Consensus on the criteria for patient prioritization in hospital clinical pharmacy services: a Delphi study.
Delphi technique
Patient selection
Pharmacy Service, Hospital
Prioritization Tool
Prioritize patients
Journal
International journal of clinical pharmacy
ISSN: 2210-7711
Titre abrégé: Int J Clin Pharm
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101554912
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2022
Aug 2022
Historique:
received:
24
01
2022
accepted:
27
04
2022
revised:
26
04
2022
pubmed:
18
6
2022
medline:
24
8
2022
entrez:
17
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Hospital pharmacists cannot provide extensive clinical pharmacy service to every inpatient because the demand for these services can exceed pharmacists' available work time. A way to solve this issue is hospital pharmacists to prioritize their clinical tasks. Tool prioritization could determine which patients would benefit from clinical pharmacists' input. Establishing consensus on which criteria are relevant for prioritizing patients for clinical pharmacy services. The Delphi method was performed with criteria identified from a previously published Scoping Review. The panel of experts included hospital pharmacists, who evaluated the clinical significance of criteria in a three-round Delphi panel from July to December 2020. They determined the need for sub-criteria and evaluated their clinical significance. The experts also analyzed the criteria/sub-criteria as to their applicability in clinical practice. Consensus criteria were defined as 70% or more participants scoring the criteria as critical and 15% or fewer scoring the criteria as unimportant. A total of 19 criteria and 230 sub-criteria were included for evaluation by panel experts based on scoping review. Twenty-nine, 22, and 17 experts participated per round, respectively. After completing the three rounds, experts suggested the inclusion of one criterion, the exclusion of one criterion, and the inclusion of 29 sub-criteria. The final list consisted of 18 criteria and 177 sub-criteria, divided into 28 groups. The result was comprehensive and coherent, potentially contributing to developing an instrument for prioritizing hospitalized patients for clinical pharmacy services.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Hospital pharmacists cannot provide extensive clinical pharmacy service to every inpatient because the demand for these services can exceed pharmacists' available work time. A way to solve this issue is hospital pharmacists to prioritize their clinical tasks. Tool prioritization could determine which patients would benefit from clinical pharmacists' input.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
Establishing consensus on which criteria are relevant for prioritizing patients for clinical pharmacy services.
METHOD
METHODS
The Delphi method was performed with criteria identified from a previously published Scoping Review. The panel of experts included hospital pharmacists, who evaluated the clinical significance of criteria in a three-round Delphi panel from July to December 2020. They determined the need for sub-criteria and evaluated their clinical significance. The experts also analyzed the criteria/sub-criteria as to their applicability in clinical practice. Consensus criteria were defined as 70% or more participants scoring the criteria as critical and 15% or fewer scoring the criteria as unimportant.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 19 criteria and 230 sub-criteria were included for evaluation by panel experts based on scoping review. Twenty-nine, 22, and 17 experts participated per round, respectively. After completing the three rounds, experts suggested the inclusion of one criterion, the exclusion of one criterion, and the inclusion of 29 sub-criteria. The final list consisted of 18 criteria and 177 sub-criteria, divided into 28 groups.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The result was comprehensive and coherent, potentially contributing to developing an instrument for prioritizing hospitalized patients for clinical pharmacy services.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35713738
doi: 10.1007/s11096-022-01424-5
pii: 10.1007/s11096-022-01424-5
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
985-992Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
Références
Han N, Han SH, Chu H, et al. Service design oriented multidisciplinary collaborative team care service model development for resolving drug-related problems. PLoS One. 2018;13(9).
Puumalainen E, Airaksinen M, Jalava SE, et al. Comparison of drug-related problem risk assessment tools for older adults: a systematic review. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2020;76(3):337–48.
doi: 10.1007/s00228-019-02796-w
Abuzour AS, Hoad-Reddick G, Shahid M, et al. Patient prioritisation for hospital pharmacy services: Current approaches in the UK. Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2020;0:1–7.
