RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of a risk stratification tool and explore the contributing factors to variation in practice by clinical pharmacists. METHODS: The quantitative phase was a prospective evaluation of adherence to the risk stratification tool. Patients were selected by convenience sampling from medical wards across two hospital sites. Researchers applied the risk stratification tool to each patient, documented the code, accessed health records in subsequent days, and recorded the code assigned by the pharmacist. These codes were compared. The kappa (κ) coefficient test was performed using SPSS software as a statistical measure of agreement. The qualitative phase was designed using focus groups with clinical pharmacists. One focus group was conducted at each of the two study sites. Participants were grouped to ensure a mix of experience levels. To augment the discussion, participants completed a short survey. Focus groups were recorded and a thematic analysis undertaken. RESULTS: The final cohort for quantitative analysis was 73. Researchers and pharmacists allocated the same code to 19 (26%) patients. The highest match rate was observed between researchers and rotational pharmacists. The κ coefficient was 0.039 (slight agreement) with p value=0.52 (not significant). Ten pharmacists participated in the focus groups: three from site 1 and seven from site 2. All participants reported using the principles of the risk stratification tool every day, but they rarely accessed the tool. Pharmacists reported using the tool as a workload management and communication system. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in application of the risk stratification tool exists among pharmacists. Focus group participants described multiple scenarios where non-patient factors were considered in assigning a priority code for the patient. A schedule of regular review of the criteria; training and peer review; tool validation; and research identifying the relationship between structured professional judgement and risk stratification tools is recommended.
RESUMO
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: In this study, the aim was to investigate if an electronic prescribing system designed specifically to reduce errors would lead to fewer errors in prescribing medicines in a secondary care setting. METHOD: The electronic system was compared with paper prescription charts on 16 intensive care patients to assess any change in the number of prescribing errors. RESULTS: The overall level of compliance with nationally accepted standards was significantly higher with the electronic system (91.67%) compared with the paper system (46.73%). Electronically generated prescriptions were found to contain significantly fewer deviations (28 in 329 prescriptions, 8.5%) than the written prescriptions (208 in 408 prescriptions, 51%). CONCLUSION: Taking an interdisciplinary approach to work on the creation of a system designed to minimize the risk of error has resulted in a favoured system that significantly reduces the number of errors made.
