ASHP national survey of pharmacy practice in hospital settings: Monitoring and patient education - 2009

Craig A. Pedersen, Philip J Schneider, Douglas J. Scheckelhoff

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

69 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose. Results of the 2009 ASHP national survey of pharmacy practice in hospital settings that pertain to monitoring and patient education are presented. Methods. A stratified random sample of pharmacy directors at 1364 general and children's medical-surgical hospitals in the United States were surveyed by mail. SDI Health supplied data on hospital characteristics; the survey sample was drawn from SDI's hospital database. Results. The response rate was 40.5%. Virtually all hospitals (97.3%) had pharmacists regularly monitor medication therapy in some capacity; nearly half monitored 75% or more of their patients. Over 92% had pharmacists routinely monitor serum medication concentrations or their surrogate markers, and most hospitals allowed pharmacists to order initial serum concentrations (80.1%) and adjust dosages (79.2%). interdisciplinary committees reviewed adverse drug events in 89.3% of hospitals. Prospective analysis was conducted by 66.2% of hospitals, and retrospective analysis was performed by 73.6%. An assessment of safety culture had been conducted by 62.8% of hospitals. Most hospitals assigned oversight for patient medication education to nursing (89.0%), but many hospitals (68.9%) reported that pharmacists provided medication education to 1-25% of patients. Computerized prescriber-order-entry systems with clinical decision support were in place in 15.4%, bar-code-assisted medication administration systems were used by 27.9%, smart infusion pumps were used in 56.2%, and complete electronic medical record systems were in place in 8.8% of hospitals. The majority of hospitals (64.7%) used an integrated pharmacy practice model using clinical generalists. Conclusion. Pharmacists were significantly involved in monitoring medication therapy. Pharmacists were less involved in medication education activities. Technologies to improve the use of medications were used in an increasing percentage of hospitals. Hospital pharmacy practice was increasingly integrated, with pharmacists having both distribution and clinical roles.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)542-558
Number of pages17
JournalAmerican Journal of Health-System Pharmacy
Volume67
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2010

Fingerprint

Patient Education
Pharmacists
Surveys and Questionnaires
Medication Systems
Clinical Decision Support Systems
Hospital Distribution Systems
Safety Management
Education
Infusion Pumps
Electronic Health Records
Nursing Education
Postal Service
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
Serum
Automatic Data Processing

Keywords

  • American society of health-system pharmacists
  • Computers
  • Data collection
  • Drug use
  • Hospital
  • Institutional
  • Medication orders
  • Patient education
  • Pharmaceutical services
  • Pharmacists
  • Pharmacy
  • Quality assurance
  • Technology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology
  • Health Policy

Cite this

ASHP national survey of pharmacy practice in hospital settings : Monitoring and patient education - 2009. / Pedersen, Craig A.; Schneider, Philip J; Scheckelhoff, Douglas J.

In: American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, Vol. 67, No. 7, 01.04.2010, p. 542-558.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{5f0d463a310f468abd06ae0bd6cd9612,
title = "ASHP national survey of pharmacy practice in hospital settings: Monitoring and patient education - 2009",
abstract = "Purpose. Results of the 2009 ASHP national survey of pharmacy practice in hospital settings that pertain to monitoring and patient education are presented. Methods. A stratified random sample of pharmacy directors at 1364 general and children's medical-surgical hospitals in the United States were surveyed by mail. SDI Health supplied data on hospital characteristics; the survey sample was drawn from SDI's hospital database. Results. The response rate was 40.5{\%}. Virtually all hospitals (97.3{\%}) had pharmacists regularly monitor medication therapy in some capacity; nearly half monitored 75{\%} or more of their patients. Over 92{\%} had pharmacists routinely monitor serum medication concentrations or their surrogate markers, and most hospitals allowed pharmacists to order initial serum concentrations (80.1{\%}) and adjust dosages (79.2{\%}). interdisciplinary committees reviewed adverse drug events in 89.3{\%} of hospitals. Prospective analysis was conducted by 66.2{\%} of hospitals, and retrospective analysis was performed by 73.6{\%}. An assessment of safety culture had been conducted by 62.8{\%} of hospitals. Most hospitals assigned oversight for patient medication education to nursing (89.0{\%}), but many hospitals (68.9{\%}) reported that pharmacists provided medication education to 1-25{\%} of patients. Computerized prescriber-order-entry systems with clinical decision support were in place in 15.4{\%}, bar-code-assisted medication administration systems were used by 27.9{\%}, smart infusion pumps were used in 56.2{\%}, and complete electronic medical record systems were in place in 8.8{\%} of hospitals. The majority of hospitals (64.7{\%}) used an integrated pharmacy practice model using clinical generalists. Conclusion. Pharmacists were significantly involved in monitoring medication therapy. Pharmacists were less involved in medication education activities. Technologies to improve the use of medications were used in an increasing percentage of hospitals. Hospital pharmacy practice was increasingly integrated, with pharmacists having both distribution and clinical roles.",
keywords = "American society of health-system pharmacists, Computers, Data collection, Drug use, Hospital, Institutional, Medication orders, Patient education, Pharmaceutical services, Pharmacists, Pharmacy, Quality assurance, Technology",
author = "Pedersen, {Craig A.} and Schneider, {Philip J} and Scheckelhoff, {Douglas J.}",
year = "2010",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2146/ajhp090596",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "67",
pages = "542--558",
journal = "American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy",
issn = "1079-2082",
publisher = "American Society of Health-Systems Pharmacy",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - ASHP national survey of pharmacy practice in hospital settings

T2 - Monitoring and patient education - 2009

AU - Pedersen, Craig A.

