[Translated article] Implementation of the standardized process of drug therapy evaluation in inpatients and outpatients.

OBJECTIVES: The Pharmacotherapeutic follow-up program (PFU) carried out by the clinical pharmacist can be categorized within 3 fundamental activities; identification, resolution and prevention of adverse drug events. These must be adjusted to the requirements and resources of each institution, developing procedures to increase PFU efficiency and to guarantee patient safety. The clinical pharmacists of UC-CHRISTUS Healthcare Network developed a Standardized Pharmacotherapeutic Evaluation Process (SPEP). The main goal of our study is to evaluate the impact of this tool through the pharmacist evaluation number and pharmacist interventions number. Secondarily to determine the potential and direct cost savings associated with the pharmacist interventions in an Intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS: A quasi-experimental study evaluated the frequency and type of pharmacist evaluation and pharmacist interventions performed by clinical pharmacists in adult patients units of UC-CHRISTUS Healthcare Network, before and after the implementation of SPEP. The distribution of variables was evaluated using the Shapiro-Wilk test and the association between the use of SPEP and the pharmacist evaluation and pharmacist interventions number was performed using the Chi-square test. The cost evaluation associated with pharmacist interventions in the ICU was carried out using methodology proposed by Hammond et al. RESULTS: A total number of 1781 patients was evaluated before and 2129 after the SPEP. The pharmacist evaluation and pharmacist interventions number in the before-SPEP period were 5209 and 2246. In the after-SPEP period were 6105 and 2641, respectively. The increase in both the pharmacist evaluation and pharmacist interventions number was significant only in critical care patients. The potential cost saving in after-SPEP period in the ICU was USD 492,805. Major adverse drug events prevention was the intervention that generated the most savings with a reduction of 60.2%. The total direct savings for sequential therapy was USD 8072 in the study period.

CONCLUSIONS: This study shows a clinical pharmacist developed tool called SPEP that increased the pharmacist evaluation and pharmacist interventions number in multiple clinical scenarios. These were significant only in critical care patients. Future investigations should make effort to evaluate the quality and clinical impact of these interventions.