Evaluation of vaccination coverage in heart failure patients in a tertiary center.

Background: Despite current recommendation, vaccination coverage (VC) for patients with heart failure (HF) remains far too limited. Aims: To evaluate the VC of HF patients followed in our hospital center and investigate the barriers to vaccination and the ways to address them. Methods: This was a cross-sectional monocentric descriptive study conducted between December 2019 and January 2021 at the University Hospital of Montpellier, France. Patients with HF history hospitalized in cardiology unit (CU) and patients in a HF telemonitoring program (TP) were included. An interview was conducted by a pharmacist to find out the patient's vaccination status against influenza and pneumococcus. For non-vaccinated patients, opinion and willingness to be vaccinated were also obtained. Results: Data from 335 patients were collected (185 in CU, 150 in TP). The mean age was 69.3 years and the proportion of males was 72%. About 65% were vaccinated against influenza in the last year (60% in CU, 72% in TP, p = 0.022) and 22% were up to date with pneumococcal vaccination (11% in CU, 35% in TP, p < 0.001). Among patients not vaccinated, 17% refused vaccination. Among unvaccinated patients who consider vaccination, 69% wanted to be vaccinated by their general practitioner (GP). Conclusions: The VC of HF patients remains insufficient. Patients in TP are more vaccinated than patients in CU, which could involve better management. The low rate of vaccinated patients is mainly explained by a lack of awareness. The medical team, including the clinical pharmacist by his dedicated time during medication reconciliation may play a major role in the management of hospitalized patients as well as GP's as local actors.

Clinical, Economic, and Organizational Impact of the Clinical Pharmacist in an Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery Department.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical, economic, and organizational impact of clinical pharmacist services added to an adult orthopedic and trauma surgery unit in a university hospital. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study performed from January to February 2017. All pharmacists' interventions were documented, and their clinical, economic, and organizational impact and the probability of adverse drug events (ADEs) were assessed using the clinical, economic and organizational scale three-dimensional scale. An expert panel composed of three clinical pharmacists, one surgeon and one anesthetist classified the pharmacist intervention. The potential clinical impact was determined through a consensus by the expert panel. Cost avoidance was calculated for serious ADEs with a major impact by avoiding an additional cost of €4912 per event and taking into account the probability of ADE occurrence. RESULTS: The pharmacists performed 1014 interventions for 28 days with a 95.3% acceptance rate by prescribers. Thirty-nine interventions were rated to have a major clinical impact (3.8%). The organizational impact was estimated favorable for 856 (84.4%) pharmacist interventions. Cost avoidance was estimated at €24,364, and the indirect costs benefit was estimated at €11,864 during the study. The cost-benefit ratio of the clinical pharmacist intervention was €1.94 in savings for every €1 invested. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical pharmacist services in an orthopedic and trauma surgery department have the potential to improve patient outcomes and avoid healthcare costs. Furthermore, the presence of a pharmacist in surgical units allows for communication between the unit and the pharmacy, which produces better fluidity and improves the quality of care.

Medication Errors at Hospital Admission and Discharge: Risk Factors and Impact of Medication Reconciliation Process to Improve Healthcare.

OBJECTIVE: First, the aim of the study was to assess the prevalence, characteristics, and severity of unintended medication discrepancies (UMDs) and medication errors (MEs) at admission and discharge of hospitalization. Second, the aim of the study was to identify clinical and hospitalization factors associated with risk of UMDs as well as characteristics of the medication reconciliation process associated with UMDs detection. METHODS: This prospective observational study included all adult patients admitted from 2013 to 2015 in the Endocrinology-Diabetology-Nutrition Department of Montpellier Hospital, France. Clinical pharmacists conducted medication reconciliation by collecting the best possible medication history from different sources and comparing it with admission and discharge prescriptions to identify discrepancies. Unintended medication discrepancies corrected by the physician were considered as MEs. Risk factors of UMDs were identified with logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 904 patients included, 266 (29.4%) had at least one UMD, at admission or at discharge. In total, 378 (98.2%) of 385 UMDs were considered to be MEs. Most MEs were omissions (59.3%). Medication errors were serious or very serious in 36% of patients and had potentially moderate severity in almost 40% of patients. The risk of UMDs increased constantly with the number of treatments (P < 0.001). Thyroid (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.12-2.86) and infectious diseases (adjusted OR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.17-2.78) were associated with UMDs risk at admission. The best type of source for the detection of UMDs was the general practitioner or nurse (OR = 2.64, 95% CI = 1.51-4.63). CONCLUSIONS: Unintended medication discrepancies are frequent at hospital and depend on intrinsic clinical parameters but also on practice of medication reconciliation process, such as number and type of sources used.