ACCP. The Definition of Clinical Pharmacy. Pharmacotherapy. 2008;28(6):816–7.
doi: 10.1592/phco.28.6.816
Gallagher J, McCarthy S, Byrne S. Economic evaluations of clinical pharmacist interventions on hospital inpatients: a systematic review of recent literature. Int J Clin Pharm. 2014;36(6):1101–14.
doi: 10.1007/s11096-014-0008-9
Flynn A, Mo H, Nguyen JV, et al. Initial study of clinical pharmacy work prioritization tools. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2018;75(15):1122–31.
doi: 10.2146/ajhp170398
Kiguba R, Karamagi C, Bird SM. Incidence, risk factors and risk prediction of hospital-acquired suspected adverse drug reactions: A prospective cohort of Ugandan inpatients. BMJ Open. 2017;7(1).
Alshakrah MA, Steinke DT, Lewis PJ. Patient prioritization for pharmaceutical care in hospital: A systematic review of assessment tools. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019;15(6):767–79.
doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.09.009
Geeson C, Wei L, Franklin BD. Development and performance evaluation of the Medicines Optimisation Assessment Tool (MOAT): A prognostic model to target hospital pharmacists’ input to prevent medication-related problems. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28(8):645–56.
doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008335
Botelho SF, Neiva Pantuzza LL, Marinho CP, et al. Prognostic prediction models and clinical tools based on consensus to support patient prioritization for clinical pharmacy services in hospitals: A scoping review. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2021;17(4):653–63.
doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.08.002
Jaam M, Awaisu A, El-Awaisi A, et al. Use of the Delphi technique in pharmacy practice research. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2022 Jan;18(1):2237–48.
doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2021.06.028
Olsen AA, Wolcott MD, Haines ST, et al. How to use the Delphi method to aid in decision making and build consensus in pharmacy education. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2021 Oct;13(10):1376–85.
doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2021.07.018
McMillan SS, King M, Tully MP. How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38(3):655–62.
Rankin A, Cadogan CA, Ryan C, et al. Core Outcome Set for Trials Aimed at Improving the Appropriateness of Polypharmacy in Older People in Primary Care. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018;66(6):1206–12.
doi: 10.1111/jgs.15245
Falconer N, Barras M, Abdel-Hafez A. et at. Development and validation of the Adverse Inpatient Medication Event model (AIME). Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2021;87(3):1512–24.
doi: 10.1111/bcp.14560
Lima T, de M, Aguiar, Storpirtis PM. S. Development and validation of key performance indicators for medication management services provided for outpatients. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019;15(9):1080–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.09.010
Falconer N, Nand S, Liow D, et al. Development of an electronic patient prioritization tool for clinical pharmacist interventions. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2014;71(4):311–20.
doi: 10.2146/ajhp130247
Falconer N, Barras M, Cottrell N. Systematic review of predictive risk models for adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018;84(5):846–64.
doi: 10.1111/bcp.13514
Kaufmann CP, Stämpfli D, Hersberger KE, et al. Determination of risk factors for drug-related problems: A multidisciplinary triangulation process. BMJ Open. 2015;5(3):1–7.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006376
Krähenbühl-Melcher A, Schlienger R, Lampert M, et al. Drug-related problems in hospitals: A review of the recent literature. Drug Saf. 2007;30(5):379–407.
doi: 10.2165/00002018-200730050-00003
Leendertse AJ, Egberts ACG, Stoker LJ, et al. Frequency of and risk factors for preventable medication-related hospital admissions in the Netherlands. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(17):1890–6.
Garin N, Sole N, Lucas B, et al. Drug-related problems in clinical practice: a cross-sectional study on their prevalence, risk factors and associated pharmaceutical interventions. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):883.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-80560-2
Geeson C, Wei L, Franklin BD. High-risk medicines associated with clinically relevant medication‐related problems in UK hospitals: A prospective observational study. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2020;86(1):165–9.
doi: 10.1111/bcp.14119
Suggett E, Marriott J. Risk Factors Associated with the Requirement for Pharmaceutical Intervention in the Hospital Setting: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Drugs Real World Outcomes. 2016;3(3):241–63.
doi: 10.1007/s40801-016-0083-4
Wolff RF, Moons KGM, Riley RD, et al. PROBAST: A tool to assess the risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(1):51–8.
doi: 10.7326/M18-1376
Shane R, Amer K, Noh L, et al. Necessity for a pathway for “high-alert” patients. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2018;75(13):993–7.
doi: 10.2146/ajhp170397
Falconer N, Barras M, Cottrell N. How hospital pharmacists prioritise patients at high-risk for medication harm. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019;15(10):1266–73.
doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.11.003