The effect of emergency department pharmacists on drug overuse and drug underuse in patients with an ADE-related hospitalisation: a controlled intervention study.

BACKGROUND: Drug overuse or drug underuse are the most common causes of adverse drug events and can lead to hospital admissions. Using clinical pharmacists in the emergency department may improve patient safety as they are specialised in recognising of adverse drug events and tackling drug overuse and drug underuse. This study tested the effect of an emergency department pharmacist on the number of medication changes for drug overuse and drug underuse taking place in patients with an adverse drug event-related hospitalisation following an emergency department visit. METHODS: A multicenter prospective non-randomized controlled intervention study was conducted in a university hospital and a general teaching hospital. Trained emergency department pharmacists included patients in the intervention group with a hospital admission related to an adverse drug event. The interdisciplinary intervention consisted of a pharmacist-led medication review, patient counselling regarding medication, and information transmission to general practitioners and community pharmacies after discharge. The control patients were also admitted after an emergency department visit and received the usual care. The primary outcome was the number of medication changes for drug overuse and drug underuse that took place during hospital admission and persisted 6 months thereafter. Poisson regression analysis was used to estimate the difference in these medication changes between the intervention group and the control group. RESULTS: A total of 216 patients were included (intervention group 104, control group 112). In the intervention group, 156 medication changes for drug overuse and drug underuse persisted 6 months after admission compared to 59 in the control group (adjusted rate ratio 1.22 [95%CI 1.01-1.49] p = 0.039). CONCLUSION: Emergency department pharmacists do contribute to reduction of drug overuse and drug underuse of medication in patients with a hospitalisation related to adverse drug events after an emergency department visit.

Differences in medication reconciliation interventions between six hospitals: a mixed method study.

BACKGROUND: Although medication reconciliation (MedRec) is mandated and effective in decreasing preventable medication errors during transition of care, hospitals implement MedRec differently. OBJECTIVE: Quantitatively compare the number and type of MedRec interventions between hospitals upon admission and discharge, followed by a qualitative analysis on potential reasons for differences. METHODS: This explanatory retrospective mixed-method study consisted of a quantitative and a qualitative part. Patients from six hospitals and six different wards i.e. orthopaedics, surgery, pulmonary diseases, internal medicine, cardiology and gastroenterology were included. At these wards, MedRec was implemented both on hospital admission and discharge. The number of pharmacy interventions was collected and classified in two subcategories. First, the number of interventions to resolve unintended discrepancies (elimination of differences between listed medication and the patient's actual medication use). And second, the number of medication optimizations (optimization of pharmacotherapy e.g. eliminating double medication). Based on these quantitative results and interviews, a focus group was performed to give insight in local MedRec processes to address differences in context between hospitals. Descriptive analysis (quantitative) and content analysis (qualitative) was used. RESULTS: On admission 765 (85%) patients from six hospitals, received MedRec by trained nurses, pharmacy technicians, pharmaceutical consultants or pharmacists. Of those, 36-95% (mean per patient 2.2 (SD ± 2.4)) had at least one discrepancy. Upon discharge, these numbers were among 632 (70%) of patients, 5-28% (mean per patient 0.7 (SD 1.2)). Optimizations in pharmacotherapy were implemented for 2% (0.4-3.7 interventions per patient upon admission) to 95% (0.1-1.7 interventions per patient upon discharge) of patients. The main themes explaining differences in numbers of interventions were patient-mix, the type of healthcare professionals involved, where and when patient interviews for MedRec were performed and finally, embedding and extent of medication optimization. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals differed greatly in the number of interventions performed during MedRec. Differences in execution of MedRec and local context determines the number of interventions. This study can support hospitals who want to optimize MedRec processes.

Heart rate variability and sympathovagal balance: pharmacological validation.

RATIONALE: We validated heart rate (HR) and six time and six frequency domain measures of heart rate variability (HRV) as estimators of autonomic outflow in 44 young healthy male subjects. Gold standards for autonomic outflow were the Rosenblueth-Simeone factors m (sympathetic tone) and n (vagal tone), and the sympathovagal balance m·n, determined by two-stage complete autonomic blockade. METHODS: Rank correlations were computed between HR and the HRV measures obtained before autonomic blockade, and m, n and m·n. Also, the maximal mean performances (averaged sensitivity and specificity) for HR and HRV as discriminators between low and high values of m, n or m·n were computed. RESULTS: The spectral HRV measures showed less good correlations and performances than the time domain HRV measures. Correlations with sympathetic tone were all below 0.31. Respiratory sinus arrhythmia during 15 cycles/min metronome breathing was superior in estimating vagal tone and sympathovagal balance (correlations -0.71/-0.73; both performances 0.82), heart rate scored similarly for assessing the sympathovagal balance (correlation 0.71; performance 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: It does not appear justified to evaluate HR or HRV in terms of sympathetic tone, vagal tone, or sympathovagal balance. HR and HRV are specifically weak in assessing sympathetic tone. Respiratory sinus arrhythmia during 15 cycles/min metronome breathing is superior in assessing vagal tone. Current HRV analysis techniques offer no advantages compared with HR in assessing the sympathovagal balance.