Sedation modality in acute respiratory distress syndrome: does method of sedation affect length of stay, outcomes, or adverse events? A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening, diffuse inflammatory pulmonary condition characterised by the Berlin criteria. Incidence of ARDS is estimated at 2.5-19% globally with high mortality and morbidity. Interest has been increasing in the use of inhaled sedatives because of a more rapid awakening and fewer adverse effects compared with intravenous propofol. The primary aim of this systematic review protocol is to investigate the length of critical care stay between ARDS patients who have been mechanically ventilated with inhaled anaesthetic sedatives (ie, sevoflurane and isoflurane) compared with those patients who are prescribed conventional sedatives (ie, propofol). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid (Embase, MEDLINE), PubMed, EBSCO (CINAHL Plus), Google Scholar will be searched and stratified by the reviewers. The literature search will be limited to English articles. Published full text peer-reviewed articles will be included.The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) Registration number is: CRD42023390988. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this systematic review. The results will be presented at local/regional meetings and dissemination will occur through peer-reviewed publication.

Hospital pharmacy response to COVID-19 at two UK teaching hospitals: a departmental review of actions implemented to inform future strategy.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the views of pharmacy staff on a departmental response to wave 1 of the UK COVID-19 pandemic in order to inform a strategy for a second wave at two large UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. METHODS: This study was undertaken at two large teaching hospitals in the UK. Pharmacy staff attended local departmental focus groups. Staff attendance included pharmacists, pharmacy technicians and pharmacy assistants representing all pharmacy services including aseptics, ward-based services, dispensary/distribution and procurement. Responses were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 138 pharmacy staff attended the departmental focus groups. This study identified which pharmacy-related changes implemented in the first wave will be beneficial to take forward into a second wave. These included extending the hours of the pharmacy service to critical care, retaining the competence of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians redeployed to critical care during wave 1, development of standard operating procedures for changes in practice, delivering/posting of dispensed outpatient medication to patients' place of residence, maintenance of ward-based pharmacy services, use of the healthcare app PANDO to aid team communication, utilisation of remote-controlled drug ordering, deployment of a COVID-19 ward stocklist, procurement of ready-made bags/prefilled syringes of critical care medications, aligning the central intravenous additive service with critical care demand to reduce waste and establishment of a pharmacy response in line with the hospital's implementation plan. CONCLUSIONS: This study has provided a number of recommendations for how hospital pharmacy departments may respond to a global pandemic. These experiences derived from the pharmacy departments at two large UK NHS Trusts may be used by other healthcare providers to help inform the pharmacy response to a global pandemic.

The treatment-related experiences of parents, children and young people with regular prescribed medication.

Background Taking regular medication has been shown to have an impact on the daily lives of patients and their families. Objective To explore the medication-related experiences of patients and their families when a child or young person is prescribed regular medication. Setting A specialist U.K. paediatric hospital. Method Semi-structured face-to-face interviews of 24 parents/carers, children or young people, who had been taking two or more medications for 6 weeks or longer. The themes explored included the medication regimen, formulation, supplies, social aspects and adverse effects. The data was analysed using NVIVO version 11. Main outcome measure The experiences of patients, and their parents/carers, when a child/young person takes regular medication. Results Participants described a range of experiences associated with taking regular medication. Medication-related challenges were experienced around the timing of administration which was managed over 24 h rather than waking hours. Updating medication doses for administration at school was often delayed. Unintended nonadherence was cited as the biggest challenge with a range of strategies employed to manage this. The internet was commonly used as a source of additional information accessed for reassurance and adverse effects but there were varying experiences of using patient forums/help groups. Other challenges included the adequacy of information, travelling with medication, formulation issues, arranging supplies and adverse effects. Conclusion Patients and parents experience many challenges with children's medication. Individualised treatment options should be considered. Further research is required to determine how these experiences may be managed including the role of paediatric medication review.

