以药房为主导的干预措施,扭转和预防初级保健中的处方级联反应:一项概念验证研究。

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Atiya K Mohammad, Jacqueline G Hugtenburg, Yildiz Ceylan, Marcel Kooij, Saskia Knies, Patricia M L A van den Bemt, Petra Denig, Fatma Karapinar-Carkıt
{"title":"以药房为主导的干预措施,扭转和预防初级保健中的处方级联反应:一项概念验证研究。","authors":"Atiya K Mohammad, Jacqueline G Hugtenburg, Yildiz Ceylan, Marcel Kooij, Saskia Knies, Patricia M L A van den Bemt, Petra Denig, Fatma Karapinar-Carkıt","doi":"10.1007/s11096-025-01873-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Prescribing cascades occur in clinical practice when a medication causes an adverse drug reaction (ADR), which is addressed by prescribing additional medication.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim was to provide proof-of-concept for pharmacy-led interventions to reverse or prevent prescribing cascades.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Two community pharmacies each tested two approaches. To reverse prescribing cascades, ten cascades were selected from literature. Dispensing records were screened to identify patients with these cascades. To prevent prescribing cascades, patients who started medications associated with five of these cascades were telephoned one month after their first dispensing to discuss ADRs. Pharmacists assessed the need to intervene together with prescribers. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a treatment change initiated. Secondary outcomes were time investment, potential cost-savings, and pharmacists' experiences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>To reverse prescribing cascades, 24 patients were included. For eight the prescriber was consulted, resulting in the reversal of three cascades. Forty-four patients were included to prevent prescribing cascades. Six of them experienced an ADR that could lead to a prescribing cascade. For two patients interventions were conducted to prevent this. The estimated time investment to identify patients possibly in need of intervention was 4.5 h for the reversing approach and 4.8 h for the preventing approach, while follow-up actions required 1.8 h and 0.5 h, respectively. Both approaches could be cost-saving. Pharmacists considered both approaches relevant but identified a knowledge gap on how to intervene for some cascades.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pharmacy-led interventions may reverse and prevent prescribing cascades, but more efficient screening methods and tools are needed before further implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":13828,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pharmacy-led interventions to reverse and prevent prescribing cascades in primary care: a proof-of-concept study.\",\"authors\":\"Atiya K Mohammad, Jacqueline G Hugtenburg, Yildiz Ceylan, Marcel Kooij, Saskia Knies, Patricia M L A van den Bemt, Petra Denig, Fatma Karapinar-Carkıt\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11096-025-01873-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Prescribing cascades occur in clinical practice when a medication causes an adverse drug reaction (ADR), which is addressed by prescribing additional medication.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim was to provide proof-of-concept for pharmacy-led interventions to reverse or prevent prescribing cascades.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Two community pharmacies each tested two approaches. To reverse prescribing cascades, ten cascades were selected from literature. Dispensing records were screened to identify patients with these cascades. To prevent prescribing cascades, patients who started medications associated with five of these cascades were telephoned one month after their first dispensing to discuss ADRs. Pharmacists assessed the need to intervene together with prescribers. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a treatment change initiated. Secondary outcomes were time investment, potential cost-savings, and pharmacists' experiences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>To reverse prescribing cascades, 24 patients were included. For eight the prescriber was consulted, resulting in the reversal of three cascades. Forty-four patients were included to prevent prescribing cascades. Six of them experienced an ADR that could lead to a prescribing cascade. For two patients interventions were conducted to prevent this. The estimated time investment to identify patients possibly in need of intervention was 4.5 h for the reversing approach and 4.8 h for the preventing approach, while follow-up actions required 1.8 h and 0.5 h, respectively. Both approaches could be cost-saving. Pharmacists considered both approaches relevant but identified a knowledge gap on how to intervene for some cascades.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pharmacy-led interventions may reverse and prevent prescribing cascades, but more efficient screening methods and tools are needed before further implementation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13828,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-025-01873-8\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"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/s11096-025-01873-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:处方级联发生在临床实践中,当一种药物引起药物不良反应(ADR)时,通过处方额外的药物来解决。目的:目的是为药店主导的干预措施提供概念证明,以逆转或预防处方级联反应。方法:两家社区药房各测试两种方法。为了逆转处方级联,我们从文献中选择了10个级联。对配药记录进行筛选,以确定这些级联患者。为了防止处方级联反应,开始服用与其中五种级联反应相关的药物的患者在第一次配药后一个月被打电话讨论不良反应。药剂师与开处方者一起评估干预的必要性。主要结局是开始改变治疗方案的患者比例。次要结果是时间投入、潜在的成本节约和药剂师的经验。结果:24例患者被纳入反向处方级联。对于8个,咨询了处方者,导致三个级联的逆转。44名患者被纳入以防止处方级联反应。其中6人出现了不良反应,这可能导致处方连锁反应。对两名患者进行干预以防止这种情况发生。识别可能需要干预的患者的估计时间投入,逆转方法为4.5 h,预防方法为4.8 h,而随访行动分别需要1.8 h和0.5 h。这两种方法都可以节省成本。药剂师认为这两种方法都是相关的,但在如何干预某些级联方面存在知识差距。结论:以药学为主导的干预措施可以逆转和预防处方级联,但在进一步实施之前需要更有效的筛查方法和工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pharmacy-led interventions to reverse and prevent prescribing cascades in primary care: a proof-of-concept study.

Background: Prescribing cascades occur in clinical practice when a medication causes an adverse drug reaction (ADR), which is addressed by prescribing additional medication.

Aim: The aim was to provide proof-of-concept for pharmacy-led interventions to reverse or prevent prescribing cascades.

Method: Two community pharmacies each tested two approaches. To reverse prescribing cascades, ten cascades were selected from literature. Dispensing records were screened to identify patients with these cascades. To prevent prescribing cascades, patients who started medications associated with five of these cascades were telephoned one month after their first dispensing to discuss ADRs. Pharmacists assessed the need to intervene together with prescribers. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a treatment change initiated. Secondary outcomes were time investment, potential cost-savings, and pharmacists' experiences.

Results: To reverse prescribing cascades, 24 patients were included. For eight the prescriber was consulted, resulting in the reversal of three cascades. Forty-four patients were included to prevent prescribing cascades. Six of them experienced an ADR that could lead to a prescribing cascade. For two patients interventions were conducted to prevent this. The estimated time investment to identify patients possibly in need of intervention was 4.5 h for the reversing approach and 4.8 h for the preventing approach, while follow-up actions required 1.8 h and 0.5 h, respectively. Both approaches could be cost-saving. Pharmacists considered both approaches relevant but identified a knowledge gap on how to intervene for some cascades.

Conclusion: Pharmacy-led interventions may reverse and prevent prescribing cascades, but more efficient screening methods and tools are needed before further implementation.

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