Once participants were aware of these services, they seemed to be

Once participants were aware of these services, they seemed to be accepting of them. However, future publicity campaigns should be designed in a way that addresses any misconceptions about professionalism and commercial issues. More research is needed using focus groups drawn from

a broader demography to inform quantitative studies in order to establish whether or not these views are common to the wider population of the UK. Linda Dodds Medicines Use and Safety Division, click here East and South East England Specialist Pharmacy Services, Kent, UK RPS guidance sets out the key information about medicines that should be shared at transfer of care Audit across 45 hospital sites indicated that only 32% of 2071 prescriptions were legible and unambiguous before pharmacy amendments Pharmacists can ensure prescription accuracy but are less able to add information related to changes to medicines It is well recognised that errors in transfer of medicines information across care settings can result in adverse events.1 In June 2012 the RPS published guidance check details to underpin the safe transfer of medicines information when patients move between care settings.1 A collaborative audit was proposed by the Medicines Use and Safety Division (MUSD) using standards taken from the RPS document (see Table 1). A small steering group of clinical pharmacy managers met

with the MUSD to agree methodology and pilot the audit protocol. Trusts were invited to collect data in November 2012. Data collection was supported by a paper form to be used on wards and in dispensary areas. This information was then transferred to an electronic spreadsheet and returned to MUSD. The MUSD team processed the data submitted by each trust and fed back to each participant a summary of their own results for local use. The data were then collated into a master spreadsheet and analysed against the agreed audit standards. Flavopiridol (Alvocidib) 2071 discharge prescriptions from 45 organisations were audited (1904 from acute trusts; 89 from community health services; 78 from mental health services). The average number of items per prescription

was 6.7. Pharmacists made 2880 contributions towards correcting or enhancing the accuracy of 1398 prescriptions (an average of 1.5 contributions per prescription overall). Pharmacy contributions were coded into 13 different categories and used to define and calculate a proxy measure for each standard relating to the prescription details. The average time to clinically screen a discharge prescription was 8.7 minutes, and to resolve identified problems 8.2 minutes. Table 1: Adherence to audit standards (2071 prescriptions audited) Standard (all 100%) Level achieved * Comment *Before pharmacy contributions to the prescription The majority of pharmacy contributions to discharge prescriptions focused on ensuring the prescription details were correct.

Related posts:

  1. 1 The small sample size in this study is a
  2. Participants who received Saturday physiotherapy enjoyed it, enga
  3. Whenever possible, intravenous dextrose infusions were avoided I
  4. While technological advances in capacity for sequencing analysis
  5. Follow-up of non-responders was not possible Students developed
This entry was posted in Antibody. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>