Risk and pharmacoeconomic analyses of the injectable medication process in the paediatric and neonatal intensive care units

Department of Pharmacy, Geneva University Hospitals, 4 rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, Geneva 14, Switzerland.
International Journal for Quality in Health Care (Impact Factor: 1.76). 04/2010; 22(3):170-8. DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzq015
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To analyse safety risks in injectable medications. To assess the potential impact and pharmacoeconomic aspects of safety tools.
The injectable drug process was prospectively assessed using a failure modes, effects and criticality analysis. Criticality indexes were estimated based on their likelihood of occurrence, detection probability and potential severity. The impact of 10 safety tools on the criticality index was calculated and extrapolated to all drugs injected daily. Yearly costs for a reduction in criticality by 1 point (=1 quali) per day were estimated.
Paediatric and neonatal intensive care units in a University Hospital.
Two paediatric nurses, a neonatologist, three hospital pharmacists.
Qualitative and quantitative risk assessment.
Failure modes, criticality indexes, cost-efficacy ratios.
Thirty-one failure modes identified, with the mean of their entire criticality indexes totalling 4540. The most critical failure mode was microbial contamination. The following gains were predicted: 1292 quali (46 500 per day by extrapolation) from ready-to-use syringes, 1201 (72 060) by employing a clinical pharmacist, 996 (59 780) from double check by nurses and 984 (59 040) with computerized physician order entry. The best cost-efficacy ratios were obtained for a clinical pharmacist (1 quali = 0.54 euros), double check (1 quali = 0.71 euros) and ready-to-use syringes (1 quali = 0.72 euros). Computerized physician order entry showed the worst cost-efficacy ratio due to a very high investment costs (1 quali = 22.47 euros).
Based on our risk and pharmacoeconomic analyses, clinical pharmacy and ready-to-use syringes appear as the most promising safety tools.

Download full-text


Available from: Riccardo E Pfister, Sep 28, 2015
32 Reads
  • Source
    • "For example, in Al-Eidan et al. patients were counselled by the hospital pharmacist on the importance on the adherence to therapy105; Desborough et al. assessed a pharmacist-led medication review to help patients manage their medicines103; Schroeder et al. evaluated a nurse-led support intervention to increase adherence and reduce blood pressure.113 Prescription errors were the focus of eight studies (28%), such as Weeks et al.'s quality improvement project to reduce medication errors96 and Sano et al. on standardized chemotherapy order forms to reduce errors in the prescribing of antineoplastic medication.91 Six studies (21%) addressed more than one issue of suboptimal use of medicines.86,88,91,93,94,98 No study evaluated insufficient prescribing of low-cost generics. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: This review scopes the evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve suboptimal use of medicines in order to determine the evidence gaps and help inform research priorities. Sources of data: Systematic searches of the National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. Areas of agreement: The majority of the studies evaluated interventions to improve adherence, inappropriate prescribing and prescribing errors. Areas of controversy: Interventions tend to be specific to a particular stage of the pathway and/or to a particular disease and have mostly been evaluated for their effect on intermediate or process outcomes. Growing points: Medicines optimization offers an opportunity to improve health outcomes and efficiency of healthcare. Areas timely for developing research: The available evidence is insufficient to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions to address suboptimal medicine use in the UK NHS. Decision modelling, evidence synthesis and elicitation have the potential to address the evidence gaps and help prioritize research.
    British Medical Bulletin 09/2014; 111(1):45-61. DOI:10.1093/bmb/ldu021 · 3.66 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objectives of this review were to summarize and evaluate studies that measured the economic impact of clinical pharmacy services published between 2001 and 2005 (inclusive) and to provide guidance on methodologic considerations to individuals performing such research in the future. A systematic literature search using the MEDLINE and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts databases was conducted to identify published economic evaluations of clinical pharmacy services. Studies were screened and then randomly assigned to reviewers, who reassessed inclusion and exclusion criteria and abstracted prespecified data from each study. Among the many characteristics examined in each study were study design and type of economic evaluation, setting and type of clinical pharmacy service, study quality, and results. Ninety-three articles were included in the final analysis. These studies were published in 43 different journals, most of which (68 [73.1%]) were pharmacy-based. Most studies were performed in hospitals (40 [43.0%]), ambulatory care clinics or physician's offices (20 [21.5%]), or community pharmacies (16 [17.2%]). The most common types of clinical pharmacy services evaluated were general pharmacotherapeutic monitoring services (32 [34.4%]), target drug programs (27 [29%]), and disease state-management services (21 [22.6%]). Full economic evaluations were performed in just less than half (45 [48.4%]) of the studies, and a positive economic benefit associated with clinical pharmacy services was noted in 31 (69%) of the 45 studies. Among 15 studies reporting data necessary to determine a benefit:cost ratio, the pooled median value was 4.81:1-meaning that for every $1 invested in clinical pharmacy services, $4.81 was achieved in reduced costs or other economic benefits. The quality of studies varied widely, with less than one half considered to be good to fair (40 [43.0%]); however, the proportion of studies using appropriate study designs increased compared with previous reviews. Based on the evidence examined in this review, clinical pharmacy services continue to provide a significant return on investment, but improvements are still needed in the methods used to evaluate the economic impact of these services.
    Pharmacotherapy 02/2009; 29(1):128. DOI:10.1592/phco.29.1.128 · 2.66 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective was to systematically review comparative economic analyses of patient safety improvements in the acute care setting. A systematic review of 15 patient safety target conditions and six improvement strategies was conducted. The authors searched the published literature through Medline (2000-November 2011) using the following search terms for costs: 'costs and cost analysis', 'cost-effectiveness', 'cost' and 'financial management, hospital'. The methodological quality of potentially relevant studies was appraised using Cochrane rules of evidence for clinical effectiveness in quality improvement, and standard economic methods. The authors screened 2151 abstracts, reviewed 212 potentially eligible studies, and identified five comparative economic analyses that reported a total of seven comparisons based on at least one clinical effectiveness study of adequate methodological quality. Pharmacist-led medication reconciliation to prevent potential adverse drug events dominated (lower costs, better safety) a strategy of no reconciliation. Chlorhexidine for vascular catheter site care to prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections dominated a strategy of povidone-iodine for catheter site care. The Keystone ICU initiative to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infections was economically dominant over usual care. Detecting surgical foreign bodies using standard counting compared with a strategy of no counting had an incremental cost of US$1500 (CAN$1676) for each surgical foreign body detected. Several safety improvement strategies were less economically attractive, such as bar-coded sponges for reducing retained surgical sponges compared with standard surgical counting, and giving erythropoietin to reduce transfusion requirements in critically ill patients to avoid one transfusion-related adverse event. Five comparative economic analyses were found that reported a total of seven comparisons based on at least one effectiveness study of adequate methodological quality. On the basis of these limited studies, pharmacist-led medication reconciliation, the Keystone ICU intervention for central line-associated bloodstream infections, chlorhexidine for vascular catheter site care, and standard surgical sponge counts were economically attractive strategies for improving patient safety. More comparative economic analyses of such strategies are needed.
    BMJ quality & safety 04/2012; 21(6):448-56. DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000585 · 3.99 Impact Factor
Show more