Evaluation of hospital pharmacists' activities using additional reimbursement for infection prevention as an indicator in small and medium-sized hospitals.

Abstract

Background: Hospitals in Japan established the healthcare delivery system from FY 2018 to 2021 by acquiring an additional reimbursement for infection prevention (ARIP) of category 1 or 2. However, research on outcomes of ARIP applications related to the practice of hospital pharmacists is scarce.

Methods: This study assessed the activities performed by hospital pharmacists in hospitals with 100 to 299 beds, using ARIP acquirement as an indicator, using data from an annual questionnaire survey conducted in 2020 by the Japanese Society of Hospital Pharmacists on the status of hospital pharmacy departments. Out of the survey items, this study used those related to hospital functions, number of beds, number of pharmacists, whether the hospital is included in the diagnosis procedure combination (DPC) system, average length of stay, and nature of work being performed in the analysis. The relationship between the number of beds per pharmacist and state of implementation of pharmacist services or the average length of hospital stay was considered uncorrelated when the absolute value of the correlation coefficient was within 0-0.2, whereas the relationship was considered to have a weak, moderate, or strong correlation when the absolute value ranged at 0.2-0.4, 0.4-0.7, or 0.7-1, respectively.

Results: Responses were received from 3612 (recovery rate: 43.6%) hospitals. Of these, 210 hospitals meeting the criteria for ARIP 1 with 100-299 beds, and 245 hospitals meeting the criteria for ARIP 2 with 100-299 beds, were included in our analysis. There was a significant difference in the number of pharmacists, with a larger number in ARIP 1 hospitals. For the pharmacist services, significant differences were observed, with a more frequency in ARIP 1 hospitals in pharmaceutical management and guidance to pre-hospitalization patients, sterile drug processing of injection drugs and therapeutic drug monitoring. In DPC hospitals with ARIP 1 (173 hospitals) and 2 (105 hospitals), the average number of beds per pharmacist was 21.7 and 24.7, respectively, while the average length of stay was 14.3 and 15.4 d, respectively. Additionally, a weak negative correlation was observed between the number of pharmacist services with "Fairly well" or "Often" and the number of beds per pharmacist for both ARIP 1 (R = -0.207) and ARIP 2 (R = -0.279) DPC hospitals. Furthermore, a weak correlation (R = 0.322) between the average number of beds per pharmacist and the average length of hospital stay was observed for ARIP 2 hospitals.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that lower beds per pharmacist might lead to improved pharmacist services in 100-299 beds DPC hospitals with ARIP 1 or 2. The promotion of proactive efforts in hospital pharmacist services and fewer beds per pharmacist may relate to shorter hospital stays especially in small and medium-sized hospitals with ARIP 2 when ARIP acquisition was used as an indicator. These findings may help to accelerate the involvement of hospital pharmacists in infection control in the future.