Clinical Judgement Analysis: An innovative approach to explore the individual decision-making processes of pharmacists.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacy stands increasingly on the frontline of patient care, yet current studies of clinical decision-making by pharmacists only capture deliberative processes that can be stated explicitly. Decision-making incorporates both deliberative and intuitive processes. Clinical Judgement Analysis (CJA) is a method novel to pharmacy that uncovers intuitive decision-making and may provide a more comprehensive understanding of the decision-making processes of pharmacists. OBJECTIVES: This paper describes how CJA potentially uncovers the intuitive clinical decision-making processes of pharmacists. Using an illustrative decision-making example, the application of CJA will be described, including: METHOD: An illustrative study was used, applying an established method for CJA. The decision to initiate anticoagulation, alongside appropriate risk judgements, was chosen as the context. Expert anticoagulation pharmacists were interviewed to define and then refine variables (cues) involved in this decision. Decision tasks with sixty scenarios were developed to explore the effect of these cues on pharmacists' decision-making processes and distributed to participants for completion. Descriptive statistical and regression analyses were conducted for each participant. RESULTS: The method produced individual judgement models for each participant, for example, demonstrating that when judging stroke risk each participant's judgements could be accurately predicted using only 3 or 4 out of the possible 11 cues given. The method also demonstrated that participants appeared to consider multiple cues when making risk judgements but used an algorithmic approach based on one or two cues when making the clinical decision. CONCLUSION: CJA generates insights into the clinical decision-making processes of pharmacists not uncovered by the current literature. This provides a springboard for more in-depth explorations; explorations that are vital to the understanding and ongoing development of the role of pharmacists.

Medication-related harm in older adults following hospital discharge: development and validation of a prediction tool.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a tool to predict the risk of an older adult experiencing medication-related harm (MRH) requiring healthcare use following hospital discharge. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Multicentre, prospective cohort study recruiting older adults (≥65 years) discharged from five UK teaching hospitals between 2013 and 2015. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Participants were followed up for 8 weeks in the community by senior pharmacists to identify MRH (adverse drug reactions, harm from non-adherence, harm from medication error). Three data sources provided MRH and healthcare use information: hospital readmissions, primary care use, participant telephone interview. Candidate variables for prognostic modelling were selected using two systematic reviews, the views of patients with MRH and an expert panel of clinicians. Multivariable logistic regression with backward elimination, based on the Akaike Information Criterion, was used to develop the PRIME tool. The tool was internally validated. RESULTS: 1116 out of 1280 recruited participants completed follow-up (87%). Uncertain MRH cases ('possible' and 'probable') were excluded, leaving a tool derivation cohort of 818. 119 (15%) participants experienced 'definite' MRH requiring healthcare use and 699 participants did not. Modelling resulted in a prediction tool with eight variables measured at hospital discharge: age, gender, antiplatelet drug, sodium level, antidiabetic drug, past adverse drug reaction, number of medicines, living alone. The tool's discrimination C-statistic was 0.69 (0.66 after validation) and showed good calibration. Decision curve analysis demonstrated the potential value of the tool to guide clinical decision making compared with alternative approaches. CONCLUSIONS: The PRIME tool could be used to identify older patients at high risk of MRH requiring healthcare use following hospital discharge. Prior to clinical use we recommend the tool's evaluation in other settings.

Use of a multisource feedback tool to develop pharmacists in a postgraduate training program.

OBJECTIVES. To evaluate use of a peer-assessment tool as a performance indicator for junior pharmacists in a formal postgraduate training program in London. METHODS. A 4-year retrospective analysis of data gathered using the pharmacy mini-PAT (peer-assessment tool) was undertaken. Assessments, including junior pharmacist self-evaluations, were conducted every 6 months. Overall performance and performance for clustered items were analyzed to determine changes. Assessments by healthcare professionals were then compared between professional groupings, which included pharmacists, physicians, and nurses. RESULTS. There was a significant improvement over time in both self-assessment scores and scores on assessments conducted by others using the mini-PAT. Junior pharmacists rated themselves significantly lower than did their assessors (p<0.001); pharmacist assessors rated the performance of junior pharmacists significantly lower than did other healthcare professionals (p<0.001). Validity, ease of use, and relevance of the pharmacy mini-PAT were demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS. As part of a range of formative evaluations involving assessors from across various health professions, the mini-PAT is a valuable instrument for developing junior pharmacists. A cohort's mini-PAT result provides a snapshot of his/her performance that can be used to identify key areas requiring further training.