Prescriptions analysis by clinical pharmacists in the post-operative period: a 4-year prospective study

• Published in: Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 2012-09, Vol.56 (8), p.1047-1051
• Main Authors: CHARPIAT, B., GOUTELLE, S., SCHOEFFLER, M., AUBRUN, F., VIALE, J.-P., DUCERF, C., LEBOUCHER, G., ALLENET, B.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Anesthesia; Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy; Biological and medical sciences; Cancer; Drug Interactions; Drug Monitoring; Drug Overdose; Drug Overdose - epidemiology; Drug Prescriptions; Drug Prescriptions - statistics & numerical data; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; France; France - epidemiology; Guideline Adherence; Humans; Life Sciences; Medical errors; Medical Order Entry Systems; Medical sciences; Medication Errors; Medication Errors - statistics & numerical data; Order entry; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Pharmaceutical Preparations - administration & dosage; Pharmacists; Pharmacy Service, Hospital; Postoperative Care; Postoperative Care - statistics & numerical data; Postoperative Period; Prescription drugs; Prospective Studies
• ISSN: 0001-5172; 1399-6576
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2011.02644.x

Background Clinical pharmacists can help prevent medication errors. However, data are scarce on their role in preventing medication prescription errors in the post‐operative period, a high‐risk period, as at least two prescribers can intervene, the surgeon and the anesthetist. We aimed to describe and quantify clinical pharmacist' intervention (PIs) during validation of drug prescriptions on a computerized physician order entry system in a post‐surgical and post‐transplantation ward. We illustrate these interventions, focusing on one clearly identified recurrent problem. Methods In a prospective study lasting 4 years, we recorded drug‐related problems (DRPs) detected by pharmacists and whether the physician accepted the PI when prescription modification was suggested. Results Among 7005 orders, 1975 DRPs were detected. The frequency of PIs remained constant throughout the study period, with 921 PIs (47%) accepted, 383 (19%) refused and 671 (34%) not assessable. The most frequent DRP concerned improper administration mode (26%), drug interactions (21%) and overdosage (20%). These resulted in a change in the method of administration (25%), dose adjustment (24%) and drug discontinuation (23%) with 307 drugs being concerned by at least one PI. Paracetamol was involved in 26% of overdosage PIs. Erythromycin as prokinetic agent, presented a recurrent risk of potentially severe drug–drug interactions especially with other QT interval‐prolonging drugs. Following an educational seminar targeting this problem, the rate of acceptation of PI concerning this DRP increased. Conclusion Pharmacists detected many prescription errors that may have clinical implications and could be the basis for educational measures.