Search

OBJECTIVES: In 2013, the PharmaHelp device was introduced to daily patient care at the University Hospital of Heidelberg in order to improve process and staff safety and health. It is a semiautomated device located in a safety workbench for aseptic preparation with weight-and-visual-supported process check as well as radio-frequency identification of bags and vials. METHODS: After qualification and a training period, several high-admixture-volume drugs were chosen stepwise to be prepared by the device. During a reporting period of 6 months, the number of processed production runs and produced bags were assessed as well as the productivity per hour of the device based on the processed admixing volume and time consumption for manual preprocessing and postprocessing steps. RESULTS: Weight conformity tests of 246 processed bags in 11 admixing-volume ranges showed 99.19% with a deviation of

Background Taking a complete medical history of patients before hospital admission includes an accurate assessment of the current drug history which provides the basis for appropriate pharmacotherapy during the stay in hospital and at discharge as we know from the literature, this is best performed by a clinical pharmacist. Purpose To evaluate specific aspects of medicines reconciliation by pharmacists performed as part of the clinical routine. Material and methods Throughout a 4 week pilot phase, 178 patients were seen by a pharmacist for medicines reconciliation. During an interview, the current medicines were assessed including brand name, administration form and strength, dosing scheme and temporarily discontinued treatment. Moreover, information about patients’ allergies, intolerances and concomitant diseases was collected. After verifying the medicines (check for omissions, duplications, dosing errors or drug interactions), the appropriate medicines were switched to the hospital drug formulary. If drug-related problems were found the attending physician was informed by the clinical pharmacist and possible solutions were discussed. As a follow-up, patients’ medical records were reviewed and physicians’, nurses’ and pharmacists’ feedback on the project was evaluated. Results Clinical pharmacists performed medicines reconciliation as part of the clinical routine. In the pilot phase, 133 patients were regularly taking medicines and 36 brought a medicines list, however, this list was out-of-date or differed from patients’ statements in many cases. The average total time required per patient was 18 (2–80) min. Frequent discrepancies or medicines errors were associated with fixed combinations, statins, ASA and bridging of anticoagulants. Feedback was generally positive although process optimisation possibilities were identified. Conclusion Our project has shown the successful integration of a clinical pharmacist in the clinical routine of preadmission. Pharmaceutical interventions were largely accepted by the physicians, (potential) medicines errors and critical drugs could be revealed, and new SOPs will be created. We intend to continue the project. References and/or acknowledgements No conflict of interest.

Background Oral anticancer drugs still contain some of the most critical issues in terms of right use and compliance. Patients need to be advised and guided concerning dosing schedules, risks and important supportive measures. Package sizes distributed by the pharmaceutical industry often contain more doses than one patient needs especially for short-term stays in the hospital. Purpose Our goal was to dispense patient-individual unit doses of oral anticancer drugs based on individual computerised prescriptions. Materials and Methods For this purpose we implemented evidence-based treatment regimens in the prescription software to prevent errors and support the use of standardised treatment plans. Additionally patient information leaflets were created. The first drugs to be computerised in this way were capecitabine and temozolomide. Results Individualised dispensing of oral anticancer drugs allows more extensive pharmaceutical care of these patients. In view of the risks described above oral anticancer drugs have to undergo a pharmaceutical plausibility cheque and the amount has to be found suitable according to the treatment regime before dispensing. Moreover, the available instructions for use e.g. treatment schedules including supportive measures and the patient information brochure improve the information flow and the safe use. Conclusions Due to the positive feedback from the operators we are extending the procedure to all oral anticancer drugs. No conflict of interest.