PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - C Di Fiore-Faye
AU  - E Bouvet
AU  - M Vié
AU  - P Massip
AU  - JM Canonge
TI  - CPC-064 How is It Best to Report Pharmaceutical Interventions to a Medical Team? A Clinical Relevance Assessment
AID  - 10.1136/ejhpharm-2013-000276.521
DP  - 2013 Mar 01
TA  - European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy: Science and Practice
PG  - A188--A188
VI  - 20
IP  - Suppl 1
4099  - http://ejhp.bmj.com/content/20/Suppl_1/A188.2.short
4100  - http://ejhp.bmj.com/content/20/Suppl_1/A188.2.full
SO  - Eur J Hosp Pharm2013 Mar 01; 20
AB  - Background The clinical pharmacy department has recently started working with the medical team of the infectious and tropical diseases department. A pharmacy student, supervised by a clinical pharmacist, cheques 28 patient prescriptions daily. Purpose To evaluate the impact and quality of pharmaceutical interventions (PIs) issued over a period of 8 months. Materials and Methods All interventions are recorded and coded according to the criteria defined by the working group of the French Society of Clinical Pharmacy [1]. A note of the relevance is attributed by the pharmacist to each PI, according to Bayliff and Einarson’s scale [2]. Results In total, 1947 paper prescriptions were analysed. During this period, 980 patients were hospitalised, 133 (13.6%) were identified as having 209 PIs. Physicians accepted 168 interventions (80%), of which the pharmacist quantified the clinical relevance. A very significant clinical impact (level 2) was attributed to 36 PIs (21.5%), a significant clinical impact (level 1) to 77 (46%) and 54 PIs (32.5%) had an informative objective (level 0). No interventions had a vital clinical impact (level 3). For each level of relevance, the distribution of PIs was described according to the type of drug-related problems on the one hand and the type of pharmacists’ recommendations on the other hand. Highlighting the clinical impact of PIs increased the interest of physicians in pharmaceutical work. Consequently, they asked for pharmaceutical reports more frequently (twice a month instead of once a year). Conclusions The results reinforce the idea that a regular presence in care encourages collaboration between pharmacists and health care teams. ReferencesBedouch P, Charpiat B, Roubille R, et al, (2007). Site internet de la société française de pharmacie Clinique pour l’analyse des interventions pharmaceutiques: finalités, mode d’emploi et perspectives. J Pharm Clin 26(1), 40–4.Bayliff CD, Einarson TR, (1990). Physician assessment of pharmacist’s intervention: a method of estimating cost avoidance and determining quality assurance. Can J Hospi Pharm 43(4), 167–7. No conflict of interest.