The Contribution of Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians to Person-Centred Care within a Medicine's Optimisation in Care Homes Service: A Qualitative Evaluation.

Pharmacists and pharmacy technicians seek to improve person-centred care. Improvements to systems for care homes seeks to reduce medicines waste and inefficiency, particularly through supporting care home staff, to enhance safer administration of medicines. A complex evaluation used qualitative design and utilised narrative enquiry, and team members and key stakeholders were interviewed. Framework analysis was used, aligning findings to a person-centred care framework for older people. The Medicines Optimisation in Care Homes (MOCH) team brokered improvement practices across care homes to enhance person-centred care. The framework analysis confirms that the team used 'authentic attention' in relation to the residents' experiences and flexibility in relation to negotiating medication. The importance of transparency of processes and systems in medicines management is highlighted, alongside requirements for person-centred care to make explicit the reason for taking a medication, and the continuous discussion with a range of stakeholders about the continuing need for particular medications. The outcome of the evaluation includes insights into a new area of pharmacy practice in community, based on the skills, knowledge, and experience of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians working in the care home sector. Further study is needed into the efficacy and outcomes of medicines management interventions.

Modelling the expected net benefits of interventions to reduce the burden of medication errors.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to estimate the potential costs and benefits of three key interventions (computerized physician order entry [CPOE], additional ward pharmacists and bar coding) to help prioritize research to reduce medication errors. METHODS: A generic model structure was developed to describe the incidence and impacts of medication errors in hospitals. The model follows pathways from medication error points at alternative stages of the medication pathway through to the outcomes of undetected errors. The model was populated from a systematic review of the medication errors literature combined with novel probabilistic calibration methods. Cost ranges were applied to the interventions, the treatment of preventable adverse drug events (pADEs), and the value of the health lost as a result of an ADE. RESULTS: The model predicts annual health service costs of between pound 0.3 million and pound 1 million for the treatment of pADEs in a 400-bed acute hospital in the UK. Including only health service costs, it is uncertain whether any of the three interventions will produce positive net benefits, particularly if high intervention costs are assumed. When the monetary value of lost health is included, all three interventions have a high probability of producing positive net benefits with a mean estimate of around pound 31.5 million for CPOE over a five-year time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: The results identify the potential cost-effectiveness of interventions aimed at medication errors, as well as identifying key drivers of cost-effectiveness that should be specifically addressed in the design of primary evaluations of medication error interventions.