ABSTRACT
Introduction: The benchmarking for medication incidents rate is not regarded as a recognized key performance measure or indicator in national or international organizations. The absence of benchmarking the medication incidents results in the loss of a self-governing perception of how well we performed compared to other peers. Methodology and settings: This 600-bed tertiary, Joint Commission International (JCI) accredited hospital retrospective analysis looked at all medication management-related events from January-2018 to December-2021. The study design follows descriptive, cross-sectional, retrospective prevalence research. Results: The rate of medication incidents that resulted in harm declined from Q3-2019 to Q4-2021. A significant increase in Pharmacy interventions/clarifications was recorded. Additionally, a significant increase in incidents reported with no-harm coupled with a significant reduction in incidences of serious events from 2019 to 2020. Finally, no-harm events were significantly reduced from 2020 to 2021. Discussion: The Pharmacy's study analyzed every medication incident documented from 2019 to 2021. 99.7% of reported incidents were classified as no-harm (near misses). There was an exponential decrease from Q1-2020 to Q1-202. A significant increase in incidents fell in the category of (near misses) with no-harm and a significant reduction in serious events. Pharmacy interventions/clarifications saw a massive increase and impact from Q3-2018 to Q2-2019, compared to the same period in 2018. By preventing medical incidents, benchmarking, and analyzing incidents and the reporting system, the use of information technology could dramatically reduce the rate of drug incidents. Conclusion: This study found that benchmarking medication incidents is valuable, as it can help identify areas where improvements can be made, implement strategies to improve safety, and track progress over time. The benchmark was recommended to be below 100 incidents for every 10,000 prescriptions/orders processed, and for E-I categories, below one incident for every 10,000 prescriptions/orders processed. This will help develop a worldwide standard with an absolved culture with non-punitive consequences.
ABSTRACT
Background: Pharmacy automation and robotics implementation are essential aspects of healthcare facilities. It streamlines the medication dispensing process and significantly reduces medication errors. However, implementing automation and robotics in pharmacies comes with its challenges. We aim to detect and rectify potential dangers in the pharmacy workflow by utilizing the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) methodology; this is expected to augment performance and increase profitability. Materials and methods: In this study, we conducted an FMEA analysis using a qualitative approach to identify the challenges experienced during pharmacy automation and robotics implementation in a Joint Commission International (JCI) accredited hospital in the Arabian Gulf area. The pharmacy processes and procedures were mapped in a Flow chart to visualize the pharmacy workflow, including highlighting the risks that were found. Then these risks were arranged as Potential failure modes and added to the table as 9 main points for each RPNs were calculated, and then the 9 points were prioritized for the action plans. Results: Via applying traditional Risk Priority Number (RPN) FMEA, the Pharmacy board identified the process stages marked risky failure modes through several FMEAs, calculating the total RPNs at the implementation phase. It revealed several challenges, including staff training, technical issues, and inadequate communication. Furthermore, the study resulted in corrective and intervention steps. Conclusion: Pharmacy automation and robotics implementation is a complex process that requires proper planning, preparation, and execution. The FMEA approach effectively identifies potential problems and evaluates their impact on the pharmacy system. Nine major failure modes appeared to be risky stages with high RPN scores. Therefore, multiple interventions were done during the implementation to enhance the knowledge of challenges faced during the implementation of the automation process and solve it. Future studies should address the identified challenges and develop strategies to mitigate them.
