Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic strained healthcare systems immensely as of 2020. Switzerland’s hospital pharmacies’ responses during the first wave were surveyed with a view to improving the quality of pharmaceutical management in future health crises. Methods An online survey was sent to the heads of all of Switzerland’s hospital pharmacies. The questionnaire was organised into eleven sections of questions covering many topics regarding the management of COVID-19’s first wave. Data collection occurred from May to June 2020. Results Analyses were performed using the 43 questionnaires (66%), with at least one answer per questionnaire, out of 65 distributed. Seventeen of 41 pharmacies responding (41%) had existing standard operating procedures or pandemic plans and 95% of these (39/41) set up crisis management steering committees. Twenty-nine of 43 pharmacies responding (67%) created new activities to respond to the pandemic’s specific needs. Twenty-six of 39 pharmacies responding (67%) created new drug lists for: COVID-19-specific treatments (85%; 22/26), sedatives (81%; 21/26), anaesthetics (77%; 20/26) and antibiotics (73%; 19/26). Drug availability in designated COVID-19 wards was managed by increasing existing stocks (54%; 22/41 pharmacies) and creating extra storage space (51%; 21/41). Two drugs generated the greatest concern about shortages: propofol (49%; 19/39 pharmacies) and midazolam (44%; 17/39). Remdesivir stocks ran out in 26% of pharmacies (10/39). Twelve of 43 pharmacies (28%) drafted specific new documents to respond to medical needs regarding drug administration, 12 (28%) did so for drug preparation and 10 (23%) did so for treatment choices. Conclusions Switzerland’s hospital pharmacies encountered many challenges related to the COVID-19 crisis and had to find solutions quickly, effectively and safely. The survey highlighted the key role that hospital pharmacies played in many aspects of the pandemic by providing logistical and clinical support to medical and nursing care teams. The lessons and experiences outlined could be used to improve the quality of hospital pharmacies’ readiness for similar future events. Key points The COVID-19 pandemic generated unprecedented global demand for specific drugs, hand sanitiser solution and other therapeutic products, particularly in critical care settings, highlighting the essential role of hospital pharmacists in such crises. Key COVID-19 responses at the hospital pharmacy level included staff flexibility regarding changes in roles and procedures, communication, teamwork and solidarity, and the need to prepare business continuity plans and management dashboards. Managing and coping with a complex pandemic reveals the importance of involving hospital pharmacists in pandemic response steering committees at many levels. Pharmacists’ lived experiences during the pandemic should be described and evaluated by hospital pharmacies worldwide, both to raise awareness and to guide appropriate policy responses when the next crisis occurs.

Residual contamination by intravenous conventional antineoplastic drugs (ICAD) is still a daily issue in hospital facilities. This study aimed to compare the efficiency (EffQ) of 4 different solutions to remove 23 widely used ICADs from surfaces. A solution containing 23 ICADs (4 alkylating agents, 8 antimetabolites, 2 topo-I inhibitors, 6 topo-II inhibitors and 3 spindle poisons) was spread over 100 cm2 stainless steel. After drying, decontamination was carried out using 10×10 cm wipes moistened with 300 μL of one of the following solutions: 70% isopropanol (S1); ethanol-hydrogen peroxide 91.6-50.0 mg/g (S2); 10-2 M sodium dodecyl sulphate/isopropanol 80/20 (S3) or 0.5% sodium hypochlorite (S4). Six tests were performed for each decontamination solution. Two modalities were tested: a single wipe motion from top to bottom or vigorous wiping (n = 6 for each modality). Residual contamination was measured with a validated liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry detection method. Solution efficiency (in %) was computed as follows: EffQ = 1-(quantity after decontamination/quantity before decontamination), as median (min-max) for the 23 ICADs. The overall decontamination efficiency (EffQ) of the 4 solutions was compared by a Kruskall-Wallis test. Decontamination modalities were compared for each solution and per ICAD with a Mann-Whitney test (p<0.05). EffQ were significantly different from one solution to the next for single wipe motion decontamination: 79.9% (69.3-100), 86.5% (13.0-100), 85.4% (56.5-100) and 100% (52.9-100) for S1, S2, S3 and S4 (p<0.0001), respectively. Differences were also significant for vigorous decontamination: EffQ of 84.3% (66.0-100), 92.3% (68.7-100), 99.6% (84.8-100) and 100% (82.9-100) for S1, S2, S3 and S4, respectively (p<0.0001). Generally, vigorous decontamination increased EffQ for all tested solutions and more significantly for the surfactant. Decontamination efficiency depended on the solution used but also on the application modality. An SDS admixture seems to be a good alternative to sodium hypochlorite, notably after vigorous chemical decontamination with no hazard either to materials or workers.

