RESUMO
Background: Despite current recommendation, vaccination coverage (VC) for patients with heart failure (HF) remains far too limited. Aims: To evaluate the VC of HF patients followed in our hospital center and investigate the barriers to vaccination and the ways to address them. Methods: This was a cross-sectional monocentric descriptive study conducted between December 2019 and January 2021 at the University Hospital of Montpellier, France. Patients with HF history hospitalized in cardiology unit (CU) and patients in a HF telemonitoring program (TP) were included. An interview was conducted by a pharmacist to find out the patient's vaccination status against influenza and pneumococcus. For non-vaccinated patients, opinion and willingness to be vaccinated were also obtained. Results: Data from 335 patients were collected (185 in CU, 150 in TP). The mean age was 69.3 years and the proportion of males was 72%. About 65% were vaccinated against influenza in the last year (60% in CU, 72% in TP, p = 0.022) and 22% were up to date with pneumococcal vaccination (11% in CU, 35% in TP, p < 0.001). Among patients not vaccinated, 17% refused vaccination. Among unvaccinated patients who consider vaccination, 69% wanted to be vaccinated by their general practitioner (GP). Conclusions: The VC of HF patients remains insufficient. Patients in TP are more vaccinated than patients in CU, which could involve better management. The low rate of vaccinated patients is mainly explained by a lack of awareness. The medical team, including the clinical pharmacist by his dedicated time during medication reconciliation may play a major role in the management of hospitalized patients as well as GP's as local actors.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of pharmacists' interventions (PI) on the potential clinical impact of medication errors, including the lack of therapeutic optimisation of patients with cardiologic diseases, such as heart failure and acute coronary syndrome). METHODS: This was an observational, prospective study conducted in the cardiology department of a French university hospital centre for a duration of 9 months. All prescriptions were analysed and PI were registered for clinical rating by pharmacists and cardiologist. RESULTS: A total of 532 PI cases were recorded in 339 patients, with a mean of 1.57 (±1.04) PI. The PI acceptance rate was 98.1%. "Dose adjustment" and "introduction therapy" were the most common interventions and represented 38.0% and 32.9%, respectively, of all PI. Statins were the most frequently involved drugs (18.1%), followed by ACE (Angiotensin Converting Enzyme) inhibitors (10.9%) and antiplatelet agents (9.3%). Moreover, 13.8% of PI potentially avoided a severe or very severe clinical impact (n = 71) and 38.6% had a significant impact altering the quality of life (n = 198). There was no significant difference between the average score performed by the clinical pharmacist included in the cardiology team and the one obtained by the cardiologist (P = .797). In contrast, a significant difference was observed for the average score established by the pharmacist localised in central pharmacy versus the rating of the cardiologist (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The collaboration between clinical pharmacists and cardiologists in the medical units seems to be beneficial to the quality of prescriptions, including the implementation of recommendations. The good rate of PI acceptance and the similar rating with the cardiologist show that there is a change in perspective of the pharmacist, being closer to the clinical reality.
