Impact of preoperative pharmaceutical care consultation on medication errors in surgical patients: a comprehensive analysis

ABSTRACT

Objective

Assessing the impact of introducing preoperative pharmaceutical care consultations by analyzing the severity of prevented medication errors (MEs) and their potential effects on the surgical process.

Methods

Preoperative pharmaceutical care consultation was implemented in our hospital to assess the preoperative medication management of surgical patients between the pre-anesthesia consultation and the day of surgery. Pharmacists evaluated the appropriateness of medication management based on a consensus multidisciplinary institutional protocol. All errors identified between 2016 and 2020 were analyzed, and their severity and potential impact on surgery were standardized. A list of therapeutic groups was created to prioritize patients for consultations

Results

During the study period, 3,105 patients attended the consultations and 1,179 MEs were prevented. According to severity, 30.6% of MEs were classified as category E and 26.2% as D. The Number Needed to Treat to prevent a category E or higher ME (indicating potential harm to patients) was 5 patients. About 14.84% of MEs belonged to the prioritized drug groups. One hundred and thirteen errors would have resulted in a surgery delay of more than 24 h, and 175 errors were classified as G-H (irreversible damage).

Conclusions

This study highlights the effectiveness of pharmaceutical care consultations in preventing MEs and improving surgical outcomes.

KEYWORDS:

• Clinical pharmacists
• hospital pharmacist
• medication errors
• patient safety
• preoperative care

Declaration of interest

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Author contributions

Study concept and design: Gómez D, Ribed A, Giménez A. Acquisition of the data: Gómez D, Ribed A, Giménez A, Torroba B. Analysis and interpretation of the data: Gómez D. Drafting of the manuscript: Gómez D. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/14740338.2023.2292710

Reviewer disclosures

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Additional information

Funding

This paper was not funded.