Developing an In-House Comprehensive Medication Review Training Program for Clinical Pharmacists in a Finnish Hospital Pharmacy.

Long-term continuing education programs have been a key factor in shifting toward more patient-centered clinical pharmacy services. This narrative review aims to describe the development of Helsinki University Hospital (HUS) Pharmacy's in-house Comprehensive Medication Review Training Program (CMRTP) and how it has impacted clinical pharmacy services in HUS. The CMRTP was developed during the years 2017-2020. The program focuses on developing the special skills and competencies needed in comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs), including interprofessional collaboration and pharmacotherapeutic knowledge. The program consists of two modules: (I) Pharmacist-Led Medication Reconciliation, and (II) CMR. The CMRTP includes teaching sessions, self-learning assignments, medication reconciliations, medication review cases, CMRs, a written final report, and a self-assessment of competence development. The one-year-long program is coordinated by a clinical teacher. The program is continuously developed based on the latest guidelines in evidence-based medicine and international benchmarking in cooperation with the University of Helsinki. With the CMRTP, we have adopted a more patient-centered role for our clinical pharmacists and remarkably expanded the services. This program may be benchmarked in other countries where the local education system does not cover clinical pharmacy competence well enough and in hospitals where the clinical pharmacy services are not yet very patient-oriented.

Systemic Causes of In-Hospital Intravenous Medication Errors: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Delivery of intravenous medications in hospitals is a complex process posing to systemic risks for errors. The aim of this study was to identify systemic causes of in-hospital intravenous medication errors. METHODS: A systematic review adhering to PRISMA guidelines was conducted. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Scopus, CINAHL, and EMB reviews for articles published between January 2005 and June 2016. Peer-reviewed journal articles published in English were included. Two reviewers independently selected articles according to a predetermined PICO tool. The quality of studies was assessed using the GRADE system and the evidence analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Eleven studies from six countries were included in the analysis. We identified systemic causes related to prescribing (n = 6 studies), preparation (n = 6), administration (n = 6), dispensing and storage (n = 5), and treatment monitoring (n = 2). Administration, prescribing, and preparation were the process phases most prone to systemic errors. Insufficient actions to secure safe use of high-alert medications, lack of knowledge of the drug, calculation tasks, failure in double-checking procedures, and confusion between look-alike, sound-alike medications were the leading causes of intravenous medication errors. The number of the included studies was limited, all of them being observational studies and graded as low quality. CONCLUSIONS: Current intravenous medication systems remain vulnerable, which can result in patient harm. Our findings suggest further focus on medication safety activities related to administration, prescribing, and preparation of intravenous medications. This study provides healthcare organizations with preliminary knowledge about systemic causes of intravenous medication errors, but more rigorous evidence is needed.

Systemic Defenses to Prevent Intravenous Medication Errors in Hospitals: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Intravenous medication delivery is a complex process that poses systemic risks of errors. The objective of our study was to identify systemic defenses that can prevent in-hospital intravenous (IV) medication errors. METHODS: A systematic review adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was conducted. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Scopus, CINAHL, and EMB reviews for articles published between January 2005 and June 2016. Peer-reviewed journal articles published in English were included. Two reviewers independently selected articles according to a predetermined PICO tool. The quality of studies was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system, and the evidence was analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Forty-six studies from 11 countries were included in the analysis. We identified systemic defenses related to administration (n = 24 studies), prescribing (n = 8), preparation (n = 6), treatment monitoring (n = 2), and dispensing (n = 1). In addition, 5 studies explored defenses related to multiple stages of the drug delivery process. Systemic defenses including features of closed-loop medication management systems appeared in 61% of the studies, with smart pumps being the defense most widely studied (24%). The evidence quality of the included articles was limited, as 83% were graded as low quality, 13% were of moderate quality, and only 4% were of high quality. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital IV medication processes are developing toward closed-loop medication management systems. Our study provides health care organizations with preliminary knowledge about systemic defenses that can prevent IV medication errors, but more rigorous evidence is needed. There is a need for further studies to explore combinations of different systemic defenses and their effectiveness in error prevention throughout the drug delivery process.