AU - Schneider, Philip J

AU - Scheckelhoff, Douglas J.

PY - 2010/4/1

Y1 - 2010/4/1

N2 - Purpose. Results of the 2009 ASHP national survey of pharmacy practice in hospital settings that pertain to monitoring and patient education are presented. Methods. A stratified random sample of pharmacy directors at 1364 general and children's medical-surgical hospitals in the United States were surveyed by mail. SDI Health supplied data on hospital characteristics; the survey sample was drawn from SDI's hospital database. Results. The response rate was 40.5%. Virtually all hospitals (97.3%) had pharmacists regularly monitor medication therapy in some capacity; nearly half monitored 75% or more of their patients. Over 92% had pharmacists routinely monitor serum medication concentrations or their surrogate markers, and most hospitals allowed pharmacists to order initial serum concentrations (80.1%) and adjust dosages (79.2%). interdisciplinary committees reviewed adverse drug events in 89.3% of hospitals. Prospective analysis was conducted by 66.2% of hospitals, and retrospective analysis was performed by 73.6%. An assessment of safety culture had been conducted by 62.8% of hospitals. Most hospitals assigned oversight for patient medication education to nursing (89.0%), but many hospitals (68.9%) reported that pharmacists provided medication education to 1-25% of patients. Computerized prescriber-order-entry systems with clinical decision support were in place in 15.4%, bar-code-assisted medication administration systems were used by 27.9%, smart infusion pumps were used in 56.2%, and complete electronic medical record systems were in place in 8.8% of hospitals. The majority of hospitals (64.7%) used an integrated pharmacy practice model using clinical generalists. Conclusion. Pharmacists were significantly involved in monitoring medication therapy. Pharmacists were less involved in medication education activities. Technologies to improve the use of medications were used in an increasing percentage of hospitals. Hospital pharmacy practice was increasingly integrated, with pharmacists having both distribution and clinical roles.

AB - Purpose. Results of the 2009 ASHP national survey of pharmacy practice in hospital settings that pertain to monitoring and patient education are presented. Methods. A stratified random sample of pharmacy directors at 1364 general and children's medical-surgical hospitals in the United States were surveyed by mail. SDI Health supplied data on hospital characteristics; the survey sample was drawn from SDI's hospital database. Results. The response rate was 40.5%. Virtually all hospitals (97.3%) had pharmacists regularly monitor medication therapy in some capacity; nearly half monitored 75% or more of their patients. Over 92% had pharmacists routinely monitor serum medication concentrations or their surrogate markers, and most hospitals allowed pharmacists to order initial serum concentrations (80.1%) and adjust dosages (79.2%). interdisciplinary committees reviewed adverse drug events in 89.3% of hospitals. Prospective analysis was conducted by 66.2% of hospitals, and retrospective analysis was performed by 73.6%. An assessment of safety culture had been conducted by 62.8% of hospitals. Most hospitals assigned oversight for patient medication education to nursing (89.0%), but many hospitals (68.9%) reported that pharmacists provided medication education to 1-25% of patients. Computerized prescriber-order-entry systems with clinical decision support were in place in 15.4%, bar-code-assisted medication administration systems were used by 27.9%, smart infusion pumps were used in 56.2%, and complete electronic medical record systems were in place in 8.8% of hospitals. The majority of hospitals (64.7%) used an integrated pharmacy practice model using clinical generalists. Conclusion. Pharmacists were significantly involved in monitoring medication therapy. Pharmacists were less involved in medication education activities. Technologies to improve the use of medications were used in an increasing percentage of hospitals. Hospital pharmacy practice was increasingly integrated, with pharmacists having both distribution and clinical roles.

KW - American society of health-system pharmacists

KW - Computers

KW - Data collection

KW - Drug use

KW - Hospital

KW - Institutional

KW - Medication orders

KW - Patient education

KW - Pharmaceutical services

KW - Pharmacists

KW - Pharmacy

KW - Quality assurance

KW - Technology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77950615316&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77950615316&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2146/ajhp090596

DO - 10.2146/ajhp090596

M3 - Article

C2 - 20237382

AN - SCOPUS:77950615316

VL - 67

SP - 542

EP - 558

JO - American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy

JF - American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy

SN - 1079-2082

IS - 7

ER -