International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 34, Issue 5, pp 773–778 | Cite as

Epidemiology and cost analysis of pharmacist interventions at Ghent University Hospital

  • Barbara O. M. Claus
  • Fien M. R. Vandeputte
  • Hugo Robays
Research Article

Abstract

Background Performing bedside clinical recommendations is important for the prevention of adverse drug events. From an economic perspective, the economic value of adverse drug event avoidance needs to be weighed against the labour costs of pharmacists. Objective To perform a cost analysis of pharmacist interventions with valproic acid, digoxin, methotrexate and penicillin. Setting Ghent University Hospital in Belgium (1,062-beds). Method Interventions for valproic acid, digoxin, methotrexate and penicillin were selected from a clinical pharmacy database, CLINOR. The average number of registered interventions per year was 1,209 (period 2005–mid 2011). Main outcome measure Cost difference (cost value) between that of the avoided toxicity and that of the intervention (a positive cost value is cost saving). Results Per annum, pharmacists performed interventions for valproic acid (n = 18) and digoxin (n = 21); the annual cost value of interventions for valproic acid was €18,853.7 with a standard deviation of €15,020.6; for digoxin it was €41,832.0 ± €15,348.5. With oral methotrexate, accidental toxicity occurs rarely but it can be life threatening. Two important pharmacist interventions were reported per year. The routine switching of penicillin therapy to alternative antibiotics, in patients with previous allergy, may invoke costs rather than benefits (two interventions per year). In half of cases, therapy was reinitiated without any further adverse drug event. Conclusion Clinically important pharmacy interventions are not automatically cost beneficial. Interventions that prevent digoxin and valproic acid toxicity were cost effective in this setting. The routine advice to switch the antibiotic class for every reported penicillin allergy is unlikely to avoid adverse drug events and challenges the cost value of this intervention. Interventions with methotrexate are relevant because they can be lifesaving. However, due to their low incidence, effective detection of these errors is crucial for reducing harm.

Keywords

Belgium Cost value Economic modelling Hospital pharmacy Impact Pharmacy intervention 

References

  1. 1.
    Karnon J, McIntosh A, Dean J, Bath P, Hutchinson A, Oakley J, et al. Modelling the expected net benefits of interventions to reduce the burden of medication errors. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13:85–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leape LL, Cullen DJ, Clapp MD, Burdick E, Demonaco HJ, Erickson JI, et al. Pharmacist participation on physician rounds and adverse drug events in the intensive care unit. JAMA. 1999;282:267–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bond CA, Raehl CL. Clinical pharmacy services, pharmacy staffing, and hospital mortality rates. Pharmacotherapy. 2007;27:481–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maclaren R, Bond CA, Martin SJ, Fike D. Clinical and economic outcomes of involving pharmacists in the direct care of critically ill patients with infections. Crit Care Med. 2008;36:3184–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Minshall I, Berry D, Smith D. The impact of an educational intervention, the New GP Contract and NICE guidelines on anti-epilepsy therapeutic drug monitoring. Seizure. 2011;20:126–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schoenenberger RA, Tanasijevic MJ, Jha A, Bates DW. Appropriateness of antiepileptic drug level monitoring. JAMA. 1995;274:1622–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smellie WS, Coleman JJ. Pitfalls of testing and summary of guidance on safety monitoring with amiodarone and digoxin. BMJ. 2007;334:312–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Currie GM, Wheat JM, Kiat H. Pharmacokinetic considerations for digoxin in older people. Open Cardiovasc Med J. 2011;5:130–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rogers NM, Jones TE, Morris RG. Frequently discordant results from therapeutic drug monitoring for digoxin: clinical confusion for the prescriber. Intern Med J. 2010;40:52–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Spiller HA, Krenzelok EP, Klein-Schwartz W, Winter ML, Weber JA, Sollee DR, et al. Multicenter case series of valproic acid ingestion: serum concentrations and toxicity. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 2000;38:755–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gandhi AJ, Vlasses PH, Morton DJ, Bauman JL. Economic impact of digoxin toxicity. Pharmacoeconomics. 1997;12:175–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harris W. Methotrexate-associated medication errors. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2004;61:2635.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moore TJ, Walsh CS, Cohen MR. Reported medication errors associated with methotrexate. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2004;61:1380–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Saurat JH, Guerin A, Yu AP, Latremouille-Viau D, Wu EQ, Gupta SR, et al. High prevalence of potential drug–drug interactions for psoriasis patients prescribed methotrexate or cyclosporine for psoriasis: associated clinical and economic outcomes in real-world practice. Dermatology. 2010;220:128–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Apter AJ, Kinman JL, Bilker WB, Herlim M, Margolis DJ, Lautenbach E, et al. Represcription of penicillin after allergic-like events. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;113:764–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Preston SL, Briceland LL, Lesar TS. Accuracy of penicillin allergy reporting. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1994;51:79–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Beringer PM, Wong-Beringer A, Rho JP. Economic aspects of antibacterial adverse effects. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;13:35–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    De Rijdt T, Willems L, Simoens S. Economic effects of clinical pharmacy interventions: a literature review. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2008;65:1161–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schumock GT, Butler MG, Meek PD, Vermeulen LC, Arondekar BV, Bauman JL. Evidence on the economic benefit of clinical pharmacy services: 1996–2000. Pharmacotherapy. 2003;23:113–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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
  21. 21.
    Ratanajamit C, Kaewpibal P, Setthawacharavanich S, Faroongsarng D. Effect of pharmacist participation in the health care team on therapeutic drug monitoring utilization for antiepileptic drugs. J Med Assoc Thai. 2009;92(11):1500–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rauh SS, Wadsworth EB, Weeks WB, Weinstein JN. The savings illusion—why clinical quality improvement fails to deliver bottom-line results. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(26):e48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara O. M. Claus
    • 1
  • Fien M. R. Vandeputte
    • 2
  • Hugo Robays
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PharmacyGhent University HospitalGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Department of PharmacyH.H. Hospital Roeselare-MenenRoeselareBelgium

Personalised recommendations