ObjectivesBiosimilars represent an opportunity to reduce healthcare costs. An infliximab biosimilar (b-IFX) was introduced in our hospital in 2017. Our pharmacist-led intervention aimed to improve the adoption rate of b-IFX by rheumatology physicians and outpatients.MethodsIn 2020, pharmacists started educating rheumatologists via medical meetings and online surveys. When the substitution rate plateaued (63%), we initiated a prospective cohort study. A senior pharmacist interviewed patients and gave them oral and written information during their infusions with the originator infliximab (o-IFX). A semi-structured questionnaire assessed patients’ beliefs, knowledge and experiences to identify barriers to switching to biosimilars. Pharmacists’ recommendations were transmitted to physicians. Patients were categorised into ‘Switch-failure’ (≥1 b-IFX infusion administered but restarted o-IFX), ‘Switch-refusal’ (refused the switch) and ‘Switch-omission’ (switch neither suggested nor made) groups. Pharmacist follow-up continued for 3 years after the interviews, with regular reminders sent to rheumatologists.ResultsFrom 1 October 2021 to 31 January 2022, 16 of 18 patients treated using o-IFX were interviewed and three, six and seven patients were categorised into the Switch-failure, Switch-refusal and Switch-omission groups, respectively. Nine patients agreed to switch during their interviews, including one patient in the Switch-failure group. Seven patients refused to switch because they were stable or had previously discontinued b-IFX due to a perceived loss of efficacy. The 3-year post-interview assessment showed that five patients had switched but one had switched back, resulting in annual savings of €44 000 and a final switch rate of 71%, a positive return on investment in pharmacist time. Four accepted switches were not performed due to coordination issues between other healthcare professionals or health-related cancellations. No o-IFX initiations occurred during the study and no rheumatologists refused substitution.ConclusionsSustained pharmacist involvement in providing targeted education to prescribers and patients was essential to identifying barriers to change and enhancing the adoption of biosimilars.

Purpose Assess whether full-scale simulation exercises improved hospital pharmacies’ disaster preparedness. Methods Swiss hospital pharmacies performed successive full-scale simulation exercises at least four months apart. An interprofessional team created two scenarios, each representing credible regional-scale disasters involving approximately fifty casualties (a major road accident and a terrorist attack). Four exercise assessors used appraisal forms to evaluate participants’ actions and responses during the simulation (rating them using five-point Likert scales). Results Four hospital pharmacies performed two full-scale simulation exercises each. Differences between exercises one and two were observed. On average, the four hospitals accomplished 69% ± 6% of the actions expected of them during exercise one. The mean rate of expected actions accomplished increased to 84% ± 7% ( p  < 0.005) during exercise two. Moreover, the average quality of actions improved from 3.0/5 to 3.6/5 ( p  = 0.01), and the time required to gather a crisis management team drastically decreased between simulations (from 23 to 5 min). The main challenges were communication (reformulation) and crisis management. Simulation exercise number one resulted in three hospital pharmacies creating disaster action plans and the fourth improving its already existing plan. Conclusion This study highlighted the value of carrying out full-scale disaster simulations for hospital pharmacies as they improved overall institutional preparedness and increased staff awareness. The number of expected actions accomplished increased significantly. In the future, large-scale studies and concept dissemination are warranted.

The objective of this randomized, prospective and controlled study was to investigate the ability of a closed-system transfer device (CSTD; BD-Phaseal) to reduce the occupational exposure of two isolators to 10 cytotoxic drugs and compare to standard compounding devices. The 6-month study started with the opening of a new compounding unit. Two isolators were set up with 2 workstations each, one to compound with standard devices (needles and spikes) and the other using the Phaseal system. Drugs were alternatively compounded in each isolator. Sampling involved wiping three surfaces (gloves, window, worktop), before and after a cleaning process. Exposure to ten antineoplastic drugs (cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, dacarbazine, 5-FU, methotrexate, gemcitabine, cytarabine, irinotecan, doxorubicine and ganciclovir) was assessed on wipes by LC-MS/MS analysis. Contamination rates were compared using a Chi2 test and drug amounts by a Mann-Whitney test. Significance was defined for p<0.05. Overall contamination was lower in the \"Phaseal\" isolator than in the \"Standard\" isolator (12.24% vs. 26.39%; p < 0.0001) although it differed according to drug. Indeed, the contamination rates of gemcitabine were 49.3 and 43.4% (NS) for the Standard and Phaseal isolators, respectively, whereas for ganciclovir, they were 54.2 and 2.8% (p<0.0001). Gemcitabine amounts were 220.6 and 283.6 ng for the Standard and Phaseal isolators (NS), and ganciclovir amounts were 179.9 and 2.4 ng (p<0.0001). This study confirms that using a CSTD may significantly decrease the chemical contamination of barrier isolators compared to standard devices for some drugs, although it does not eliminate contamination totally.

