Introduction and objectives Drug-related problems (DRPs) constitute a frequent safety issue among hospitalised patients leading to patient harm and increased healthcare costs. Because many DRPs are preventable, the specific risk factors that facilitate their occurrence are of considerable interest. The objective of our study was to assess risk factors for the occurrence of DRPs with the intention to identify patients at risk for DRPs to guide and target preventive measures where they are needed most in patients. Design Triangulation process using a mixed methods approach. Methods We conducted an expert panel, using the nominal group technique (NGT) and a qualitative analysis, to gather risk factors for DRPs. The expert panel consisted of two consultant hospital physicians (internal medicine and geriatrics), one emergency physician, one independent general practitioner, one clinical pharmacologist, one clinical pharmacist, one registered nurse, one home care nurse and two independent community pharmacists. The literature was searched for additional risk factors. Gathered factors from the literature search and the NGT were assembled and validated in a two-round Delphi questionnaire. Results The NGT resulted in the identification of 33 items with 13 additional risk factors from the qualitative analysis of the discussion. The literature search delivered another 39 risk factors. The 85 risk factors were refined to produce 42 statements for the Delphi online questionnaire. Of these, 27 risk factors were judged to be ‘important’ or ‘rather important’. Conclusions The gathered risk factors may help to characterise and identify patients at risk for DRPs and may enable clinical pharmacists to guide and target preventive measures in order to limit the occurrence of DRPs. As a further step, these risk factors will serve as the basis for a screening tool to identify patients at risk for DRPs.

What is known and objective The evaluation of clinical pharmacy services is essential for their further development and establishment. We analysed drug-related problems (DRPs) and subsequent clinical pharmacists’ interventions (PIs) at a Swiss university hospital. Method We conducted a retrospective analysis of DRPs and subsequent PIs that were identified and implemented during interdisciplinary ward rounds in internal medicine at the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland, between 2015 and 2017. We estimated the potential clinical and economic impact of PIs using a validated evaluation tool (CLEO_de). Results and discussion Based on medication reviews of 5441 patients, clinical pharmacists identified 5024 DRPs, of which 2892 DRPs (57.6%) were followed by a PI that was directly accepted and implemented by the physician in charge and included in the present analysis. The leading cause and type of PIs were inappropriate dose and dose adjustment, respectively. Overall, 97.8% of DRPs were followed by PIs with an expected clinical benefit for the patients (major: 11.1%; moderate: 27.6%; minor: 59.1%). The drugs most often involved in PIs of major clinical impact were antithrombotics, acid blockers and cardiovascular drugs. With regard to the economic impact, 40.7% of DRPs implied PIs resulting in an increase of immediate therapy costs, whereas 39.3% implied PIs resulting in a decrease of immediate therapy costs. The remaining PIs were cost-neutral. What is new and conclusion This study emphasizes that clinical pharmacists may help improve the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapy on acute care medical wards.

Introduction Identifying patients with a high risk for drug-related problems (DRPs) might optimise the allocation of targeted pharmaceutical care during the hospital stay and on discharge. Objective To develop a self-assessment screening tool to identify patients at risk for DRPs and validate the tool regarding feasibility, acceptability and the reliability of the patients’ answers. Design Prospective validation study. Setting Two mid-sized hospitals (300–400 beds). Participants 195 patients, exclusion criteria: under 18 years old, patients with a health status not allowing a meaningful communication (eg, delirium, acute psychosis, advanced dementia, aphasia, clouded consciousness state), palliative or terminally ill patients. Methods Twenty-seven risk factors for the development of DRPs, identified in a previous study, provided the basis of the self-assessment questionnaire, the Drug-Associated Risk Tool (DART). Consenting patients filled in DART, and we compared their answers with objective patient data from medical records and laboratory data. Results One hundred and sixty-four patients filled in DART V.1.0 in an average time of 7 min. After a first validation, we identified statements with a low sensitivity and revised the wording of the questions related to heart insufficiency, renal impairment or liver impairment. The revised DART (V.2.0) was validated in 31 patients presenting heart insufficiency, renal impairment or liver impairment as comorbidity and reached an average specificity of 88% (range 27–100) and an average sensitivity of 67% (range 21–100). Conclusions DART showed a satisfying feasibility and reliability. The specificity of the statements was mostly high. The sensitivity varied and was higher in statements concerning diseases that require regular disease control and attention to self-care and drug management. Asking patients about their conditions, medications and related problems can facilitate getting a first, broad picture of the risk for DRPs and possible pharmaceutical needs.

In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, Swiss health authorities approved and ordered two mRNA vaccines in 2021. The canton of Zurich was the second in Switzerland to allow community pharmacists to administer the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Moderna to the adult population. We aimed to pilot a customer satisfaction questionnaire regarding COVID-19 vaccinations in Zurich pharmacies. Questions focused on satisfaction with different aspects of the service, motivation for getting the vaccination, and reasons for being vaccinated in a pharmacy. Zurich pharmacies administered 68,169 COVID-19 doses until June 2021, and 421 questionnaires were filled. Respondents’ mean age was 43.5 (±13.2) years, with 42.3% reporting being women and 46.1% being men. Of the 372 complete questionnaires, 98.7% of the respondents would have recommended the service to others. High levels of satisfaction were reported concerning pre-vaccination discussion (98.9%), pharmacies’ information level on COVID-19 vaccines (98.9%), general comfort with receiving the vaccination in a pharmacy (99.5%), injection technique (99.2%), and premises used (98.1%). Most respondents (57.3%) would have had the option of another vaccination provider, but the pharmacies were chosen for their opening hours, ease of access, and perceived trust. The availability of pharmacist-administered services may be an important contributor to a successful vaccination programme in Switzerland.

Objectives The Drug-Associated Risk Tool (DART) has been developed as a self-administered questionnaire for patients with the aim of stratifying patients according to their risk of drug-related problems (DRPs). We aimed to validate the ability of the questionnaire to distinguish between hospitalised patients showing lower and higher numbers of DRPs. Design Cross-sectional study assessing the questionnaire’s concurrent criterion validity. Setting Five geriatric and the associated physical and neurological rehabilitation wards of a Swiss regional secondary care hospital with 617 beds. Participants We recruited 110 patients from a total of 437 admissions. Exclusion criteria were insufficient knowledge in spoken or written German, medical conditions preventing meaningful conversations and already receiving pharmacy services. Interventions Comprehensive pharmacist-led clinical medication reviews were performed, including patient interviews, to identify potential and manifest DRPs. A cluster analysis was conducted to assess the discriminatory potential of the DART to group patients according to number (low and high) of identified DRPs. A subsequent discriminatory function analysis was performed to reduce the number of items. We determined which DART items may be used to trigger what type of medication review. Results Recruited patients had a median age of 79 years and were prescribed a median of 11 drugs. Patients with a median DART score of 10 and a median of 3 DRPs represented one cluster, whereas patients with a median DART score of 15 and a median of 8 DRPs represented another cluster. Discriminatory function analysis reduced the questionnaire to five items with a moderate to strong correlation with the number of DRPs per patient (Spearman’s rank correlation ρ=0.44). Additional items were associated with patients benefiting from interviews. Conclusions As a self-administered questionnaire for patients, the DART may be used to stratify hospitalised non-acute older patients in groups of having low and high likelihood of DRPs. The analyses showed that a short form of the DART can be used instead of the full tool to identify older inpatients at risk for DRPs. Additional eight items from the DART may be used to initiate additional clinical pharmacy services. The linkage between certain DART questions and type of medication review enables pharmacist resource allocation.