Background Safe, effective therapy with the antimicrobial gentamicin requires good practice in dose selection and monitoring of serum levels. Suboptimal therapy occurs with breakdown in the process of drug dosing, serum blood sampling, laboratory processing and level interpretation. Unintentional underdosing may result. This improvement effort aimed to optimise this process in an academic teaching hospital using Six Sigma process improvement methodology. Methods A multidisciplinary project team was formed. Process measures considered critical to quality were defined, and baseline practice was examined through process mapping and audit. Root cause analysis informed improvement measures. These included a new dosing and monitoring schedule, and standardised assay sampling and drug administration timing which maximised local capabilities. Three iterations of the improvement cycle were conducted over a 24-month period. Results The attainment of serum level sampling in the required time window improved by 85% (p≤0.0001). A 66% improvement in accuracy of dosing was observed (p≤0.0001). Unnecessary dose omission while awaiting level results and inadvertent disruption to therapy due to dosing and monitoring process breakdown were eliminated. Average daily dose administered increased from 3.39 mg/kg to 4.78 mg/kg/day. Conclusions Using Six Sigma methodology enhanced gentamicin usage process performance. Local process related factors may adversely affect adherence to practice guidelines for gentamicin, a drug which is complex to use. It is vital to adapt dosing guidance and monitoring requirements so that they are capable of being implemented in the clinical environment as a matter of routine. Improvement may be achieved through a structured localised approach with multidisciplinary stakeholder involvement.

Background: Medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists improve patient outcomes, but little is known about the associated economic outcomes, particularly in patients at higher risk of medicines-related harm. Aim: To conduct an economic cost-benefit analysis of pharmacists providing person-centred medicines reviews to patients with hyperpolypharmacy (prescribed ≥ 10 regular medicines) and/or at high risk of medicines-related harm across multiple general practice settings. Method: Service delivery costs were calculated based on the pharmacist’s salary, recorded timings, and a general practitioner fee. Direct cost savings were calculated from the cost change of patients’ medicines post review, projected over 1 year. Indirect savings were calculated using two models, a population-based model for avoidance of hospital admissions due to adverse drug reactions and an intervention-based model applying a probability of adverse drug reaction avoidance. Sensitivity analyses were performed using varying workday scenarios. Results: Based on 1471 patients (88.3% with hyperpolypharmacy), the cost of service delivery was €153 per review. Using the population-based model, net cost savings ranging from €198 to €288 per patient review and from €73,317 to €177,696 per annum per pharmacist were calculated. Using the intervention-based model, net cost savings of €651–€741 per review, with corresponding annual savings of €240,870–€457,197 per annum per pharmacist, were calculated. Savings ratios ranged from 181 to 584% across all models and inputs. Conclusion: Person-centred medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists for patients at high risk of medicines-related harm result in substantial cost savings. Wider investment in general practice pharmacists will be beneficial to minimise both patient harm and healthcare system expenditure.

Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of pharmacist‐led person‐centred medicines reviews in general practices on medicines appropriateness, polypharmacy indicators (high‐risk prescribing markers), and patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs). Methods: Four pharmacists conducted person‐centred medicines reviews in ten general practices between January 2021 and December 2022 for patients with hyperpolypharmacy (prescribed ≥10 regular medicines) and/or at high risk of medicines‐related harm. Prescribing recommendations were provided to the general practitioner and followed up with patients and/or healthcare professionals. In this single arm study, pre and post intervention: (1) polypharmacy indicators were documented, and for a sample of patients, the (2) Person‐Centred Medication Appropriateness Index (PC‐MAI) scores and (3) PROMs were gathered. Results: Of the 1471 included patients, the mean age was 76 years, 88.4% had hyperpolypharmacy, whilst the mean number of medicines was 13.8 pre and 12.3 post review. Of the 1056 polypharmacy indicator occurrences identified, 70.7% were resolved post review. Of the 194 patients with pre‐review and post‐review PC‐MAI scores, 99% had a reduction; the mean reduction was 17.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 15.8–18.8, P < .0001) per patient and 1.2 (95% CI 1.0–1.3, P < .0001) per medicine. PROMs were collected for 179 patients; 87.7% reported the review helped their medicines understanding, 63.1% their experience of side effects, 36.9% their ability to take medicines correctly, and 30.5% the impact of medicines on their daily activities. Conclusions: General practice pharmacist‐led person‐centred medicines reviews for patients with hyperpolypharmacy and/or at high risk of medicines‐related harm delivered substantial improvements in medicines appropriateness and patient‐reported outcomes, thus providing evidence to support their wider implementation.