ObjectivesThe current systematic review (SR) was undertaken to identify and summarise the published literature reporting on the clinical and economic value of automated in-hospital pharmacy services with a primary focus on systems supporting the dispensing of medicines.MethodsLiterature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library on 17 December 2017 to identify English-language publications investigating any automated dispensing systems (ADSs) in the inpatient setting to include central pharmacy and ward-based systems.Results4320 publications were screened by title and abstract and 45 of 175 full publications screened were included. Grey literature searching identified an additional three publications. Therefore, 48 publications relating to ADSs were eligible for inclusion. Although a relatively large evidence base was identified as part of the current SR, the eligible studies were inconsistent in terms of their design and the format of reporting of outcomes. The studies demonstrate that both pharmacy and ward-based ADSs offer benefits over traditional manual dispensing methods in terms of clinical and economic outcomes. The primary benefits following implementation of an ADS include reductions in medication errors, medication administration time and costs. Studies examining optimisation/inventory management strategies/refill programmes for these systems suggest that optimal implementation of the ADS is required to ensure that clinical success and economic benefits are maximised.ConclusionsThe published evidence suggests positive impacts of ADS and should encourage hospitals to invest in automation, with a global strategy to improve the reliability and the efficiency of the medication process. However, one of the key findings of the current SR is the need for further data from adequately powered studies reporting clinically relevant outcomes which would allow for robust, evidence-based recommendations on the return on investment of the technologies. These studies would probably contribute to a larger adoption of these technologies by European hospitals.

Identifying patients at high risk of hospital preventable readmission is an essential step towards selecting those who might benefit from specific transitional interventions. Derive and validate a predictive risk score for potentially avoidable readmission (PAR) based on analysis of readmissions, with a focus on medication. Retrospective analysis of all hospital admissions to internal medicine wards between 2011 and 2014. Comparison between patients readmitted within 30 days and non-readmitted patients, as identified using a specially designed algorithm. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses of demographic data, clinical diagnoses, laboratory results, and the medication data of patients admitted during the first period (2011-2013), to identify factors associated with PAR. Using these, derive a predictive score with a regression coefficient-based scoring method. Subsequently, validate this score with a second cohort of patients admitted in 2013-2014. Variables were identified at hospital discharge. The derivation cohort included 7,317 hospital stays. Multivariate logistic regressions found significant associations with PAR for: [adjusted OR (95% CI)] hospital length of stay > 4 days [1.3 (1.1-1.7)], admission in previous 6 months [2.3 (1.9-2.8)], heart failure [1.3 (1.0-1.7)], chronic ischemic heart disease [1.7 (1.2-2.3)], diabetes with organ damage [2.2 (1.3-3.8)], cancer [1.4 (1.0-1.9)], metastatic carcinoma [1.9 (1.3-3.0)], anemia [1.2 (1.0-1.5)], hypertension [1.3 (1.1-1.7)], arrhythmia [1.3 (1.0-1.6)], hyperkalemia [1.4 (1.0-1.7)], opioid drug prescription [1.3 (1.1-1.6)], and acute myocardial infarction [0.6 (0.4-0.9)]. The PAR-Risk Score, derived from these results, demonstrated fair discriminatory and calibration power (C-statistic = 0.699; Brier Score = 0.069). The results for the validation cohort's operating characteristics were similar (C-statistic = 0.687; Brier Score = 0.064). This study identified routinely-available factors that were significantly associated with PAR. A predictive score was derived and internally validated.

