Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 12040727

Reengineering a pharmacist intervention program.

Steven T Johnson·Gerard C Brown·Kelly M Shea
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

At the beginning of a period of rapid growth in clinical pharmacy services in our integrated health system, we realized that there was no mechanism to address how pharmacist interventions were processed, evaluated, and followed up. Interventions were inconsistently documented, and the documentation served no more purpose than to record workload statistics. There was little assessment of the value or quality of interventions, no peer review, and no reporting of aggregate data to improve system-related problems. How are others handling the documentation and assessment of pharmacist interventions?

Explore related subjects

DocumentationHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePharmacistsPharmacy AdministrationPharmacy Service, HospitalProfessional RoleWorkforceJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Steven T Johnson, Gerard C Brown, Kelly M Shea. 2002-05-15. Reengineering a pharmacist intervention program.. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp%2F59.10.916

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2004

[Erroneous and unsatisfactory filling in of drug charts--a potential source of medication error].

BACKGROUND: Medication errors may have serious consequences for patients and erroneous drug charts represent one of several causes of error. As part of a quality assurance survey, we studied whether user documentation on the charts was in accordance with the guidelines for chart keeping. MATERIAL AND METHODS: On the same day, the drug charts of all hospitalized patients (n = 401) were copied and a representative sample of 207 charts was reviewed. RESULTS: 15 charts had no prescriptions; 14 of the remaining 192 charts (7 %) were correctly filled in. 152 charts (79 %) had deviations that we considered might pose only minor potential health risk; 26 (14 %) had deviations implying potential risk. No charts had deviations considered to pose major risk. INTERPRETATION: Several deviations from the guidelines were found and better training is needed; we recommend standardisation of drug charts and guidelines.

Documentation↗