Children/young people taking long-term medication: a survey of community pharmacists' experiences in England.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether community pharmacists undertake medication reviews with children/their carers and to identify the type of medication-related experiences presented to them when a child is taking long-term medication. METHODS: A 13 question semi-structured survey was posted to 354 England-based community pharmacists with telephone follow-up/repeat mailing of non-responders. Participants were asked about their practice as a community pharmacist over the preceding 12 months to children/young people, or their carers, taking long-term medication. The questionnaire covered: medication review, reported adherence, information requests, adverse effects, administration and obtaining medication supplies. The data were analysed using SPSS version 22 and NVivo version 10. RESULTS: The response rate was 76/354 (21.5%). Eighteen (23.7%) respondents had undertaken a Medicines Use Review (MUR) and 22 (28.9%) a New Medicines Service (NMS) medication review with a child/their carer. Participants reported that patients/their carers had presented to them with non-adherence including stopping medication (24, 31.6%) and changing the dose (28, 36.8%). Respondents were directly asked about the indication (59, 77.6%), dose regimen (63, 82.9%), administration (64, 84.2%) and adverse effects (58, 76.3%) of prescribed medication. Respondents reported patients/carers experiencing difficulties obtaining medication from their community pharmacy (47, 61.8%) and patients' family doctors declining to prescribe a medication recommended by a specialist (27, 35.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Medicines Use Review and NMS reviews are utilised by community pharmacists in children/their carers. The medication-related experiences presenting to community pharmacists could fall within the purview of a medication review (MUR or NMS). There is scope to further extend this service to this group of patients/carers.

A telephone survey to determine the experiences of children and their parents/carers, following the initiation of a new medicine.

OBJECTIVE: To determine what issues are experienced during the first few weeks of therapy by patients, and their parents/carers, when a child/young person has been prescribed a new medicine. METHOD: One hundred patients aged ≤18 years of age prescribed a new medicine for ≥6 weeks were recruited from a single UK National Health Service specialist paediatric hospital outpatient pharmacy. Six weeks after the first dispensing of their new medicine the patient or their parent/carer received telephone follow-up by a researcher and verbally completed a questionnaire containing both open and closed questions. Patient or parent/carer experiences were identified and analysed using thematic analysis and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Eighty-six participants were available for telephone follow-up. Six (7%) had not started their medicine. Paediatric patients and their parents/carers experienced a range of issues during the first few weeks after starting a new medicine. These included additional concerns/questions (24/80, 30%), administration issues (21/80, 26.3%), adverse effects (29/80, 36.3%) and obtaining repeat supplies (12/80, 15%). The Morisky Medication Adherence Scale indicated that 34/78 (43.6%) participants had a high adherence rating, 35/78 (44.9%) medium and 9/78 (11.5%) a low rating. CONCLUSIONS: Paediatric patients and their parents/carers experience a range of issues during the first few weeks after starting a new medicine. Further research is required to determine the type of interventions that may further support medicines use in this group of patients.

MEDICATION REVIEW OF CHILDREN ON LONG TERM MEDICATIONS: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.

INTRODUCTION: Children on long term medication may be under the care of more than one medical team including the patients GP. Children on chronic medication should be supported and their medications reviewed, especially in cases of polypharmacy. Medicines Use Reviews (MURs) were introduced into the pharmacy contract in 2005. The service was designed for community pharmacists to review patients on long term medication. The service specified that MURs were done on patients who can give consent and cannot be conducted with a parent or carer. Hence the service may be inaccessible to paediatric patients. This review aims to find studies that identify medication review services in primary care that cater for children on long term medication. METHODS: A literature search was conducted on 6th June 2015 using the keywords, ("Medication" or "review" or "Medication Review" or "Medicines use review" or "Medication use review" or "New Medicine Service") AND ("community pharmacy" OR "community pharmacist" OR "primary care" OR "General practice" OR "GP" OR "community paediatrician" OR "community pediatrician" OR "community nurse"). Bibliographic databases used were AMED, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, EMBASE, HMIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Health Business Elite. Inclusion criteria were: paediatric specific medication review in primary care, for example by either a GP, community paediatrician, community nurse or community pharmacist. Exclusion criteria were studies of medication review in adults/unclear patient age and secondary care medication reviews. RESULTS: From the 417 articles, 6 relevant articles were found after abstract and full text review. 235 articles were excluded after title and abstract review (11 did not have full text in English); 96 were adult or non-age specified medication review/MUR/New Medicine Service studies; 63 referred to observational, evaluative studies of interventions in adults; 6 were non-paediatric specific systematic reviews and 17 were protocols, commentaries, news, and letters.The 6 relevant articles consisted of 1 literature review (published 2004), 3 research articles and 1 published protocol. The literature review[1] recommended that children's long term medication should be reviewed. The published protocol stated that the NMS minimum age for inclusion in the trial was for children aged over 13 years of age. The four studies were related to psychiatrists reviewing paediatric mental health patients in the USA, a pharmacist using Drug Related Problem to review patients in GP practices in Australia, a UK study based on an information prescription concept by providing children dispensed medications in community pharmacy with signposting them to health information and one GP practice based study observing pharmaceutical care issues in children and adults. CONCLUSION: The results show that there are currently no known studies on medication use reviews specific to children, whereas in adults, published evaluations are available. The terms of the MUR policy restrict children's access to the service and so more studies are necessary to determine whether children could benefit from such access.