IntroductionThis study compared the characteristics of new human drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicine Agency (EMA), and Swissmedic (SMC) in the period 2007 to 2016.MethodsThe list of new drugs and therapeutic biologics approved by the FDA, the EMA, and SMC in the period 2007 to 2016 was collected from websites of those agencies. The study included regulatory information, approval date, and indication for each drug. Descriptive statistical t tests and x2-tests were performed for the analysis.ResultsFrom 2007 to 2016, 134 new drugs were approved by all three regulatory agencies. Overall, 66.4% of the drugs were first approved by the FDA, 30.6% by the EMA, and 3.0% by SMC. The difference in approval dates between SMC and the EMA, SMC and the FDA, and the FDA and the EMA were statistically significant. The indications approved by the FDA, the EMA, and SMC for the same drugs were similar in content for 23.1% drugs and different in 76.9% of the drugs. Significant differences in indications existed between the FDA and SMC and the FDA and the EMA, but not between the EMA and SMC.ConclusionThere were differences in the characteristics of new drugs approved by the EMA, the FDA, and SMC in the period 2007–2016. Overall, two thirds of the new drugs were first approved by the FDA. Differences in indications were found in three out of four new drugs approved by the three regulatory agencies. Despite international drug regulation harmonization efforts, significant differences in the characteristics of new drugs approved by different agencies persist.

Engaging patients in medication safety is essential but remains under-addressed in hospital settings. This pilot study aimed to assess the impact of an educational intervention—the Medication Safety Adventure Trail—on medication safety knowledge and satisfaction among hospital visitors. A quasi-experimental pre-post intervention using this educational tool was conducted over five days. A booth was set up in a hospital lobby inviting all passers-by to follow a six-step trail involving riddles to solve. The experiment comprised three phases: 1. Briefing plus pre-test; 2. The trail; 3. Debriefing plus post-test. A logistic mixed-effects model was employed to assess changes in the odds of correct responses to eight items between the pre-test and post-test. A five-point scale assessed participants’ degrees of certainty (DC) in their answers, and a comparison pre- and post-test was performed with a linear mixed-effects model. Satisfaction was based on Kirkpatrick’s levels 1 and 2 (reaction and learning) and was assessed using categorical scales and open-ended questions. A total of 93 participants completed the trail (60% non-healthcare professionals, 36% healthcare professionals, and 4% unspecified). The odds of a correct answer were higher at post-test than at pre-test (72% vs. 51%, p < 0.001), and the odds of providing a correct answer were nearly five times higher following the activity compared to before (OR = 4.8 [95%CI 3.5 to 6.4], p < 0.001). The mean DC was also improved from pre-test to post-test (4.43, 95%CI [4.36–4.49] vs. 4.83, 95%CI [4.80–4.86]; p < 0.001). All 93 participants reported being either very satisfied (89%) or satisfied (11%) with the educational tool. The tool significantly improved participants’ knowledge about medication safety issues and was appreciated.

Background Adverse drug events (ADEs) can be prevented by deploying clinical decision support systems (CDSS) that directly assist physicians, via computerized order entry systems, and clinical pharmacists performing medication reviews as part of medical rounds. However, physicians using CDSS are known to be exposed to the alert-fatigue phenomenon. Our study aimed to assess the performance of PharmaCheck—a CDSS to help clinical pharmacists detect high-risk situations with the potential to lead to ADEs—and its impact on clinical pharmacists’ activities. Methods Twenty clinical rules, divided into four risk classes, were set for the daily screening of high-risk situations in the electronic health records of patients admitted to our General Internal Medicine Department. Alerts to clinical pharmacists encouraged them to telephone prescribers and suggest any necessary treatment adjustments. PharmaCheck’s performance was assessed using the intervention’s positive predictive value (PPV), which characterizes the proportion of interventions for each alert triggered. PharmaCheck’s impact was assessed by considering clinical pharmacists as a filter for ruling out futile alerts and by comparing the final clinical PPV with a pharmacist (the proportion of interventions that led to a change in the medical regimen) to the final clinical PPV without a pharmacist. Results Over 132 days, 447 alerts were triggered for 383 patients, leading to 90 interventions (overall intervention PPV = 20.1%). By risk class, intervention PPVs made up 26.9% (n = 65/242) of abnormal laboratory value alerts, 3.1% (4/127) of alerts for contraindicated medications or medications to be used with caution, 28.2% (20/71) of drug–drug interaction alerts, and 14.3% (1/7) of inadequate mode of administration alerts. Clinical PPVs reached 71.0% (64/90) when pharmacists filtered alerts and 14% (64/242) if they were not doing it. Conclusion PharmaCheck enabled clinical pharmacists to improve their traditional processes and broaden their coverage by focusing on 20 high-risk situations. Alert management by pharmacists seemed to be a more effective way of preventing risky situations and alert-fatigue than a model addressing alerts to physicians exclusively. Some fine-tuning could enhance PharmaCheck's performance by considering the information quality of triggers, the variability of clinical settings, and the fact that some prescription processes are already highly secured.