RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To draft a list of actions and quality indicators for pharmacist care in hospital emergency departments, based on consensus among a panel of experts regarding which actions to prioritize in this setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A panel of experts from the Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy (SEFH) and the Spanish Society of Emergency Medicine (SEMES) evaluated a preliminary list of potential actions and quality of care indicators. The experts used a questionnaire to assess the proposals on the basis of available evidence. In the first round, each expert individually assessed the importance of each proposed action based on 4 dimensions: evidence base, impact on clinical response and patient safety, ease of implementation, and priority. In the second round the experts attended a virtual meeting to reach consensus on a revised list of proposals; suggestions and comments that had been made anonymously in the first round were included. The group then prioritized each action as basic, intermediate, or advanced. RESULTS: The experts evaluated a total of 26 potential actions and associated quality indicators. No items were eliminated in the analysis of scores and comments from the first round. After the second round, 25 actions survived. Nine were considered basic, 10 intermediate, and 6 advanced. CONCLUSION: The expert panel's list of pharmacist actions and care quality indicators provides a basis for developing a pharmacist care program in Spanish emergency departments on 3 levels of priority. The list can serve as a guide to pharmacists, managers, physicians, and nurses involved in the effort to improve drug therapy in this hospital setting.
OBJETIVO: Desarrollar un conjunto de actividades e indicadores de atención farmacéutica en los servicios de urgencias hospitalarios mediante un consenso colectivo de un panel de expertos que permita priorizar las actividades a realizar por los farmacéuticos en estas unidades. METODO: Un comité formado por miembros de la Sociedad Española de Farmacia Hospitalaria (SEFH) y de la Sociedad Española de Medicina de Urgencias y Emergencias (SEMES) evaluó una propuesta inicial de actividades e indicadores potenciales, basados en la evidencia científica disponible, en formato de cuestionario. En una primera ronda, cada uno de los expertos del panel clasificó de forma individual la relevancia de cada una de las actividades propuestas en cuatro dimensiones: evidencia científica, impacto en la respuesta clínica y seguridad para el paciente, facilidad de implementación y grado de prioridad. La segunda ronda se realizó mediante una reunión grupal de forma virtual, a partir del cuestionario modificado de acuerdo con las sugerencias planteadas, así como los comentarios vertidos por los participantes del panel de forma anónima. En esta ronda, cada actividad fue clasificada por consenso como básica, intermedia o avanzada en función del grado de prioridad de implantación considerado por el grupo de expertos. RESULTADOS: Se propusieron un total de 26 potenciales actividades a los expertos, con indicadores asociados. Tras el análisis de las puntuaciones y los comentarios realizados en la primera ronda, no se eliminó ninguna de las actividades propuestas. Tras la segunda ronda, se mantuvieron 25 actividades, de las cuales se puntuaron 9 como actividades básicas, 10 actividades como intermedias y 6 actividades como avanzadas. CONCLUSIONES: El desarrollo del conjunto de actividades e indicadores de atención farmacéutica en urgencias, priorizados por grado de relevancia para la unidad, es la base para el desarrollo de esta cartera de servicios en los hospitales españoles, y sirve como guía tanto para farmacéuticos como para gestores, médicos y enfermeros de la unidad a fin de mejorar la farmacoterapia los pacientes atendidos en los servicios de urgencias.
Assuntos
Medicina de Emergência, Serviço de Farmácia Hospitalar, Humanos, Farmacêuticos, Consenso, Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência, HospitaisRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Medication errors lead to morbidity and mortality among emergency department (ED) patients. An inaccurate medication history is one of the underlying causes of these errors. OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to determine the prevalence of patients with discrepancies between the medical list information contained in the clinical history compiled on admission to the ED and the list of medications patients are actually taking, to characterize the discrepancies found, and to analyze whether certain factors are associated with the risk of discrepancies. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, descriptive, observational, multicenter study with an analytic component in the EDs of 11 hospitals in Spain. We compared pharmacist-obtained medication lists (PML) with ED-obtained medication lists (EDML). Discrepancy was defined as one or more differences (in drug or dosage or route of administration) between the EDML and PML. The endpoints were the proportion of patients with discrepancies in their home medical lists, and the prevalence of certain factors among patients with discrepancies and those without. RESULTS: We detected 1476 discrepancies in 387 patients; no discrepancies were found in 20.7%. The most frequent discrepancies involved incomplete information (44.2%) and omission (41.8%). In the bivariate analysis, age, number of medications, and Charlson comorbidity score were significantly associated with discrepancy. In the multivariate analysis, number of medications and hospital were the variables associated with discrepancy. CONCLUSIONS: The EDML differed from the list of medications patients were actually taking in 79.3% of cases. Incomplete information and omission were the most frequent discrepancies. Age, number of medications, and comorbidities were related to the risk of discrepancies.