Development and validation of a score to assess risk of medication errors detected during medication reconciliation process at admission in internal medicine unit: SCOREM study.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors (ME) can be reduced through preventive strategies such as medication reconciliation. Such strategies are often limited by human resources and need targeting high risk patients. AIMS: To develop a score to identify patients at risk of ME detected during medication reconciliation in a specific population from internal medicine unit. METHODS: Prospective observational study conducted in an internal medicine unit of a French University Hospital from 2012 to 2016. Adult hospitalised patients were eligible for inclusion. Medication reconciliation was conducted by a pharmacist and consisted in comparing medication history with admission prescription to identify MEs. Risk factors of MEs were analysed using multivariate stepwise logistic regression model. A risk score was constructed using the split-sample approach. The split was done at random (using a fixed seed) to define a development data set (N = 1256) and a validation sample (N = 628). A regression coefficient-base scoring system was used adopting the beta-Sullivan approach (Sullivan's scoring). RESULTS: Pharmacists detected 740 MEs in 368/1884 (19.5%) patients related to medication reconciliation. Female gender, number of treatments >7, admission from emergency department and during night or weekend were significantly associated with a higher risk of MEs. Risk score was constructed by attributing 1 or 2 points to these variables. Patients with a score ≥3 (OR [95% CI] 3.10 [1.15-8.37]) out of 5 (OR [95% CI] 8.11 [2.89-22.78]) were considered at high risk of MEs. CONCLUSIONS: Risk factors identified in our study may help prioritising patients admitted in internal medicine units who may benefit the most from medication reconciliation (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT03422484).

Collaboration between cardiologist and clinical pharmacist on prescription quality: What is the potential clinical impact for cardiology patients?

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of pharmacists' interventions (PI) on the potential clinical impact of medication errors, including the lack of therapeutic optimisation of patients with cardiologic diseases, such as heart failure and acute coronary syndrome). METHODS: This was an observational, prospective study conducted in the cardiology department of a French university hospital centre for a duration of 9 months. All prescriptions were analysed and PI were registered for clinical rating by pharmacists and cardiologist. RESULTS: A total of 532 PI cases were recorded in 339 patients, with a mean of 1.57 (±1.04) PI. The PI acceptance rate was 98.1%. "Dose adjustment" and "introduction therapy" were the most common interventions and represented 38.0% and 32.9%, respectively, of all PI. Statins were the most frequently involved drugs (18.1%), followed by ACE (Angiotensin Converting Enzyme) inhibitors (10.9%) and antiplatelet agents (9.3%). Moreover, 13.8% of PI potentially avoided a severe or very severe clinical impact (n = 71) and 38.6% had a significant impact altering the quality of life (n = 198). There was no significant difference between the average score performed by the clinical pharmacist included in the cardiology team and the one obtained by the cardiologist (P = .797). In contrast, a significant difference was observed for the average score established by the pharmacist localised in central pharmacy versus the rating of the cardiologist (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The collaboration between clinical pharmacists and cardiologists in the medical units seems to be beneficial to the quality of prescriptions, including the implementation of recommendations. The good rate of PI acceptance and the similar rating with the cardiologist show that there is a change in perspective of the pharmacist, being closer to the clinical reality.

Management of advanced heart failure: a review.

INTRODUCTION: Heart failure (HF) has become a global pandemic. Despite recent developments in both medical and device treatments, HF incidences continues to increase. The current definition of HF restricts itself to stages at which clinical symptoms are apparent. In advanced heart failure (AdHF), it is universally accepted that all patients are refractory to traditional therapies. As the number of HF patients increase, so does the need for additional treatments, with an increased proportion of patients requiring advanced therapies. Areas covered: This review discusses extensive evidence for the effect of medical treatment on HF, although the data on the effect on AdHF is scare. Authors review the relevant literature for treating AdHF patients. Furthermore, mechanical circulatory devices (MCD) have emerged as an alternative to heart transplantation and have been shown to enhance quality of life and reduce mortality therefore authors also review the current literature on the different MCD and technologies. Expert commentary: More patients will need advanced therapies, as the access to heart transplantation is limited by the number of available donors. AdHF patients should be identified timely since the window of opportunities for advanced therapy is narrow as their morbidity is progressive and survival is often short.

Non-achievement of LDL-cholesterol targets in patients with diabetes at very-high cardiovascular risk receiving statin treatment: Incidence and risk factors.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular diseases are the first cause of mortality in patients with diabetes, and LDL-cholesterol is a well-established cardiovascular risk factor. This study aimed to assess rate of LDL-cholesterol target attainment among patients with diabetes at very-high cardiovascular risk treated with statins, and to identify predictive factors of non-attainment of target in this population. METHODS: Patients were recruited in the Nutrition-Diabetes unit of Montpellier University Hospital, France, from 2014 to 2017. We included all consecutive patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes receiving statin treatment and at very-high cardiovascular risk according to 2016 ESC guidelines, therefore having a LDL-cholesterol target of <1.8 mmol/L. LDL-cholesterol levels were measured upon admission. Variables independently associated with non-attainment of LDL-Cholesterol target were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: 654 patients were included. Mean age was 63.8 years (SD 11.0), 41.9% were women and 42.3% had a history of cardiovascular disease. 59% of patients did not achieve LDL-cholesterol target, with a median value (interquartile range) of 2.4 mmol/L (2.1-2.9) versus 1.4 mmol/L (1.1-1.6) in patients at target. Risk of non-attainment of LDL-cholesterol target value was increased in women (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 2.27 [1.62-3.17]) and decreased in patients with history of coronary artery disease (0.64 [0.45-0.89]) or history of stroke or transient ischemic attack (0.59 [0.33-1.07]). CONCLUSIONS: Management of dyslipidemia is suboptimal, even in very-high risk patients with diabetes under statins. Lipid-lowering treatment should be intensified, in particular in very high risk patients with diabetes who are women or in primary cardiovascular prevention. Clinical Trial number: NCT03449784.