Contribution of hospital pharmacists to sustainable healthcare: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: With a global annual carbon footprint of the healthcare sector of 2 gigatons of CO2e, healthcare systems must contribute to the fight against climate change. Hospital pharmacists could be key players in ecological transition due to their role in managing healthcare products. The aim of this study was to summarise the evidence on interventions implemented in healthcare facilities involving pharmacists to improve the environmental footprint of healthcare. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The Medline, Web of Science and ScienceDirect databases were searched for studies published between 2013 and 2023. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to include hospital pharmacists and present contributions aimed at reducing the environmental footprint of healthcare in healthcare facilities. Outcomes were the description of the contribution, the methods used and the stages of healthcare product lifecycle analysed. A Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the risk of bias for each study. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included. Pharmacists played a leading role in 15 (88%) and had a supporting role in the others. The healthcare products targeted were medicines (59%), medical devices (12%) or both (29%). The stages of the healthcare product cycle addressed by the contributions were elimination (71%), dispensing (35%), procurement and supply (35%), production (29%), and prescription (24%). Only two studies used life cycle assessment and only one assessed all three pillars of sustainability. Two studies had good methodological quality while the rest had at least one element of uncertainty. CONCLUSION: This review confirms the central role of the pharmacist and the importance of a multidisciplinary approach in implementing eco-responsible actions. It could be useful to hospitals and other teams wanting to improve sustainable actions and it emphasises the importance of collaborating with pharmacists when planning sustainable initiatives. Future eco-responsible initiatives must use robust reproducible methods. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO #CRD42023406835.

How a hospital pharmacist can contribute to a more sustainable operating theater.

Healthcare sectors, particularly operating theaters, are major consumers of resources. Given today's climate-related issues, its seems vital that the different healthcare professionals in operating areas become aware of their roles. This is pronouncedly the case for hospital pharmacists, who fulfill cross-sectional functions in the proper use and management of healthcare products and sterile medical devices. The objective of this review of the literature is to identify the actions a hospital pharmacist can take to impel evolution toward ecologically responsible care in the operating theater. Seven areas in which a pharmacist can assume a leading, supporting or composite role in rendering an operating theater ecologically responsible have been highlighted: purchasing, procurement and storage, harmonization of practices, modification of practices, professional attire, waste elimination and research/teaching. The active participation of all healthcare professionals, including the hospital pharmacist, is essential to the development of a sustainable approach to healthcare.

Pharmaceutical Analysis of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Requests Increases the Use of Single-Lumen Catheters: A Prospective Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: Several studies have suggested a strong relationship between the number of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) lumens and the risk of complications. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of the intervention of a clinical pharmacist (CP) on the number of lumens of PICC inserted and assess PICC-related complications. METHOD: This prospective monocentric study included all consecutive patients from 5 different units who underwent PICC insertions from September 2017 to March 2018. In the intervention group, the CP validated the pertinence of each PICC request according to the patients' records, choice of device (single or double lumen), and incompatibilities between treatments. The control group consisted of patients who underwent PICC insertions without a CP intervention. Complications were prospectively recorded up to PICC removal. Multivariate analyses adjusted for sex, age, and PICC line duration were performed. RESULTS: In the intervention group, 207 PICCs were inserted, 81.2% (n = 168) were single-lumen devices and 18.8% (n = 39) were double-lumen devices. In the control group (n = 77), the use of single-lumen PICCs was significantly lower (n = 48, 62.3%; P = 0.002). After intervention, the overall complication incidence rate decreased from 4.42 to 3.23 per 1000 catheter days ( P = 0.082). Considering the overall population, 216 single-lumen PICCs were inserted with significantly fewer complications than double-lumens (respectively n = 16, 16/216 = 7.4%, versus n = 15, 15/68 = 22.1%, P = 0.002). The adjusted odds ratio of double-lumen PICC was 3.83 (95% confidence interval, 1.46-10.07; P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed the intervention of a CP in the PICC insertion process could increase the use of single-lumen PICCs and tended to reduce associated complications.

A new clinical approach to improve the appropriate use of peripherally inserted central catheters: a prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are central venous catheters commonly used for administration of chemotherapy, prolonged antibiotic treatment, or parenteral nutrition. It is advisable to use the PICC with the fewest lumens and the smallest possible diameter to reduce major complications. A pharmaceutical analysis and validation of PICC requests was designed to improve efficiency and patient safety. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of pharmaceutical interventions (PIs) by the clinical pharmacist in the PICC process. METHODS: A prospective pilot study was conducted in a French university hospital. Four categories of PIs were defined according to the different stages of the PICC insertion process: before insertion to validate with the physician the relevance of the request and the choice of PICC model (PI applicant); during insertion (PI installer); during usage by nurses for analysis of drug incompatibilities (PI user); and at hospital discharge for reassessment of the device maintenance (PI reassessment). Each PI applicant was designated a potential harm from 1 to 4, with a cut-off of 2 representing harm for the patient. RESULTS: Over 6 months, 277 requests were analysed and 297 PIs were completed (109 applicants, 98 installers, 84 users, and 6 PIs for reassessment). The acceptance rate by the physicians was 93.6%. 52% of the PI applicants had a potential harm of 2 or more. 5% of PICC requests were refused by the pharmacist due to an inappropriate choice of device. A total of 207 (74.7%) of the requests analysed by the clinical pharmacist led to insertion. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a clinical pharmacy activity applied to PICC requests analysis and validation leads to improved patient care by securing the PICC circuit. This analysis demonstrates the beneficial role of the clinical pharmacist in PIs associated with medical devices.

Health economic evaluation of a clinical pharmacist's intervention on the appropriate use of devices and cost savings: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Good management of disposable and reusable supplies may improve surgical efficiency in the operating room (OR) and also corresponds to the best eco-responsible approach. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of a clinical pharmacist's intervention in the OR on the non-compliant use of medical devices. We also assessed the economic impact of the pharmaceutical intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a monocentric prospective study in the OR of a University hospital over one year. Three surgical specialties: urologic, digestive and gynecologic were audited after a preparatory phase to optimize usage of medical devices used for surgeries. The supply costs concerning the three specialties were compared before and after the pharmacist intervention. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty surgical procedures were audited in digestive (33.3%, n = 50), gynecologic (32%, n = 48) and urologic (34.7%, n = 52) surgeries. With the pharmacist in OR, 51 procedures (34% CI95%[26.4%; 41.6%]) with a non-compliance concerning at least one medical device were found compared to the 50% rate without the pharmacist reported previously (P < .0001). Eighteen percent of surgical procedures had at least one circulator retrieval for the reason "incomplete case cart despite device listed on the case cart list" versus 29.1% before pharmacist intervention (P = .0028). A €33 014 saving associated with the presence of the pharmacist in OR was observed. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective interventional study showed that the intervention of a pharmacist specialized in the medical device field could significantly reduce non-compliances in medical device use and reduce costs in OR.