Pharmacist's review and outcomes: Treatment-enhancing contributions tallied, evaluated, and documented (PROTECTED-UK).

PURPOSE: The purpose was to describe clinical pharmacist interventions across a range of critical care units (CCUs) throughout the United Kingdom, to identify CCU medication error rate and prescription optimization, and to identify the type and impact of each intervention in the prevention of harm and improvement of patient therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective observational study was undertaken in 21 UK CCUs from November 5 to 18, 2012. A data collection web portal was designed where the specialist critical care pharmacist reported all interventions at their site. Each intervention was classified as medication error, optimization, or consult. In addition, a clinical impact scale was used to code the interventions. Interventions were scored as low impact, moderate impact, high impact, and life saving. The final coding was moderated by blinded independent multidisciplinary trialists. RESULTS: A total of 20517 prescriptions were reviewed with 3294 interventions recorded during the weekdays. This resulted in an overall intervention rate of 16.1%: 6.8% were classified as medication errors, 8.3% optimizations, and 1.0% consults. The interventions were classified as low impact (34.0%), moderate impact (46.7%), and high impact (19.3%); and 1 case was life saving. Almost three quarters of interventions were to optimize the effectiveness of and improve safety of pharmacotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: This observational study demonstrated that both medication error resolution and pharmacist-led optimization rates were substantial. Almost 1 in 6 prescriptions required an intervention from the clinical pharmacist. The error rate was slightly lower than an earlier UK prescribing error study (EQUIP). Two thirds of the interventions were of moderate to high impact.

Routine examination of the newborn: the EMREN study. Evaluation of an extension of the midwife role including a randomised controlled trial of appropriately trained midwives and paediatric senior house officers.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the implications and cost-effectiveness of extending the role of midwives to include the routine (24-hour) examination of the healthy newborn usually carried out by junior doctors. DESIGN: The study included a prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT) with mother and baby dyads randomised to either senior house officer (SHO) or midwife for the routine examination of the newborn. Midwives and SHOs were also videoed while performing the examinations and the videos were rated by an independent consultant and senior midwife. In addition extensive interviews, surveys, consultations and assessments were carried out. SETTING: A District General Hospital (for the RCT), a London Teaching Hospital, general practices and mothers' homes (for interviews); questionnaires were sent to all maternity units in England (for the National Survey). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 826 mother and baby dyads in a District General Hospital in south-east England. Midwives and SHOs, as well as midwifery managers, paediatric consultants; general practitioners (GPs) and representatives of key organisations. INTERVENTIONS: A routine examination of a newborn baby was carried out at about 24 hours from birth and a further examination for half the babies in each group, at 10-days at home by the community midwife. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Referrals assessed as appropriate and as major or minor by three independent consultants. Problems identified during the first year of life assessed as identifiable at 24 hours. Quality assessment by video against an agreed written proforma. Maternal satisfaction. Opinion of professionals and mothers about aspects of the examination. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between SHO and midwife examinations in appropriate referral rates to hospital or community or in inappropriate referral rates to hospital. Videoed assessments were assessed as carried out more appropriately by the midwives than by the SHOs. Overall maternal satisfaction was high and higher when a midwife rather than an SHO examined. Few new health problems were identified at the 10-day examination. From the National Survey, it was estimated that about 2% of babies in England are examined by a midwife. If midwives were to examine all babies where there were no complications of birth or antenatal history, there would be savings of about 2 pounds per baby born, equivalent to savings of 1.2 pounds million nationally. Were midwives to examine all babies on normal wards savings would increase to about 4.30 pounds per baby born or 2.5 million pounds nationally. Representatives of the professional bodies were of the opinion that having trained midwives carrying out the examination would be valuable. CONCLUSIONS: All component aspects of the study were consistent in showing benefits or at least no significant barriers to suitably qualified, trained midwives carrying out the examinations. Developing the role of the midwife to include examination of the newborn is likely to result in improved quality of examinations and higher satisfaction from mothers. It would slightly reduce overall health service costs, with some increased resources needed by midwifery departments, and some decrease in resource needs of paediatric departments. There is a need for further research into the value of the examination being carried out at home rather than in hospital; the overall unsatisfactory quality of the examination of the hips; and appropriate inclusion criteria for which babies' midwives should examine.

Routine examination of the newborn and maternal satisfaction: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the routine examination of the newborn by a midwife compared with a junior paediatrician (SHO) affects maternal satisfaction with this examination. METHODS: Randomised controlled trial: 826 mother and baby pairs in a district general hospital in south east England were randomised to a paediatric SHO or a midwife for the routine newborn examination. Maternal satisfaction with the examination was analysed in relation to intervention group, process, and background variables. RESULTS: Some 81% of mothers reported that they were satisfied or very satisfied with the newborn examination. Mothers assigned to a midwife were more satisfied with the newborn examination (crude odds ratio (OR) 0.54 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.75), p < 0.001). However, after provision of health education during the examination, continuity of care provided, and history of miscarriage had been controlled for, status of examiner was no longer related to maternal satisfaction (adjusted OR 0.82 (95% CI 0.57-1.20), NS). The discussion of healthcare issues by the examiner (adjusted OR 0.49 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.70), p < 0.001) and continuity of care (adjusted OR 0.43 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.81), p < 0.01) were both related to enhanced satisfaction, and history of miscarriage (adjusted OR 1.61 (1.08 to 2.40), p < 0.05) was associated with lower maternal satisfaction with the newborn examination. Midwives (61%) were more likely than SHOs (33%) to discuss healthcare issues, such as feeding, sleeping, and skin care. CONCLUSIONS: Mothers were more likely to be satisfied with the newborn examination by a midwife than an SHO because midwives were more likely to discuss healthcare issues during the examination and were able to provide continuity of care. However, midwife examinations according to exclusion criteria agreed with trial midwives excluded half of all newborns, and criteria may have to be reconsidered for practice implementation.

Prospective cohort study of adverse events monitored by hospital pharmacists. Hospital Adverse Event Monitoring Study (HAEMS) Group.

PURPOSE: To examine the feasibility of pharmacist-led intensive hospital monitoring of adverse events (AEs) associated with newly marketed drugs. SUBJECTS/SETTING: 303 patients admitted to Southampton Hospitals who were prescribed selected newly marketed drugs during their inpatient stay in 1998. METHODS: Prospective observational study. Patients were identified from computerized pharmacy records, clinical pharmacist ward rounds, dispensary records or via nursing staff. The pharmacist reviewed medical notes and recorded AEs, suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and reasons for stopping drugs. OUTCOMES: Incidence of AEs, ADRs; proportionate agreement between the physician's and pharmacist's event recording. RESULTS: 303 patients were monitored. Of the patients taking newly marketed drugs 92% were identifiable using pharmacy computer systems and pharmacist ward visits. There were 21 (7%) suspected ADRs detected during this pilot study. The types of adverse events detected were broadly similar to those identified by general practice-based prescription event monitoring. However, biochemical changes featured more frequently than in general practice. Differences between adverse events recorded by pharmacist and physician were systematic and attributed to differences in event coding. CONCLUSION: Pharmacist-led monitoring in a typical NHS hospital setting was effective at detecting ADRs in newly marketed drugs. However, this effort might have been substantially less time-consuming and more effective were electronic patient records (EPRs) available. Pharmacy computer systems are not designed to be patient focused and are therefore unable to identify patients taking newly marketed drugs. It is argued that future EPR and computerised patient-specific prescribing systems should be designed to capture this data in the same way as some US systems are currently able to do.