J R Covvey1, J Grant2, A B Mullen3. 1. Division of Clinical, Social and Administrative Sciences, Duquesne University Mylan School of Pharmacy, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 2. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Women and Children's Services, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK. 3. Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
Abstract
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVES: Obstetrics services are a high-throughput and high-risk environment poised for pharmacist involvement, but determining how to ideally allocate services is difficult. There is recent interest in the development of tools for service prioritization, but none are specifically targeted to obstetrics. Therefore, the aim of this study was (i) to conduct a practice audit surveying the demographics of patients attending obstetrics wards at a high-capacity maternity hospital; and (ii) to evaluate a triage tool developed to prioritize pharmacy services. METHODS: A retrospective case review of women discharged after birth admissions was undertaken at a hospital in National Health Service (NHS) Scotland during June 2014. Demographic and admission data were collected, as well as pharmacist interventions and missed opportunities in patient care on post-natal wards. A pharmacy triage tool was developed and retrospectively applied to each case to ascertain a risk category that would trigger and target pharmacist review. Interventions/opportunities were classified as either clinical (medication related) or administrative (potential for error development). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: One hundred and seventy-five cases were reviewed with a median age of 29 years old. Eighty-six patients (49·1%) were retrospectively classified with elevated risk using the triage tool. A total of 117 charts (66·9%) were identified with missed opportunities for pharmacist intervention, which was significantly greater among patients classified as higher risk (75·6 vs. 58·4%, P = 0·017). Compared to low-risk patients, patients with a higher-risk classification had lower rates of administrative missed opportunities (55·4 vs. 80·8%, P = 0·015), but numerically higher rates of clinical (26·2 vs. 9·6%, p=NS) and mixed clinical/administrative (18·5 vs. 9·6%, p=NS) missed opportunities, although this failed to reach statistical significance. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Evaluation of a triage tool for obstetric services demonstrated potential for prioritizing higher-risk patients for pharmacist review and addressing opportunities for clinical improvements.
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVES: Obstetrics services are a high-throughput and high-risk environment poised for pharmacist involvement, but determining how to ideally allocate services is difficult. There is recent interest in the development of tools for service prioritization, but none are specifically targeted to obstetrics. Therefore, the aim of this study was (i) to conduct a practice audit surveying the demographics of patients attending obstetrics wards at a high-capacity maternity hospital; and (ii) to evaluate a triage tool developed to prioritize pharmacy services. METHODS: A retrospective case review of women discharged after birth admissions was undertaken at a hospital in National Health Service (NHS) Scotland during June 2014. Demographic and admission data were collected, as well as pharmacist interventions and missed opportunities in patient care on post-natal wards. A pharmacy triage tool was developed and retrospectively applied to each case to ascertain a risk category that would trigger and target pharmacist review. Interventions/opportunities were classified as either clinical (medication related) or administrative (potential for error development). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: One hundred and seventy-five cases were reviewed with a median age of 29 years old. Eighty-six patients (49·1%) were retrospectively classified with elevated risk using the triage tool. A total of 117 charts (66·9%) were identified with missed opportunities for pharmacist intervention, which was significantly greater among patients classified as higher risk (75·6 vs. 58·4%, P = 0·017). Compared to low-risk patients, patients with a higher-risk classification had lower rates of administrative missed opportunities (55·4 vs. 80·8%, P = 0·015), but numerically higher rates of clinical (26·2 vs. 9·6%, p=NS) and mixed clinical/administrative (18·5 vs. 9·6%, p=NS) missed opportunities, although this failed to reach statistical significance. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Evaluation of a triage tool for obstetric services demonstrated potential for prioritizing higher-risk patients for pharmacist review and addressing opportunities for clinical improvements.