Evaluation of a score for identifying hospital stays that trigger a pharmacist intervention: integration into a clinical decision support system

被引:0
作者
Robert, Laurine [1 ]
Vidoni, Nathalie [2 ]
Gerard, Erwin [3 ]
Chazard, Emmanuel [3 ]
Odou, Pascal [4 ]
Rousseliere, Chloe [1 ]
Decaudin, Bertrand [4 ]
机构
[1] CHU Lille, Inst Pharm, Rue Philippe Marache, F-59000 Lille, France
[2] Catholic Univ Louvain, Pharm Dept, Clin Univ St Luc, Brussels, Belgium
[3] Univ Lille, CHU Lille, ULR METRICS Evaluat Technol Sante & Prat Med 2694, F-59000 Lille, France
[4] Univ Lille, CHU Lille, ULR GRITA Grp Rech Formes Injectables & Technol As, F-59000 Lille, France
关键词
clinical pharmacist; clinical decision support system; scoring; pharmacist intervention; MODELS; RISK;
D O I
10.1093/jamiaopen/ooaf030
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objectives The objective of the study was to determine, after medication review, the patient risk score threshold that would distinguish between stays with prescriptions triggering pharmacist intervention (PI) and stays with prescriptions not triggering PI.Materials and Methods The study was retrospective and observational, conducted in the clinical pharmacy team. The patient risk score was adapted from a Canadian score and was integrated in the clinical decision support system (CDSS). For each hospital stay, the score was calculated at the beginning of hospitalization and we retrospectively showed if a medication review and a PI were conducted. Then, the optimal patient risk score threshold was determined to help pharmacist in optimizing medication review.Results During the study, 973 (56.7%) medication reviews were performed and 248 (25.5%) led to a PI. After analyzing sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of different thresholds, the threshold of 4 was deemed discriminating to identify hospital stays likely to lead to a PI following a medication review. At this threshold, 600 hospital stays would have been detected (33.3% of the latter led to a PI), and 5.0% of stays with a medication review would not have been detected even though they were hospital stays that had triggered a PI.Discussion and Conclusion Integration of a patient risk score in a CDSS can help clinical pharmacist to target hospital stays likely to trigger a PI. However, an optimal threshold is difficult to determine. Constructing and using a score in practice should be organized with the local clinical pharmacy team, in order to understand the tool's limitations and maximize its use in detecting at-risk drug prescriptions. Our study investigates the use of a patient risk score integrated in a clinical decision support system (CDSS) for pharmacists. Clinical decision support systems are tools that detect in real time at-risk situations. Clinical pharmacist daily reviewed drug prescriptions, and we aimed at developing a patient risk score to alert on prescriptions which is more likely to trigger a pharmacist intervention to medical ward. The use of a score could help clinical pharmacist to prioritize themselves by maximizing their capacity to detect at-risk drug prescriptions, but finding the optimal threshold is complex and need to be improved to be used in practice. This research provides a first work to develop a score in a CDSS to help clinical pharmacist in medication review. Collaboration with the CDSS's developers is required to evaluate the routine use of the patient risk score by clinical pharmacy teams.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]   Validation of an instrument for the documentation of clinical pharmacists' interventions [J].
Allenet, Benoit ;
Bedouch, Pierrick ;
Rose, Francois-Xavier ;
Escofier, Laurence ;
Roubille, Renaud ;
Charpiat, Bruno ;
Juste, Michel ;
Conort, Ornella .
PHARMACY WORLD & SCIENCE, 2006, 28 (04) :181-188
[2]   Patient prioritization for pharmaceutical care in hospital: A systematic review of assessment tools [J].
Alshakrah, Meshal A. ;
Steinke, Douglas T. ;
Lewis, Penny J. .
RESEARCH IN SOCIAL & ADMINISTRATIVE PHARMACY, 2019, 15 (06) :767-779
[3]   Clinical relevance of pharmacist intervention in an emergency department [J].
Antonia Perez-Moreno, Maria ;
Manuel Rodriguez-Camacho, Juan ;
Calderon-Hernanz, Beatriz ;
Comas-Diaz, Bernardino ;
Tarradas-Torras, Jordi .
EMERGENCY MEDICINE JOURNAL, 2017, 34 (08) :495-501
[4]   Predicting inpatient pharmacy order interventions using provider action data [J].
Balestra, Martina ;
Chen, Ji ;
Iturrate, Eduardo ;
Aphinyanaphongs, Yindalon ;
Nov, Oded .
JAMIA OPEN, 2021, 4 (03)
[5]  
Blanchet M., 2010, Pharmactuel, V43, P188
[6]   Prognostic prediction models and clinical tools based on consensus to support patient prioritization for clinical pharmacy services in hospitals: A scoping review [J].
Botelho, Stephanie Ferreira ;
Pantuzza, Lais Lessa Neiva ;
Marinho, Claudyane Pinheiro ;
Moreira Reis, Adriano Max .
RESEARCH IN SOCIAL & ADMINISTRATIVE PHARMACY, 2021, 17 (04) :653-663
[7]   Epidemiology of Adverse Drug Reactions in Europe: A Review of Recent Observational Studies [J].
Bouvy, Jacoline C. ;
De Bruin, Marie L. ;
Koopmanschap, Marc A. .
DRUG SAFETY, 2015, 38 (05) :437-453
[8]   A machine learning-based clinical decision support system to identify prescriptions with a high risk of medication error [J].
Corny, Jennifer ;
Rajkumar, Asok ;
Martin, Olivier ;
Dode, Xavier ;
Lajonchere, Jean-Patrick ;
Billuart, Olivier ;
Bezie, Yvonnick ;
Buronfosse, Anne .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL INFORMATICS ASSOCIATION, 2020, 27 (11) :1688-1694
[9]   The clinical pharmacist's role in enhancing the relevance of a clinical decision support system [J].
Cuvelier, E. ;
Robert, L. ;
Musy, E. ;
Rousseliere, C. ;
Marcilly, R. ;
Gautier, S. ;
Odou, P. ;
Beuscart, J. -B. ;
Decaudin, B. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INFORMATICS, 2021, 155
[10]   Clinical usefulness of prediction tools to identify adult hospitalized patients at risk of drug-related problems: A systematic review of clinical prediction models and risk assessment tools [J].
Deawjaroen, Kulchalee ;
Sillabutra, Jutatip ;
Poolsup, Nalinee ;
Stewart, Derek ;
Suksomboon, Naeti .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, 2022, 88 (04) :1613-1629