ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To identify the risks in automated dispensing cabinet use in order to improve routine procedure safety. METHODS: We used the Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA) methodology. A multidisciplinary team identified potential failure modes of the procedure through a brainstorming session. We assessed the impact associated with each failure mode with the Risk Priority Number (RPN), which involves three variables: occurrence, severity, and detectability. Improvement measures were established for failure modes with RPN>100 considered critical. The final RPN (theoretical) that would result from the proposed measures was also calculated. RESULTS: The process was divided into five sub-processes: automatic delivery of order replacement, to prepare order in a pyramidal cart, transport of the pyramidal cart from the pharmacy service to the automated dispensing cabinet, replacement of the automated dispensing cabinet by the pharmacy technician and dispensing/returning by nursing staff. Twenty-two failure modes, with 25 cases and with varying effects (severity 2-8) were evaluated. The sub-process with more failure modes with NPR>100 was dispensing/returning by nursing staff. CONCLUSIONS: The FMEA methodology was a useful tool when applied to automated dispensing cabinet system use. The implementation of improvement actions significantly reduced the risk.
Subject(s)
Pharmaceutical Preparations , Pharmaceutical Services , Automation , Humans , Patient SafetyABSTRACT
Objectives: Andalusian Health Service (AHS) established the RP4 program, based on the review of potential prescription problems (PPPs) in order to improve patients safety. Some of these PPPs are related to kidney damage (PPPKDs). The main objective of this study is to evaluate the percentage of acceptance of the pharmaceutical intervention (PI) developed in a Health Management Area (HMA) for reducing PPPKDs. We also aimed to describe these PPPKDS and to analyze the evolution of these data between 2015-2019. Methods: Retrospective study conducted by the Pharmacy Service of an HMA which offers health coverage to 406,768 patients. All the PPPKDs detected in these patients were included. Data were collected through an AHS Web Application. A descriptive analysis of variables was developed. Results: In 2019, 466 PPPKDs (involving 460 patients) were detected. Overall percentage of acceptance of the PI was 90.7% and, according to type of PPPKD, was: 92.8% for NSAIDs duplication, 90.7% for double renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockade and 89.8% for triple Whammy. During 2015-2019, detected PPPKDs have decreased from 634 to 466, and the percentage of acceptance has been adequate every year. Conclusion: The acceptance of the PI, framed in the RP4 program, was optimal. The number of PPPKDs detected has decreased and the percentage of acceptance has remained elevated during the study period, which would support the utility of this program for the improvement of patients safety. (AU)
Objetivos: El Sistema Andaluz de Salud (SAS) estableció el programa RP4, basado en la revisión de potenciales problemas de prescripción (PPPs) a fin de mejorar la seguridad de los pacientes. Algunos de los PPPs están relacionados con el daño renal (PPPKDs). El objetivo principal de este estudio es evaluar el porcentaje de aceptación de la intervención farmacéutica (PI) llevada a cabo en un Área de Gestión Sanitaria (HMA) para reducir los PPPKDs. Otros objetivos son describir estos PPPKDs y analizar la evolución de estos datos entre 2015-2019. Métodos: Estudio retrospectivo desarrollado por el Servicio de Farmacia de un HMA que ofrece atención sanitaria a 406.768 pacientes. Todos los PPPKDs detectados en estos pacientes se incluyeron. Los datos se rcogieron a través de una aplicación web del SAS. Se realizó un análisis descriptivo de las variables. Resultados: En 2019, se detectaron 466 PPPKDs (involucrando a 460 pacientes). El porcentaje global de aceptación de la PI fue del 90,7% y, según el tipo de PPPKD, fue: 92,8% para la duplicidad de AINEs, el 90,7% para el doble bloqueo del eje renina-angiotensina-aldosterona (RAAS) y del 89,7% para la triple Whammy. Durante 2015-2019, los PPPKDs detectados han descendidio de 634 a 466 y el porcentaje de aceptación ha sido adecuado cada año. Conclusión: La aceptación de la PI, enmarcada en el programa RP4, ha sido óptima. El número de PPPKDs detectado ha descendido y el porcentaje de aceptación se ha mantenido elevado durante el periodo de estudio, lo que podría avalar la utilidad de este programa para mejorar la seguridad de los pacientes. (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Drug Prescriptions , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic , PatientsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses suggest that medication reconciliation (MR) is effective in decreasing the risk of medication discrepancies. Nevertheless, the association between MR and subsequent improved healthcare outcomes is not well established. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review of reviews set out to identify published systematic reviews on the impact of MR programs on health outcomes and to describe key components of the intervention, the health outcomes assessed and any associations between MR and health outcomes. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and SCOPUS were searched from inception to May 2019. Systematic reviews of all study designs, populations, intervention providers and settings that measured patient-related outcomes or healthcare utilization were considered. Methodological quality was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2). Two investigators performed study selection, quality assessment and data collection independently. RESULTS: Five systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria: 2 were rated as low quality and 3 as critically low quality. Reviews included primary studies in different settings (hospitals, the community and residential aged care facilities) that reported the impact of MR on mortality, length of stay, Emergency Department (ED) visits, readmissions, physician visits and healthcare utilization. Only one review reported results on mortality. However, healthcare utilization, which usually included ED visits and readmissions, was communicated in all reviews. Meta-analyses were conducted in all reviews except one. Medication reconciliation was not consistently found to be associated with improvements in health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Few systematic reviews support the value of MR in achieving good patient-related outcomes and healthcare utilization improvements. The quality of the systematic reviews was low and the primary studies included commonly involved additional activities related to MR. There was no clear evidence in favor of intervention in mortality, length of stay, ED visits, unplanned readmissions, physician visits and healthcare utilization.