PATIENT/CARERS' RECOLLECTION OF MEDICINES RELATED INFORMATION FROM AN OUT-PATIENT CLINIC APPOINTMENT.

AIM: To identify what medicines related information children/young people or their parents/carers are able to recall following an out-patient clinic appointment. METHOD: A convenience sample of patients' prescribed at least one new long-term (>6 weeks) medicine were recruited from a single UK paediatric hospital out-patient pharmacy.A face-to-face semi-structured questionnaire was administered to participants when they presented with their prescription. The questionnaire included the following themes: names of the medicines, therapeutic indication, dose regimen, duration of treatment and adverse effects.The results were analysed using Microsoft Excel 2013. RESULTS: One hundred participants consented and were included in the study. One hundred and forty-five medicines were prescribed in total. Participants were able to recall the names of 96 (66%) medicines and were aware of the therapeutic indication for 142 (97.9%) medicines. The dose regimen was accurately described for 120 (82.8%) medicines with the duration of treatment known for 132 (91%). Participants mentioned that they had been advised about side effects for 44 (30.3%) medicines. Specific counselling points recommended by the BNFc1, were either omitted or not recalled by participants for the following systemic treatments: cetirizine (1), chlorphenamine (1), desmopressin (2), hydroxyzine (2), itraconazole (1), piroxicam (2), methotrexate (1), stiripentol (1) and topiramate (1). CONCLUSION: Following an out-patient consultation, where a new medicine is prescribed, children and their parents/carers are usually able to recall the indication, dose regimen and duration of treatment. Few were able to recall, or were told about, possible adverse effects. This may include some important drug specific effects that require vigilance during treatment.Patients, along with families and carers, should be involved in the decision to prescribe a medicine.2 This includes a discussion about the benefits of the medicine on the patient's condition and possible adverse effects.2 Treatment side effects have been shown to be a factor in treatment non-adherence in paediatric long-term medical conditions.3 Practitioners should explain to patients, and their family members or carers where appropriate, how to identify and report medicines-related patient safety incidents.4 However, this study suggests that medical staff may not be comfortable discussing the adverse effects of medicines with patients or their parents/carers.Further research in to the shared decision making process in the paediatric out-patient clinic when a new long-term medicine is prescribed is required to further support medicines adherence and the patient safety agenda.

STARTING A NEW MEDICINE STUDY.

AIM: To identify the experiences of patients, parents or carers when a child/young person is prescribed a new long-term medicine. METHOD: Patients' prescribed a new long-term (>6 weeks) medicine were recruited from a single UK paediatric hospital out-patient pharmacy.A semi-structured questionnaire was administered to participants, via telephone, 6 weeks after the dispensing of their medicine. The questionnaire included the following themes: information requirements, resources used to seek further information, medicine administration issues, new concerns or questions that have arisen, adverse effects, arranging repeat supplies and an assessment of adherence.The results were analysed using Microsoft Excel 2013 and NVivo Version 10. RESULTS: Fifty patients consented and were included in the study. Eighteen (36%) participants had undertaken further research prior to taking/administering their new medicine. 13 (72%) of these used the internet for further information. Participants had further concerns/questions in 18 (36%) cases with 7 (38.9%) contacting the hospital team for further advice. Thirteen (26%) participants experienced difficulty administering/taking the medicine. Sixteen (36%) believed that they had experienced an adverse effect. Eight (16%) participants experienced difficulties when obtaining further supplies. With regard to adherence, 17 (34%) participants had forgotten a dose on at least one occasion and 4 (8%) found it difficult to keep to the medication regimen. CONCLUSION: This research has demonstrated that paediatric patients, parents and carers experience a wide range of issues during the first few weeks after starting a new medicine. This is in accordance with a recent review of non-adherence in paediatric long-term medical conditions.1 The New Medicines Service (NMS) offered through community pharmacists is designed to support patients' who have recently been prescribed a medicine to manage a long-term condition.2 However, this is not readily available to children/young people or their carers. The main barriers being the targeted conditions included in the service, consent and exclusion of undertaking an NMS consultation with a carer. Further research is required to establish and evaluate a paediatric specific medication review service for children/young people and their parents/carers when a new long-term medicine has been prescribed. This research will support the recent research recommendation of the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence.3.