Background In UK hospitals, traditional ward pharmacy services involve pharmacists visiting their wards once or twice a day each weekday. However, to provide a more patient orientated ward pharmacy service, we developed the Imperial Model of Ward Pharmacy. This is based on pharmacists seeing every drug chart every other day, allowing increased focus towards patients’ needs on other days. Objective To assess the impact of the Imperial Model of Ward Pharmacy on the prevalence of new medication orders that have not been screened by pharmacists, and doses omitted due to medication being unavailable. Method We conducted an uncontrolled before-and-after study on eight medical wards. In each phase, we collected data on the number and prevalence of active medication orders that had not been screened by a pharmacist at the point of data collection, and the number and prevalence of regular doses documented as being omitted due to drug unavailability, or for which the administration record was left blank. Results The prevalence of unscreened medication orders reduced from 7.6 % of 1,433 orders to 4.1 % of 1,495 orders (p = 0.0002; Chi square test). There was no change in the prevalence of dose omissions (1.4 % in each phase of the study). Conclusion This is a practical way to move to a more patient-focused service without affecting the safety of the service provided.
Clinical pharmacy Clinical pharmacy model Hospital pharmacy Medication safety Ward pharmacy United Kingdom
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The Pharmacy Executive team at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust had input into the design of the model of ward pharmacy described, and Matt Reynolds assisted with data analysis.
The Centre for Medication Safety and Service Quality is affiliated with the Centre for Patient Safety and Service Quality at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust which is funded by the National Institute of Health Research. Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG) funded Mario Rosa as Visiting PhD Student.
Conflicts of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Gillespie U, Alassaad A, Henrohn D, Garmo H, Hammarlund-Udenaes M, Toss H, Kettis-Lindblad A, Melhus H, Morlin C. A comprehensive pharmacist intervention to reduce morbidity in patients 80 years or older: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:894–900.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellstrom LM, Bondesson A, Hoglund P, Midlov P, Holmdahl L, Rickhag E, Eriksson T. Impact of the Lund Integrated Medicines Management (LIMM) model on medication appropriateness and drug-related hospital revisits. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;67:741–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergkvist A, Midlov P, Hoglund P, Larsson L, Eriksson T. A multi-intervention approach on drug therapy can lead to a more appropriate drug use in the elderly. LIMM-Landskrona Integrated Medicines Management. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009;15:660–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scullin C, Scott MG, Hogg A, McElnay JC. An innovative approach to integrated medicines management. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007;13:781–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock TP, Franklin BD. Differences in pharmacy terminology and practice between the United Kingdom and the United States. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2007;64:1541–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McRobbie D, Bednall R, West R. Re-engineering clinical pharmacy services for general medical wards. Pharma J. 2002;269:69–71.Google Scholar
Morris J, Savage A, Armstrong D. Evaluation of a team-based clinical service for surgical inpatients. Clin Pharm. 2009;1:287–8.Google Scholar
NICE/NPSA Technical patient safety solutions for medicines reconciliation on admission of adults to hospital. London: 2007.Google Scholar
Franklin BD, Reynolds M, Burnett S, Shibl N, Jacklin A. Prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: a three-centre study of their prevalence, types and causes. Postgrad Med J. 2011;87:739–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar