4CPS-091 Analysis of pharmaceutical interventions related to high-risk-drugs in the emergency department

L. Rico-Pizarro, L. Moreno-Gutiérrez, C. Puivecino-Moreno, Y. Castellanos-Clemente, Mdm García-Gutiérrez, N. Font-Tarres, M. García-Gil
{"title":"4CPS-091 Analysis of pharmaceutical interventions related to high-risk-drugs in the emergency department","authors":"L. Rico-Pizarro, L. Moreno-Gutiérrez, C. Puivecino-Moreno, Y. Castellanos-Clemente, Mdm García-Gutiérrez, N. Font-Tarres, M. García-Gil","doi":"10.1136/ejhpharm-2022-eahp.390","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and importance Medication errors are frequent in the emergency department (ED) and the most common drugs involved are high-risk-drugs (HRD), which are drugs that are more likely to cause serious or even fatal harm to patients when used incorrectly. Aim and objectives Describe the evolution of pharmaceutical interventions in the ED related to HRD in two comparable time periods and evaluate the acceptance degree. Material and methods Retrospective observational study. All interventions performed in the ED during the periods between July and December 2019 and 2020 were included. The primary endpoint was the percentage of interventions related to HRD and their acceptance percentage. Secondary endpoints were: percentage of interventions related to HRD according to therapeutic group, 2 their acceptance percentage, and the main reasons for intervention (>15%). Interventions were recorded through the electronic prescription programme and were communicated to the responsible physician. The data were processed using Excel 2013. Results A total of 165/494 (33.4%) and 234/731 (32.0%) HRD interventions were performed in 2019 and 2020, respectively. The acceptance percentages were 108/165 (65.5%) and 173/234 (73.9%). The main HRD therapeutic groups on which we intervened and their acceptance percentage in the periods of 2019 and 2020, respectively, were: heparin and parenteral anticoagulants (23.6% (61.5%) and 20.1% (83.0%)), insulins (12.1% (60.0%) and 15.0% (71.4%)), oral anticoagulants (10.9% (66.7%) and 13.2% (83.9%)), opioids (8.5% (71.4%) and 7.7% (77.8%), antipsychotics (7.9% (69.2%) and 6.8% (68.8%)), diuretics (7.3% (50.0%) and 16.7% (61.5%)), sedatives (6.7% (63.6%) and 4.3% (90.0%)), antibiotics (6.1% (80.0%) and 1.3% (100%)), narrow-margin antiepileptics (4.2% (71.4%) and 5.6% (69.2%)) and other groups (<5%). The main intervention reasons (>15%) on the most prevalent therapeutic groups (>10%) were in the 2019 and 2020 periods, respectively: heparin and parenteral anticoagulants (need for treatment (66.7% and 57.4%)); insulins (need for treatment (60.0% and 41.2%), medication reconciliation (15.0% and 23.5%), inadequate dose (10.0% and 17.6%)); oral anticoagulants (medication reconciliation (55.6% and 41.9%), inadequate dose (11.1% and 19.4%)); diuretics (medication reconciliation (50.0% and 43.6%) and renal insufficiency (16.7% and 12.8%)). Conclusion and relevance The percentage of interventions related to HRD was similar in both periods; however, there was an increase in acceptance degree in the 2020 period. More than a half of HRD interventions were performed on parenteral heparin, insulins, oral anticoagulants, and diuretics. The most prevalent reasons for intervention were the need for additional treatment and medication reconciliation. It seems that the intervention of pharmacists in the ED could improve the safety in the use of HRD.","PeriodicalId":393937,"journal":{"name":"Section 7: Post Congress additions","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Section 7: Post Congress additions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2022-eahp.390","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and importance Medication errors are frequent in the emergency department (ED) and the most common drugs involved are high-risk-drugs (HRD), which are drugs that are more likely to cause serious or even fatal harm to patients when used incorrectly. Aim and objectives Describe the evolution of pharmaceutical interventions in the ED related to HRD in two comparable time periods and evaluate the acceptance degree. Material and methods Retrospective observational study. All interventions performed in the ED during the periods between July and December 2019 and 2020 were included. The primary endpoint was the percentage of interventions related to HRD and their acceptance percentage. Secondary endpoints were: percentage of interventions related to HRD according to therapeutic group, 2 their acceptance percentage, and the main reasons for intervention (>15%). Interventions were recorded through the electronic prescription programme and were communicated to the responsible physician. The data were processed using Excel 2013. Results A total of 165/494 (33.4%) and 234/731 (32.0%) HRD interventions were performed in 2019 and 2020, respectively. The acceptance percentages were 108/165 (65.5%) and 173/234 (73.9%). The main HRD therapeutic groups on which we intervened and their acceptance percentage in the periods of 2019 and 2020, respectively, were: heparin and parenteral anticoagulants (23.6% (61.5%) and 20.1% (83.0%)), insulins (12.1% (60.0%) and 15.0% (71.4%)), oral anticoagulants (10.9% (66.7%) and 13.2% (83.9%)), opioids (8.5% (71.4%) and 7.7% (77.8%), antipsychotics (7.9% (69.2%) and 6.8% (68.8%)), diuretics (7.3% (50.0%) and 16.7% (61.5%)), sedatives (6.7% (63.6%) and 4.3% (90.0%)), antibiotics (6.1% (80.0%) and 1.3% (100%)), narrow-margin antiepileptics (4.2% (71.4%) and 5.6% (69.2%)) and other groups (<5%). The main intervention reasons (>15%) on the most prevalent therapeutic groups (>10%) were in the 2019 and 2020 periods, respectively: heparin and parenteral anticoagulants (need for treatment (66.7% and 57.4%)); insulins (need for treatment (60.0% and 41.2%), medication reconciliation (15.0% and 23.5%), inadequate dose (10.0% and 17.6%)); oral anticoagulants (medication reconciliation (55.6% and 41.9%), inadequate dose (11.1% and 19.4%)); diuretics (medication reconciliation (50.0% and 43.6%) and renal insufficiency (16.7% and 12.8%)). Conclusion and relevance The percentage of interventions related to HRD was similar in both periods; however, there was an increase in acceptance degree in the 2020 period. More than a half of HRD interventions were performed on parenteral heparin, insulins, oral anticoagulants, and diuretics. The most prevalent reasons for intervention were the need for additional treatment and medication reconciliation. It seems that the intervention of pharmacists in the ED could improve the safety in the use of HRD.
4CPS-091急诊科高危药物相关药物干预分析
背景与重要性在急诊科(ED)中用药错误是常见的,其中最常见的药物是高风险药物(high-risk drug, HRD),这些药物在使用不当时更容易对患者造成严重甚至致命的伤害。目的和目标描述在两个可比较的时间段内与HRD相关的ED药物干预的演变,并评估其接受程度。材料与方法回顾性观察研究。纳入了2019年7月至12月至2020年期间在急诊科实施的所有干预措施。主要终点是与HRD相关的干预措施的百分比及其接受率。次要终点为:治疗组与HRD相关的干预措施百分比、接受率和干预的主要原因(>15%)。通过电子处方程序记录干预措施,并传达给负责的医生。数据使用Excel 2013进行处理。结果2019年和2020年分别实施了165/494(33.4%)和234/731(32.0%)例HRD干预。合格率分别为108/165(65.5%)和173/234(73.9%)。2019年和2020年我们干预的主要HRD治疗组及其接受率分别为:肝素钠和注射用药物的抗凝血剂(23.6%(61.5%)和20.1%(83.0%)、胰岛素(12.1%(60.0%)和15.0%(71.4%),口服抗凝血剂(10.9%(66.7%)和13.2%(83.9%),阿片类药物(8.5%(71.4%)和7.7%(77.8%),抗精神病药物(7.9%(69.2%)和6.8%(68.8%),利尿剂(7.3%(50.0%)和16.7%(61.5%),镇静剂(6.7%(63.6%)和4.3%(90.0%),抗生素(6.1%(80.0%)和1.3% (100%),窄缘抗癫痫药(4.2%(71.4%)和5.6%(69.2%))和其他组(15%)上最流行的治疗组(>10%)分别是在2019年和2020年期间:肝素和肠外抗凝剂(需要治疗(66.7%和57.4%));胰岛素(需要治疗(60.0%和41.2%)、药物调节(15.0%和23.5%)、剂量不足(10.0%和17.6%));口服抗凝剂(药物调和(55.6%和41.9%),剂量不足(11.1%和19.4%));利尿剂(药物调和(50.0%和43.6%)和肾功能不全(16.7%和12.8%))。结论和相关性两个时期与HRD相关的干预措施百分比相似;然而,在2020年期间,接受程度有所增加。超过一半的HRD干预是通过肠外肝素、胰岛素、口服抗凝剂和利尿剂进行的。干预最普遍的原因是需要额外的治疗和药物调节。药师在急诊科的干预可以提高HRD使用的安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信