pharmacist initiated interventions were order clarifications (51%). The daily documentation of clinical pharmacy interventions demonstrated that the quality of patient care and patient outcome was improved and served as an effective method of cost-justifying pharmacist positions in this era of fiscal constraints.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

T M Haslett, B G Kay, H Weissfellner. 1990. Documenting concurrent clinical pharmacy interventions.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10104389/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

[Corroboration of concurrent assessment of inappropriate hospitalization with retrospective evaluation based on patient records].

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Since the availability of a German adaptation of the "appropriateness Evaluation Protocol" (AEP) for hospital utilization review, physicians and health care managers were concerned about a potential overestimation of the extent of inappropriate hospital use in a retrospective assessment. The objective was to assess the agreement of concurrent and retrospective assessment of inappropriate hospital use. METHODS: The appropriateness of 42 admissions to surgical wards in a teaching hospital was tested concurrent to the admission. In 25 hospitalized patients the appropriateness of hospital days was assessed. Results were compared with the retrospective testing of the same patients after three months. RESULTS: Agreement between concurrent and retrospective assessment within the same reviewer was 86% of admissions (95% CI = 75%-96%) and 96% of hospital days (88%-100%). Kappa showed values of 0.85 and 0.78, which can be described as excellent. A comparison of two different reviewers, one testing concurrently, the other retrospectively showed agreements of 86% and 90%. The proportion of inappropriate days was the same in both designs. CONCLUSIONS: The results refute prior concerns that a retrospective assessment of the appropriateness of hospital use is impossible because in a retrospective design important clinical information would remain unconsidered or clinical information not yet available at that time would be used for the evaluation. The possibility of an incorrect assessment due to a retrospective design is within the variability inherent to the instrument. Despite the strong agreement, the small sample of surgical patient limits the generalizability of results.

Concurrent Review↗

The UR controversy.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Concurrent Review↗