Data were collected regarding availability for use of each source and allergy status. The GS-PAML was compared to each PAM, and disagreements were identified and categorised. Key findings  click here Data

were collected for 134 patients. Community pharmacy and nursing home staff were most accessible to researchers when undertaking the medication history (>90%), followed by GP staff (66%). Except for nursing home sources, agreement between PAML and GS-PAML was low (2–17% of patients, 44–77% of medications). The community pharmacy PAML most frequently agreed with the GS-PAML (17% of patients, 77% of medications) followed by GP staff (10% of patients, 69% of medications). Previous (within the last 6 months) discharge summaries (3% of patients, 49% of medications) and GP referral letters (2% of patients, 44% medications) agreed least frequently.

Nursing home (100%) Osimertinib datasheet and GP (91%) staff provided most accurate allergy information. Drug omission (>35%) was the most common disagreement for all sources except nursing home staff. GP staff and community pharmacy PAMLs contained a considerable proportion of commission discrepancies. Conclusion  Community pharmacy and GP staff were identified as the most available and accurate sources of PAM information and should be prioritised when undertaking admission medication reconciliation in a busy clinical environment. “
“Clinical pharmacists working in critical-care areas have a beneficial effect on a range of medication-related therapies including 17-DMAG (Alvespimycin) HCl improving

medication safety, patient outcomes and reducing medicines’ expenditure. However, there remains a lack of data on specific factors that affect the reason for and type of interventions made by clinical pharmacists, such as unit speciality. To compare the type of proactive medicines-related interventions made by clinical pharmacists on different critical-care units within the same institution. A retrospective evaluation of proactive clinical pharmacist recommendations, made in three separate critical-care areas. Intervention data were analysed over 18 months (general units) and 2 weeks for the cardiac and neurological units. Assessment of potential patient harm related to the medication interventions were made in the neurological and cardiac units. Overall, 5623, 211 and 156 proactive recommendations were made; on average 2.2, 3.8 and 4.6 per patient from the general, neurological and cardiac units respectively. The recommendations acceptance rate by medical staff was approximately 90% for each unit. The median potential severity of patient harm averted by the interventions were 3.6 (3; 4.2) and 4 (3.2; 4.4) for the neurological and cardiac units (P = 0.059).