ABSTRACT
(1) Background: During 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic was threatening healthcare services and workers, and acquiring immunity was an option to stop or limit the burden of this pandemic. Herd immunity was a top priority worldwide as the virus was spreading rapidly. It was estimated that 67% of the total global population should be immunized against COVID-19 to achieve herd immunity. The aim of the current study is to investigate different perceptions of healthcare workers in the Kingdom of Bahrain and Egypt using an online survey in an attempt to evaluate their awareness and concerns regarding new variants and booster doses. (2) Methods: This study conducted a survey on healthcare workers in the Kingdom of Bahrain and Egypt about their perception and concerns on the COVID-19 vaccines. (3) Results: The study found that out of 389 healthcare workers 46.1% of the physicians were not willing to take the booster doses (p = 0.004). Physicians also did not support taking the COVID-19 vaccine as an annual vaccine (p = 0.04). Furthermore, to assess the association between the type of vaccine taken with the willingness of taking a booster vaccine, healthcare workers beliefs on vaccine effectiveness (p = 0.001), suspension or contact with patients (p = 0.000), and infection after COVID-19 vaccination (p = 0.016) were significant. (4) Conclusion: Knowledge about vaccine accreditation and regulation should be dispersed more widely to ensure that the population has a positive perception on vaccine safety and effectiveness.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The outbreak has harmed patients with multiple comorbidities and chronic conditions. The pandemic's psychological impact is thought to change their routine of seeking medical care. Research Question or Hypothesis: During COVID-19, patients with chronic conditions may experience anxiety, depression, and stress, and their pattern of seeking medical care may change. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In May 2021, a cross-sectional, web-based study of patients with chronic diseases was conducted. Eligible patients (1036) were assessed for psychological disorders, primarily depression, stress, and anxiety, using the DASS-21 scale, and their pattern of receiving medical care during COVID-19. RESULTS: During the pandemic, 52.5% of the patients with chronic diseases were depressed, 57.9% were anxious, and 35.6% were stressed. Patients with chronic diseases who had moderate to severe depression (34.9% versus 45.1%, p = 0.001), moderate to severe anxiety (43.6% versus 53.8%, p = 0.001), or moderate to severe stress (14.9% versus 34.8%, p = 0.001) were significantly more likely to have no follow-up for their chronic conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with chronic conditions experienced significant anxiety, depression, and stress during COVID-19, which changed their pattern of seeking medical care, and the majority of them did not receive follow-up for their chronic conditions.
ABSTRACT
There seem to currently be no therapeutic medications found for the severe coronavirus infection in 2019 (COVID-19). In light of this, it has been hypothesized that the immunomodulatory treatment known as tocilizumab can lessen the inflammatory response that occurs in the respiratory system, speed up the process of clinical benefit, lower the risk of death, and avert the need for ventilators. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) studied patients with a proven infection of SARS-CoV-2 and hyperinflammatory reactions. The inclusion criteria included fever (body temperature > 38 °C), pulmonary infiltrates, or supplemental oxygen. The patients received either conventional treatment with one dose of either tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight) or conventional treatment only. The subjects were randomized to receive either treatment with a 1:1 ratio. A time-to-event test was conducted to determine the time to intubation or death. There was an insignificant difference between the investigated groups regarding the time to death, time to mechanical ventilation, and percentage of deaths. The conventional group's median (IQR) hospital length of stay was 4 (3-6) days, whereas the tocilizumab therapy group was 7 (4.75-10) days. There was a substantial difference in the mechanical ventilation rates in both groups, which were 17 (34%) and 28 (56%), respectively. In hospitalized patients with severe illness and COVID-19, tocilizumab was ineffective in preventing intubation or death. Trials must be larger, however, in order to exclude the potential benefits or harms.
ABSTRACT
Background: In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS2-CoV-2) as global pandemic. This health crisis has overwhelmed the healthcare system, leading to unprecedented morbidity and mortality rates. During this pandemic, pharmacies tried to maintain their services either through remote services or face-to-face dispensing and consultation. Objectives: This study aimed to share the strategies and plans adopted by the pharmaceutical services department to maintain the healthcare services during the SARS2-CoV-2 crisis and evaluate the patient's perspective. Methods: A cross-sectional analytical survey was conducted among patients/patient relatives who attended King Hamad University Hospital (KHUH) outpatient pharmacies in the Kingdom of Bahrain between February 2021 and May 2021. Patients have two options: either to submit the survey online through barcode scanning or to fill it as a physical paper and submit it to the pharmacy staff (Online-based and paper-based). A total of 641 responses were received. Hospital applied safety logistics to ensure staff and patient safety. Results: Post-hoc analysis revealed that patients aged between 20 and 39 years had less agreement than patients ≤ 19 years old in terms of preferring to continue the same services after the pandemic (p = 0.009). More level of understanding of pharmacy services was seen among patients with higher educational levels compared to elementary and secondary levels in cases of services related to adverse events (p = 0.038) and wrong/missed medication rectification (p = 0.018). Unemployed patients were more in agreement than employed ones regarding continuing the same procedure after the pandemic, services related to wrong/missed medication rectification, and safety while staying in the pharmacy waiting area. Conclusion: Most patients were satisfied with the face-to-face counseling, pharmacy-adapted strategies, and services during the SARS2-CoV-2 pandemic. Face-to-face service during the pandemic was equally comfortable across all age groups and gender.
