Pharmacy

750 KiB

Open AccessReview

Medication Reconciliation at Discharge from Hospital: A Systematic Review of the Quantitative Literature

by Maja H. Michaelsen, Paul McCague, Colin P. Bradley and Laura J. Sahm

Pharmacy 2015, 3(2), 53-71; https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy3020053 - 23 Jun 2015

Cited by 39 | Viewed by 8354

Medicines reconciliation is a way to identify and act on discrepancies in patients’ medical histories and it is found to play a key role in patient safety. This review focuses on discrepancies and medical errors that occurred at point of discharge from hospital. [...] Read more.

Medicines reconciliation is a way to identify and act on discrepancies in patients’ medical histories and it is found to play a key role in patient safety. This review focuses on discrepancies and medical errors that occurred at point of discharge from hospital. Studies were identified through the following electronic databases: PubMed, Sciences Direct, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Reviews and CINAHL. Each of the six databases was screened from inception to end of January 2014. To determine eligibility of the studies; the title, abstract and full manuscript were screened to find 15 articles that meet the inclusion criteria. The median number of discrepancies across the articles was found to be 60%. In average patient had between 1.2–5.3 discrepancies when leaving the hospital. More studies also found a relation between the numbers of drugs a patient was on and the number of discrepancies. The variation in the number of discrepancies found in the 15 studies could be due to the fact that some studies excluded patient taking more than 5 drugs at admission. Medication reconciliation would be a way to avoid the high number of discrepancies that was found in this literature review and thereby increase patient safety. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Medicines across the Interface)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

424 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Using Focus Groups to Validate a Pharmacy Vaccination Training Program

by Mary Bushell, Hana Morrissey and Patrick Ball

Pharmacy 2015, 3(2), 39-52; https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy3020039 - 12 Jun 2015

Viewed by 4574

Abstract

Introduction: Focus group methodology is commonly used to quickly collate, integrated views from a variety of different stakeholders. This paper provides an example of how focus groups can be employed to collate expert opinion informing amendments on a newly developed training program for [...] Read more.

Introduction: Focus group methodology is commonly used to quickly collate, integrated views from a variety of different stakeholders. This paper provides an example of how focus groups can be employed to collate expert opinion informing amendments on a newly developed training program for integration into undergraduate pharmacy curricula. Materials and methods: Four focus groups were conducted, across three continents, to determine the appropriateness and reliability of a developed vaccination training program with nested injection skills training. All focus groups were comprised of legitimate experts in the field of vaccination, medicine and/or pharmacy. Results: Themes that emerged across focus groups informed amendments giving rise to a validated version of a training program. Discussion: The rigorous validation of the vaccination training program offers generalizable lessons to inform the design and validation of future training programs intended for the health sector and or pharmacy curricula. Using the knowledge and experience of focus group participants fostered collaborative problem solving and validation of material and concept development. The group dynamics of a focus group allowed synthesis of feedback in an inter-professional manner. Conclusions: This paper provides a demonstration of how focus groups can be structured and used by health researchers to validate a newly developed training program. Full article

507 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Use of Cumulative Assessments in U.S. Schools and Colleges of Pharmacy

by Deepti Vyas, Jenana Halilovic, Myo-Kyoung Kim, Marcus C. Ravnan, Edward L. Rogan and Suzanne M. Galal

Pharmacy 2015, 3(2), 27-38; https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy3020027 - 12 Jun 2015

Cited by 7 | Viewed by 4217

Abstract

The Accreditation Council of Pharmacy Education (ACPE) has taken a strong stance on assessment in pharmacy education. One available assessment tool is cumulative assessments, which may be administered at various points in the curriculum. This article presents the results of a survey of [...] Read more.

The Accreditation Council of Pharmacy Education (ACPE) has taken a strong stance on assessment in pharmacy education. One available assessment tool is cumulative assessments, which may be administered at various points in the curriculum. This article presents the results of a survey of U.S. schools of pharmacy regarding the use of cumulative assessments within their curriculum. A 20-question survey tool was emailed to 125 schools of pharmacy. A total of 105 out of 125 schools participated (response rate 84%). Of these, 52 schools currently have a cumulative assessment program; 18 have one cumulative exam prior to advanced pharmacy practice experiences (APPEs); 19 have a cumulative exam every didactic year; and seven have accumulative exams every semester, except during APPEs (n = 44). Increased faculty workload emerged as the top challenge faced by schools that have implemented a cumulative assessment program. Eighteen schools indicated that no outcomes are measured to determine the utility of the cumulative assessment. From these results, it appears that almost half of participating U.S. schools have implemented a cumulative assessment plan. However, it is apparent that more research needs to be done to determine which outcomes are expected to improve with the implementation of such an assessment plan. Full article

407 KiB

Open AccessArticle

An Advanced Pharmacy Practice Framework for Australia

by Shane Jackson, Grant Martin, Jennifer Bergin, Bronwyn Clark, Ieva Stupans, Gilbert Yeates, Lisa Nissen, Stephen Marty, Paul Gysslink, Andrew Matthews, Sue Kirsa, Kerry Deans and Kay Sorimachi

Pharmacy 2015, 3(2), 13-26; https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy3020013 - 09 Jun 2015

Cited by 10 | Viewed by 6516

Abstract

The need to develop An Advanced Pharmacy Practice Framework for Australia (the “APPF”) was identified during the 2010 review of the competency standards for Australian pharmacists. The Advanced Pharmacy Practice Framework Steering Committee, a collaborative profession-wide committee comprised of representatives of ten pharmacy [...] Read more.

The need to develop An Advanced Pharmacy Practice Framework for Australia (the “APPF”) was identified during the 2010 review of the competency standards for Australian pharmacists. The Advanced Pharmacy Practice Framework Steering Committee, a collaborative profession-wide committee comprised of representatives of ten pharmacy organisations, examined and adapted existing advanced practice frameworks, all of which were found to have been based on the Competency Development and Evaluation Group (CoDEG) Advanced and Consultant Level Framework (the “CoDEG Framework”) from the United Kingdom. Its competency standards were also found to align well with the Domains of the National Competency Standards Framework for Pharmacists in Australia (the “National Framework”). Adaptation of the CoDEG Framework created an APPF that is complementary to the National Framework, sufficiently flexible to customise for recognising advanced practice in any area of professional practice and has been approved by the boards/councils of all participating organisations. The primary purpose of the APPF is to assist the development of the profession to meet the changing health care needs of the community. However, it is also a valuable tool for assuring members of the public of the competence of an advanced practice pharmacist and the quality and safety of the services they deliver. Full article

► Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

Pharmacy, Volume 3, Issue 2 (June 2015) – 4 articles , Pages 13-71

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI