Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2014 Feb;22(1):59-68.
doi: 10.1111/ijpp.12039. Epub 2013 May 30.

Description and process evaluation of pharmacists' interventions in a pharmacist-led information technology-enabled multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial for reducing medication errors in general practice (PINCER trial)

Collaborators, Affiliations
Free PMC article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Description and process evaluation of pharmacists' interventions in a pharmacist-led information technology-enabled multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial for reducing medication errors in general practice (PINCER trial)

Rachel Howard et al. Int J Pharm Pract. 2014 Feb.
Free PMC article

Abstract

Objective: To undertake a process evaluation of pharmacists' recommendations arising in the context of a complex IT-enabled pharmacist-delivered randomised controlled trial (PINCER trial) to reduce the risk of hazardous medicines management in general practices.

Methods: PINCER pharmacists manually recorded patients' demographics, details of interventions recommended, actions undertaken by practice staff and time taken to manage individual cases of hazardous medicines management. Data were coded, double-entered into SPSS version 15 and then summarised using percentages for categorical data (with 95% confidence interval (CI)) and, as appropriate, means (± standard deviation) or medians (interquartile range) for continuous data.

Key findings: Pharmacists spent a median of 20 min (interquartile range 10, 30) reviewing medical records, recommending interventions and completing actions in each case of hazardous medicines management. Pharmacists judged 72% (95% CI 70, 74; 1463/2026) of cases of hazardous medicines management to be clinically relevant. Pharmacists recommended 2105 interventions in 74% (95% CI 73, 76; 1516/2038) of cases and 1685 actions were taken in 61% (95% CI 59, 63; 1246/2038) of cases; 66% (95% CI 64, 68; 1383/2105) of interventions recommended by pharmacists were completed and 5% (95% CI 4, 6; 104/2105) of recommendations were accepted by general practitioners (GPs), but not completed at the end of the pharmacists' placement; the remaining recommendations were rejected or considered not relevant by GPs.

Conclusions: The outcome measures were used to target pharmacist activity in general practice towards patients at risk from hazardous medicines management. Recommendations from trained PINCER pharmacists were found to be broadly acceptable to GPs and led to ameliorative action in the majority of cases. It seems likely that the approach used by the PINCER pharmacists could be employed by other practice pharmacists following appropriate training.

Keywords: medicines management; monitoring; patient safety; pharmacist; prescribing; primary care.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Tache SV, et al. Prevalence of adverse drug events in ambulatory care: a systematic review. Ann Pharmacother. 2011;45:977–989. - PubMed
    1. Kaboli PJ, et al. Clinical pharmacists and inpatient medical care: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:955–964. - PubMed
    1. Bladh L, et al. Effects of a clinical pharmacist service on health-related quality of life and prescribing of drugs: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20:738–746. - PubMed
    1. The Audit Commission. A Spoonful of Sugar: Medicines Management in NHS Hospitals. Wetherby: Audit Commission Publications; 2001.
    1. Royal S, et al. Interventions in primary care to reduce medication related adverse events and hospital admissions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15:23–31. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types