对全科药剂师以人为本的药品审查进行经济成本效益分析。

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Cian O'Mahony, Kieran Dalton, Leon O'Hagan, Kevin D Murphy, Clare Kinahan, Emma Coyle, Laura J Sahm, Stephen Byrne, Ciara Kirke
{"title":"对全科药剂师以人为本的药品审查进行经济成本效益分析。","authors":"Cian O'Mahony, Kieran Dalton, Leon O'Hagan, Kevin D Murphy, Clare Kinahan, Emma Coyle, Laura J Sahm, Stephen Byrne, Ciara Kirke","doi":"10.1007/s11096-024-01732-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists improve patient outcomes, but little is known about the associated economic outcomes, particularly in patients at higher risk of medicines-related harm.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To conduct an economic cost-benefit analysis of pharmacists providing person-centred medicines reviews to patients with hyperpolypharmacy (prescribed ≥ 10 regular medicines) and/or at high risk of medicines-related harm across multiple general practice settings.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Service delivery costs were calculated based on the pharmacist's salary, recorded timings, and a general practitioner fee. Direct cost savings were calculated from the cost change of patients' medicines post review, projected over 1 year. Indirect savings were calculated using two models, a population-based model for avoidance of hospital admissions due to adverse drug reactions and an intervention-based model applying a probability of adverse drug reaction avoidance. Sensitivity analyses were performed using varying workday scenarios.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Based on 1471 patients (88.4% with hyperpolypharmacy), the cost of service delivery was €153 per review. Using the population-based model, net cost savings ranging from €198 to €288 per patient review and from €73,317 to €177,696 per annum per pharmacist were calculated. Using the intervention-based model, net cost savings of €651-€741 per review, with corresponding annual savings of €240,870-€457,197 per annum per pharmacist, were calculated. Savings ratios ranged from 181 to 584% across all models and inputs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Person-centred medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists for patients at high risk of medicines-related harm result in substantial cost savings. Wider investment in general practice pharmacists will be beneficial to minimise both patient harm and healthcare system expenditure.</p>","PeriodicalId":13828,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11286700/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Economic cost-benefit analysis of person-centred medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists.\",\"authors\":\"Cian O'Mahony, Kieran Dalton, Leon O'Hagan, Kevin D Murphy, Clare Kinahan, Emma Coyle, Laura J Sahm, Stephen Byrne, Ciara Kirke\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11096-024-01732-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists improve patient outcomes, but little is known about the associated economic outcomes, particularly in patients at higher risk of medicines-related harm.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To conduct an economic cost-benefit analysis of pharmacists providing person-centred medicines reviews to patients with hyperpolypharmacy (prescribed ≥ 10 regular medicines) and/or at high risk of medicines-related harm across multiple general practice settings.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Service delivery costs were calculated based on the pharmacist's salary, recorded timings, and a general practitioner fee. Direct cost savings were calculated from the cost change of patients' medicines post review, projected over 1 year. Indirect savings were calculated using two models, a population-based model for avoidance of hospital admissions due to adverse drug reactions and an intervention-based model applying a probability of adverse drug reaction avoidance. Sensitivity analyses were performed using varying workday scenarios.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Based on 1471 patients (88.4% with hyperpolypharmacy), the cost of service delivery was €153 per review. Using the population-based model, net cost savings ranging from €198 to €288 per patient review and from €73,317 to €177,696 per annum per pharmacist were calculated. Using the intervention-based model, net cost savings of €651-€741 per review, with corresponding annual savings of €240,870-€457,197 per annum per pharmacist, were calculated. Savings ratios ranged from 181 to 584% across all models and inputs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Person-centred medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists for patients at high risk of medicines-related harm result in substantial cost savings. Wider investment in general practice pharmacists will be beneficial to minimise both patient harm and healthcare system expenditure.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13828,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11286700/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-024-01732-y\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-024-01732-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:目的:对药剂师在多种全科医疗机构中为多药(处方≥ 10 种常规药物)和/或药物相关伤害高风险患者提供以人为本的药物审查进行经济成本效益分析:方法:根据药剂师的工资、记录的时间和全科医生的费用计算提供服务的成本。直接节省的成本根据患者在复查后一年内的用药成本变化来计算。间接节省的费用通过两个模型计算得出,一个是基于人群的避免因药物不良反应入院的模型,另一个是基于干预的避免药物不良反应概率模型。使用不同的工作日方案进行了敏感性分析:基于 1471 名患者(88.4% 患有药物滥用症),每次复查的服务成本为 153 欧元。使用基于人群的模型,计算出每位患者每次复查可节省净成本 198 欧元至 288 欧元,每位药剂师每年可节省净成本 73317 欧元至 177696 欧元。使用基于干预的模型计算得出,每次复查可节省净成本 651 欧元至 741 欧元,每位药剂师每年可节省 240,870 欧元至 457,197 欧元。在所有模式和投入中,节约率从 181% 到 584% 不等:结论:由全科药剂师对药物相关伤害高风险患者进行以人为本的药物审查可节省大量成本。扩大对全科药剂师的投资将有利于最大限度地减少对患者的伤害和医疗系统的支出。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Economic cost-benefit analysis of person-centred medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists.

Economic cost-benefit analysis of person-centred medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists.

Background: Medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists improve patient outcomes, but little is known about the associated economic outcomes, particularly in patients at higher risk of medicines-related harm.

Aim: To conduct an economic cost-benefit analysis of pharmacists providing person-centred medicines reviews to patients with hyperpolypharmacy (prescribed ≥ 10 regular medicines) and/or at high risk of medicines-related harm across multiple general practice settings.

Method: Service delivery costs were calculated based on the pharmacist's salary, recorded timings, and a general practitioner fee. Direct cost savings were calculated from the cost change of patients' medicines post review, projected over 1 year. Indirect savings were calculated using two models, a population-based model for avoidance of hospital admissions due to adverse drug reactions and an intervention-based model applying a probability of adverse drug reaction avoidance. Sensitivity analyses were performed using varying workday scenarios.

Results: Based on 1471 patients (88.4% with hyperpolypharmacy), the cost of service delivery was €153 per review. Using the population-based model, net cost savings ranging from €198 to €288 per patient review and from €73,317 to €177,696 per annum per pharmacist were calculated. Using the intervention-based model, net cost savings of €651-€741 per review, with corresponding annual savings of €240,870-€457,197 per annum per pharmacist, were calculated. Savings ratios ranged from 181 to 584% across all models and inputs.

Conclusion: Person-centred medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists for patients at high risk of medicines-related harm result in substantial cost savings. Wider investment in general practice pharmacists will be beneficial to minimise both patient harm and healthcare system expenditure.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.30%
发文量
131
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy (IJCP) offers a platform for articles on research in Clinical Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Care and related practice-oriented subjects in the pharmaceutical sciences. IJCP is a bi-monthly, international, peer-reviewed journal that publishes original research data, new ideas and discussions on pharmacotherapy and outcome research, clinical pharmacy, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacoeconomics, the clinical use of medicines, medical devices and laboratory tests, information on medicines and medical devices information, pharmacy services research, medication management, other clinical aspects of pharmacy. IJCP publishes original Research articles, Review articles , Short research reports, Commentaries, book reviews, and Letters to the Editor. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy is affiliated with the European Society of Clinical Pharmacy (ESCP). ESCP promotes practice and research in Clinical Pharmacy, especially in Europe. The general aim of the society is to advance education, practice and research in Clinical Pharmacy . Until 2010 the journal was called Pharmacy World & Science.
×
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