Advertisement

Pharmacy World & Science

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 99–106 | Cite as

Documenting pharmacist’s clinical interventions in New Zealand hospitals

  • Toni Millar
  • Radhika Sandilya
  • June TordoffEmail author
  • Ruth Ferguson
Research Article

Abstract

Objectives To investigate the perceived value and the recording, storage and use of pharmacists’ clinical intervention data in New Zealand hospitals. Methods A questionnaire-based cross-sectional survey of all pharmacy managers in public and privately funded hospitals employing one or more pharmacists. Main outcome measures The number of hospitals collecting information, the collection and storage systems used, and use of the data. Results Twenty-nine hospitals responded (94%). All rated data collection as very important (17) or important (12) but five hospitals, of all sizes, did not record interventions. Of those collecting data, 21 hospitals made daily recordings and three periodic. Pre-printed forms were the most popular initial collection method (18 hospitals), with notebooks used by three hospitals. Almost all the hospitals using a paper-based collection system (15, 83%) transcribed data into an electronic database, but there were unfavourable comments regarding transcription and analysis time. Three hospitals stated they used direct intranet data entry but one also used a backup paper form when ward computer access was limited. Of information frequently recorded, variability in categorising interventions and grading severity, were identified as concerns. The impact on cost savings was not commonly recorded. The most popular uses for intervention data was to provide management activity reports (15), identify pharmacists’ impact on patient care (15) and to identify prescribing problems (14); less than half reported use for educational purposes. Five hospitals reported data were underutilised and 15 considered their systems required modification. Conclusions The majority of New Zealand hospitals collect pharmacist intervention data on a daily basis. While a high value is placed on intervention data by pharmacy managers, some hospitals did not meet national data collection requirements. Favouring paper-based systems over direct electronic entry may reflect difficulties in computer access in ward areas. The development of a national system is suggested to aid access to data collection for all hospitals, provided issues of categorising and grading can be resolved. Furthermore we recommend that direct-entry technologies be critically evaluated for reliability, efficiency and cost, and that data be used more frequently for hospital staff education.

Keywords

Clinical interventions Clinical pharmacy Documentation Hospitals Medication review New Zealand Pharmaceutical care Pharmacist interventions 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the pharmacy managers and pharmacists who responded to the survey and the pharmacists and researchers who reviewed or piloted the questionnaire.

Funding: The study was funded by the University of Otago.

Conflicts of interest: None declared.

References

  1. 1.
    Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia Committee of Specialty Practice in Clinical Pharmacy, Dooley et al. SHPA standards of practice for clinical pharmacy. J Pharm Pract Res 2005;35:122–46.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pharmaceutical Society of New Zealand Inc. Intervention grading. In: Pharmacy practice handbook. Wellington: PSNZ; 2003. p. 110.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. Guidance on recording interventions. London: RPSGB; 2006.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Acomb C. Guidance on recording interventions welcome but disappointing. Pharm J 2006;276:590.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weidle P, Bradley L, Gallina J, Mullins CD, Thorn D, Siegel LP. Pharmaceutical care intervention documentation program and related cost savings at a university hospital. Hosp Pharm 1999;34:43–52.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mason RN, Pugh CB, Boyer SB, Stiening KK. Computerized documentation of pharmacists’ interventions. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1994;51:2131–8.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zimmerman CR, Smolarek RT, Stevenson JG. A computerized system to improve documentation and reporting of pharmacists’ clinical interventions, cost savings, and workload activities. Pharmacotherapy 1995;15:220–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brody JA, Camamo JM, Maloney ME. Implementing a personal digital assistant to document clinical interventions by pharmacy residents. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2001;58:1520–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clark JS, Klauck JA. Recording pharmacists’ interventions with a personal digital assistant. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2003;60:1772–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Raybardhan S, Balen RM, Partovi N, Loewen P, Lui G, Jewesson PJ. Documenting drug-related problems with personal digital assistants in a multisite health system. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2005;62:1782–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kisch GL. Optically scannable form for documenting pharmacists’ patient-care activities. Am J Hosp Pharm 1993;50:1426–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aebi CR, Canton EM. Documenting clinical pharmacy activities with microcassette recorders. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1994;51:387–8.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Scott MG, McElnay JC, Burnett KM. Using bar-code technology to capture clinical intervention data in a hospital with a stand-alone pharmacy computer system. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1996;53:651–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bright JM, Tenni PC. The clinical services documentation (CDS) system for documenting clinical pharmacists’ services. Aust J Hosp Pharm 2000;30:10–5.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim Y, Schepers G. Pharmacist intervention documentation in US health care systems. Hosp Pharm 2003;38:1141–7.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dooley MJ, Allen KM, Doecke CJ, Galbraith KJ, Taylor GR, Bright J, et al. A prospective multicentre study of pharmacist initiated changes to drug therapy and patient management in acute care government funded hospitals. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2004;57:513–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hawkey CJ, Hodgson S, Norman A, Daneshmend TK, Garner ST. Effect of reactive pharmacy intervention on quality of hospital prescribing. BMJ 1990;300:986–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zimmerman CR, Smolarek RT, Stevenson JG. Peer review and continuous quality improvement of pharmacists’ clinical interventions. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1997;54:1722–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cousins D, Gerrrett D, Luscombe D. Reliability and validity of hospital pharmacists clinical intervention data. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1997;54:1596–603.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    New Zealand Healthcare Pharmacists Association. NZ hospital contacts, 2005 [cited 29/5/06]. Available at http://www.nzhpa.org.nz/hospitals.htm.
  21. 21.
    Tordoff J, Norris P, Kennedy J, Reith D. Quality use of medicines activities in New Zealand hospitals from 2000 to 2002. NZ Med J 2005;118(1208):U1259.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McLennan DN, Dooley MJ. National survey of clinical activity documentation practices. Aust J Hosp Pharm 2000;30:6–9.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dooley MJ, McLennan DN, Galbraith KJ, Burgess NG. Multicentre pilot study of a standard approach to document clinical pharmacy activity. Austr J Hosp Pharm 2000;30:150–5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Toni Millar
    • 1
  • Radhika Sandilya
    • 2
  • June Tordoff
    • 3
    Email author
  • Ruth Ferguson
    • 2
  1. 1.Unichem Morrinsville PharmacyMorrinsvilleNew Zealand
  2. 2.Pharmacy DepartmentDunedin HospitalDunedinNew Zealand
  3. 3.School of PharmacyUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations