Medication review (MR) is a vital part of the pharmacist’s role in hospital. However, in the South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital (SIVUH), Cork, Ireland, this has not been fully implemented due to resource issues. In addition, the cost of providing this service has not been evaluated. Moreover, it is not clear how other members of the multidisciplinary team e.g., Nurses, value any interventions made as a result of the MR. This mixed methods study assessed the impact of MR in terms of (i) potential clinical harm, (ii) cost avoidance and (iii) the views of nursing staff on the role of the pharmacist. The setting is a 192-bed, voluntary, acute hospital, in the Munster region of Ireland. Study I: The pharmacist provided MR to patients conventionally once a week. Any interventions were then assessed for potential clinical harm and to calculate cost avoidance. Study II: Semi-structured interviews, guided by a topic guide were completed with 12 nurses (11 female). Thematic analysis was used to code the main themes. Main outcome measure: To estimate the cost, cost avoidance, and the net cost benefit ratio of MR provided by pharmacists. Study I: Of 128 patients who received the MR, 113 interventions were made. The estimated cost of providing the MR was €2559 (senior pharmacist). Using €1084 as the cost of an adverse drug event (ADE), the cost avoidance was calculated at €42,330. This led to a net cost benefit of €39,771 (senior pharmacist) which equated to a net cost benefit ratio of 16.5:1. Study II: The main themes were (i) perceptions of pharmacy services, (ii) the role of the pharmacist—past, present and future, and (iii) teamwork and communication. Nurses expressed a desire to have more pharmacists present on the wards.

Purpose: Pharmacist-led medication reviews in hospitals have shown improvement in patient outcomes. The aim of this study is to describe the prevalence and nature of pharmacist interventions (PIs) following a medication review in an Irish teaching hospital. Methods: PIs were recorded over a six-month period in 2015. PIs were assessed by a panel of healthcare professionals (n = 5) to estimate the potential of adverse drug events (ADEs). Descriptive statistics were used for the variables and the chi square test for independence was used to analyse for any association between the variables. Results: Of the 1216 patients (55.8% female; median age 68 years (interquartile range 24 years)) who received a medication review, 313 interventions were identified in 213 patients. 412 medicines were associated with PIs, of which drugs for obstructive airway disease (n = 82), analgesics (n = 56), and antibacterial products for systemic use (n = 50) were the most prevalent. A statistically significant association was found between PI and patient’s age ≥65 years (p = 0.000), as well as female gender (p = 0.037). A total of 60.7% of the PIs had a medium or high likelihood of causing an ADE. Conclusion: Pharmacist-led medication review in a hospital setting prevented ADEs. Patients ≥65 years of age and female patients benefited the most from the interventions.

To measure the net benefit of a pharmacist-led medication review in acute public hospitals. To identify and measure the resources used when completing a pharmacist-led medication review, an observational study was conducted in an acute urban university teaching hospital. Health Information and Quality Authority guidelines were used to value resources used in a pharmacist-led medication review. Model inputs included demographic data, probability of adverse drug events associated with the pharmacist interventions, estimates of future discharges and cost data. The cost of a pharmacist-led medication review and savings generated from avoidance of adverse drug events were estimated and projected over a 5-year period, using hospital discharge rates taken from the hospital inpatient enquiry system and the census of population. Using the per-patient cost of a medication review, the annual cost of delivering a biweekly medication review is projected to vary between €6 m and €6.4 m over a 5-year period from 2017 to 2021. The per-patient net benefit of a biweekly medication review is €45.88. Therefore, the projected annual net benefit of a biweekly medication review is between €29.5 m and €31.2 m over the 5-year period of 2017 to 2021. Introducing a pharmacist-led medication review for each inpatient saves in the short and longer term. The results are consistent with previous findings. Substantial savings were estimated, regardless of variation in model parameters tested in sensitivity analysis.

To measure the net benefit of a pharmacist-led medication review in acute public hospitals. To identify and measure the resources used when completing a pharmacist-led medication review, an observational study was conducted in an acute urban university teaching hospital. Health Information and Quality Authority guidelines were used to value resources used in a pharmacist-led medication review. Model inputs included demographic data, probability of adverse drug events associated with the pharmacist interventions, estimates of future discharges and cost data. The cost of a pharmacist-led medication review and savings generated from avoidance of adverse drug events were estimated and projected over a 5-year period, using hospital discharge rates taken from the hospital inpatient enquiry system and the census of population. Using the per-patient cost of a medication review, the annual cost of delivering a bi-weekly medication review is projected to vary between €6 m and €6.4 m over a 5-year period from 2017 to 2021. The per-patient net benefit of a bi-weekly medication review is €45.88. Therefore, the projected annual net benefit of a bi-weekly medication review is between €29.5 m and €31.2 m over the 5-year period of 2017 to 2021. Introducing a pharmacist-led medication review for each inpatient saves in the short and longer term. The results are consistent with previous findings. Substantial savings were estimated, regardless of variation in model parameters tested in sensitivity analysis.

No abstract