Objectives Current evidence to support non-medical prescribing is predominantly qualitative, with little evaluation of accuracy, safety and appropriateness. Our aim was to evaluate a new model of service for the Australia healthcare system, of inpatient medication prescribing by a pharmacist in an elective surgery preadmission clinic (PAC) against usual care, using an endorsed performance framework. Design Single centre, randomised controlled, two-arm trial. Setting Elective surgery PAC in a Brisbane-based tertiary hospital. Participants 400 adults scheduled for elective surgery were randomised to intervention or control. Intervention A pharmacist generated the inpatient medication chart to reflect the patient's regular medication, made a plan for medication perioperatively and prescribed venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis. In the control arm, the medication chart was generated by the Resident Medical Officers. Outcome measures Primary outcome was frequency of omissions and prescribing errors when compared against the medication history. The clinical significance of omissions was also analysed. Secondary outcome was appropriateness of VTE prophylaxis prescribing. Results There were significantly less unintended omissions of medications: 11 of 887 (1.2%) intervention orders compared with 383 of 1217 (31.5%) control (p<0.001). There were significantly less prescribing errors involving selection of drug, dose or frequency: 2 in 857 (0.2%) intervention orders compared with 51 in 807 (6.3%) control (p<0.001). Orders with at least one component of the prescription missing, incorrect or unclear occurred in 208 of 904 (23%) intervention orders and 445 of 1034 (43%) controls (p<0.001). VTE prophylaxis on admission to the ward was appropriate in 93% of intervention patients and 90% controls (p=0.29). Conclusions Medication charts in the intervention arm contained fewer clinically significant omissions, and prescribing errors, when compared with controls. There was no difference in appropriateness of VTE prophylaxis on admission between the two groups. Trial Registration Registered with ANZCTR—ACTR Number ACTRN12609000426280

Purpose: Oral mucositis is a common complication during haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). This study aimed to assess the incidence of severe mucositis in patients undergoing different HSCT regimens. Methods: This single-centre retrospective study reviewed daily oral assessment for 467 consecutive patients who underwent different transplant regimens for matched unrelated or related allogeneic HSCT with post-transplant methotrexate, haploidentical or mismatched HSCT with post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy), or autologous HSCT. Oral care and cryotherapy with melphalan were used. Patient demographic data, oral mucositis WHO grade, use of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) were collected. Results: Grade 3–4 oral mucositis was common in myeloablative total body irradiation (TBI)-based regimens cyclophosphamide/ TBI (CyTBI) (71%) and fludarabine/ TBI (FluTBI) with PTCy (46%), as well as reduced-intensity fludarabine/melphalan (FluMel) (43%) and carmustine/etoposide/cytarabine/melphalan (BEAM) autologous HSCT (41%). In contrast, grade 3–4 oral mucositis was less common in reduced-intensity haploidentical regimen melphalan/fludarabine/TBI with PTCy (19%), all non-myeloablative regimens (0–9%) and high-dose melphalan autologous HSCT (26%). TPN and PCA use were correlated to oral mucositis severity. Conclusions: Severe oral mucositis was associated with myeloablative TBI, methotrexate and melphalan in combination with methotrexate and in BEAM. Use of PTCy was preferable over methotrexate to prevent oral mucositis.