Search

Objective: In recent years the therapeutic approach to patients with HIV has gone from being multidisciplinary to multidimensional, being vital to know the different aspects that define patients in order to outline the best care interventions for each patient. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of the individual characteristics (demographic and clinical, pharmacotherapeutic and HIV infection control data) of patients with HIV being followed up using the Capacity-Motivation-Opportunity methodology on the pharmaceutical interventions performed., Methods: A single-centre prospective observational study was conducted between February 2019 and January 2020. Patients with HIV aged ≥18 years on antiretroviral treatment and who were receiving pharmaceutical care based on the Capacity-Motivation-Opportunity methodology were included. Demographic, clinical and pharmaceutical variables and HIV infection control data were registered at baseline. To identify the independent variables associated with pharmaceutical interventions, a univariate logistic regression was performed., Results: Sixty-five patients were included in the study. A total of 129 pharmaceutical care consultations were performed and 909 pharmaceutical interventions were carried out: 503/909 (55.3%) capacity interventions, 381/909 (41.9%) motivation interventions, 25/909 (2.8%) opportunity interventions. The educational level had a significant influence on the opportunity (p=0.025) and transversal training interventions performed (p=0.001). A relationship was found between the antiretroviral therapy received and the development of safety interventions (p=0.037). The presence of polypharmacy significantly influenced concomitant review and validation (p=0.030) and motivation interventions (p=0.041). Adherence of ≥95% had a significant influence on the motivation interventions carried out (p=0.038). Stratification significantly influenced adherence interventions (p=0.033). The sex and age of the patients, as well as their toxic habits, presence of comorbidities, CD4+ cell count and HIV viral load, did not significantly influence the pharmaceutical interventions performed (p>0.05)., Conclusions: Our study has elucidated the pharmaceutical interventions carried out in a pharmaceutical care consultation for patients with HIV based on the Capacity-Motivation-Opportunity model and ascertained the individual characteristics (demographic and clinical, pharmacotherapeutic and HIV infection control data) that may have conditioned them., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© European Association of Hospital Pharmacists 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To describe the implementation of a unitary dose drug dispensation system (UDDDS) with computerized medical orders in an intensive care unit (ICU) including 10 multi-purpose offices, and to obtain a medication error index as an indicator of the process quality., Method: A UDDDS with computerized medical orders for intensive care was defined. By consensus among nurses, intensivists and pharmacists, the administration of high-risk drugs by perfusion or through a gastric tube was protocolized, and computerized medical orders were adapted to ICU dynamics, with both fluid therapy and enteral and parenteral nutrition becoming fully integrated. A prospective observational 8-month study with 15 cross-sectional time points was performed to estimate the overall error index and mean error per drug use process stage. The error index is estimated by dividing the number of errors into error opportunities, and is expressed as a percentage., Results: Computerized medical orders favored compliance with consensus protocols defined in software programs at the pharmacy department, even though the degree of adhesion degree was not quantitized. They also allowed a validation of all medical prescriptions by a pharmacist before dispensation. The total number of errors detected during the study period was 86. Error opportunities were 26,695, and the overall error index was 0.32%. During the study an error occurred every 312.5 error opportunities.