Development of the adult complexity tool for pharmaceutical care (ACTPC) in hospital: A modified Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Hospital pharmacists play an essential role in patient care; however, a lack of resources means pharmacists are unable to review all patients daily. Consequently, there is a demand for reliable screening tools to allocate care to patients with urgent and/or complex pharmaceutical needs. Several tools have been developed, but no broad consensus exists on the design of a screening tool to be used in the adult hospital setting. OBJECTIVE: To obtain expert consensus on the design of a pharmaceutical care complexity screening tool for use on admission to hospital. METHODS: Two Delphi studies were conducted: the first sought to gain consensus from experts including pharmacists, academics and physicians on the components of a pharmaceutical complexity tool, the second to achieve consensus from UK chief pharmacists and clinical service pharmacy managers on the clinical appropriateness and practicality of the tool. Tool components and Delphi statements were identified and refined from our previous systematic review, UK survey and interview study of prioritisation tools. A valid definition for consensus was used. RESULTS: Over 300 components were extracted from the interview data and systematic review and then refined for inclusion in the first Delphi study. Thirty-three experts completed Delphi One and consensus was reached on 92 components. Components were grouped into demographic, clinical and medication components and condensed to 33 items, which were included in the first draft of the Adult Complexity Tool for Pharmaceutical Care (ACTPC). The tool stratified patients into highly, moderately or least complex. Forty expert panellists completed Delphi Two and consensus was reached on review frequency and experience of pharmacy practitioner at each level. These decisions were incorporated into the final version of the ACTPC. CONCLUSIONS: The ACTPC is the first systematically designed and internationally agreed tool for use on medical admission to hospital. It has potential to enable the delivery of targeted patient-centred pharmaceutical care.

Patient prioritization for pharmaceutical care in hospital: A systematic review of assessment tools.

BACKGROUND: Clinical pharmacy services improve patient safety, outcomes, and care quality; however, UK clinical pharmacy services face limited resources, insufficient capacity, and patients who present with increasingly complex medication regimes and morbidities. These indicate a need for the prioritization of pharmacy services. Several prioritization tools have been developed; however, there has been no comprehensive review of such tools to date. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review was conducted to provide a structured overview and description of existing assessment tools with a focus on study quality, themes, tool validity, risk factors, and high-risk drug classes. METHODS: Systematic searches for English-language publications (from 1990 to September 2017) were conducted in Embase, Medline, Scopus, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Web of Science. Papers in the inpatient setting and in which the tool users were pharmacists or pharmacy technicians were included. Data on each study (e.g. aim and design) and the structure of tools (e.g. risk factors) from each included study were extracted by 2 independent reviewers. A descriptive analysis was conducted to summarize these tools along with a thematic analysis of study findings. The quality of each paper was assessed using the Hawker method. RESULTS: Nineteen studies involving 17 risk assessment tools were included. Most tools were developed in Europe (76.5%) and published in the last 5 years (82%). Most tools (88%) were designed to identify patients at greatest risk of adverse drug reactions, adverse drug events, or medication errors and to guide appropriate pharmaceutical care. Ten out of 17 tools (59%) were validated. None showed a measurable impact on prescription errors or adverse drug events. Keys themes identified from the studies were the positive impact of risk assessment tools on both patient care and provision of pharmacy services as well as the limitations of risk assessment tools. CONCLUSIONS: Current assessment tools are heterogeneous in their content, targeting diverse patient groups and clinical settings making generalization difficult. However, an underlying theme of all studies was that tools appear to achieve their aim in directing pharmaceutical care to where it is needed most which might provide reassurance and incentive for greater adoption and development of tools across clinical pharmacy services. However, further research is required to measure objectively the impact of tools on patient outcomes and on workforce efficiency so that comparisons can be made between tools.