Background: Implementation researchers often combine the Theoretical Domain Framework (TDF) and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) in their studies. However there is some debate on the merits of using multiple frameworks—whether they contribute to results or provide superfluous analysis. Our recent research combined the TDF and CFIR to identify determinants to widespread incorporation of patient held medication lists (PHML) in healthcare practice. The aim of this report is to provide guidance on the use of the TDF and CFIR; by assessing the degree of overlap between the two frameworks in their application to interviews about PHML. Methods: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals (HCPs) and non HCPs (people taking multiple medicines and caregivers).Interview data were transcribed and analysed using the TDF and CFIR. Within paired domains substantial intersection/overlap across constructs and domains within the two frameworks was classified as > 75% of coding references, consistent intersection/overlap was defined as > 50% and ≤ 75%, average intersection/overlap was defined as ≤ 50% and > 25% and non-substantial intersection/overlap was classified as ≤ 25% of coding references. Results: Interview data were collected from 39 participants – 21 HCPs and 18 non HCPs. Mapping of TDF domains to CFIR domains/constructs identified key determinants in six TDF domains: Environmental context & resources, Beliefs about capabilities, Beliefs about consequences, Social influences, Behavioural regulation and Social/professional role & identity; and five CFIR domains: Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, Characteristics of Individual and Process. A pattern of substantial intersection/overlap in coding emerged with broad TDF domains such as Environmental context & resources often linked to well-defined CFIR domains and constructs (e.g. design quality & packaging within Intervention Characteristics). Broad CFIR constructs such as knowledge & beliefs about intervention within Characteristics of Individuals also linked to more descriptive TDF domains like Beliefs about capabilities. In addition there was some unexpected non-substantial intersection/overlap in coding with the TDF domain Social influences less frequently linked to the CFIR Inner Setting domain and constructs such as networks and communications. Conclusions: Identifying intersections/overlaps in coding between CFIR and TDF can assist interpretation of findings in implementation research. The strengths of each framework were exploited in a reciprocal process which provided more information to broad/poorly defined domains and enabled identification of implementation determinants and innovation determinants.

Background: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) and their association with ADR-related hospital admissions in patients aged ≥ 65 years admitted acutely to the hospital. Methods: Information on medications and morbidities was extracted from the Adverse Drug Reactions in an Ageing Population (ADAPT) cohort (N = 798: N = 361 ADR-related admissions; 437 non-ADR-related admissions). PIP and PPOs were assessed using Beers Criteria 2019 and STOPP/START version 2. Multivariable logistic regression (adjusted odds ratios (aOR), 95%CI) was used to examine the association between PIP, PPOs and ADR-related admissions, adjusting for covariates (age, gender, comorbidity, polypharmacy). Results: In total, 715 (90%; 95% CI 87–92%) patients had ≥1 Beers Criteria, 555 (70%; 95% CI 66–73%) had ≥ 1 STOPP criteria and 666 patients (83%; 95% CI 81–86%) had ≥ 1 START criteria. Being prescribed at least one Beers (aOR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.00–2.77), or meeting STOPP (aOR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.79–1.45) or START (aOR = 0.72; 95%CI = 0.50–1.06) criteria or the number of PIP/PPO criteria met was not significantly associated with ADR-related admissions. Patients prescribed certain drug classes (e.g., antiplatelet agents, diuretics) per individual PIP criteria were more likely to have an ADR-related admission. Conclusion: There was a high prevalence of PIP and PPOs in this cohort but no association with ADR-related admissions.