Cian O'Mahony, Kieran Dalton, Leon O'Hagan, Kevin D Murphy, Clare Kinahan, Emma Coyle, Laura J Sahm, Stephen Byrne, Ciara Kirke
{"title":"对全科药剂师以人为本的药品审查进行经济成本效益分析。","authors":"Cian O'Mahony, Kieran Dalton, Leon O'Hagan, Kevin D Murphy, Clare Kinahan, Emma Coyle, Laura J Sahm, Stephen Byrne, Ciara Kirke","doi":"10.1007/s11096-024-01732-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists improve patient outcomes, but little is known about the associated economic outcomes, particularly in patients at higher risk of medicines-related harm.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To conduct an economic cost-benefit analysis of pharmacists providing person-centred medicines reviews to patients with hyperpolypharmacy (prescribed ≥ 10 regular medicines) and/or at high risk of medicines-related harm across multiple general practice settings.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Service delivery costs were calculated based on the pharmacist's salary, recorded timings, and a general practitioner fee. Direct cost savings were calculated from the cost change of patients' medicines post review, projected over 1 year. Indirect savings were calculated using two models, a population-based model for avoidance of hospital admissions due to adverse drug reactions and an intervention-based model applying a probability of adverse drug reaction avoidance. Sensitivity analyses were performed using varying workday scenarios.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Based on 1471 patients (88.4% with hyperpolypharmacy), the cost of service delivery was €153 per review. Using the population-based model, net cost savings ranging from €198 to €288 per patient review and from €73,317 to €177,696 per annum per pharmacist were calculated. Using the intervention-based model, net cost savings of €651-€741 per review, with corresponding annual savings of €240,870-€457,197 per annum per pharmacist, were calculated. Savings ratios ranged from 181 to 584% across all models and inputs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Person-centred medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists for patients at high risk of medicines-related harm result in substantial cost savings. Wider investment in general practice pharmacists will be beneficial to minimise both patient harm and healthcare system expenditure.</p>","PeriodicalId":13828,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy","volume":" ","pages":"957-965"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11286700/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Economic cost-benefit analysis of person-centred medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists.\",\"authors\":\"Cian O'Mahony, Kieran Dalton, Leon O'Hagan, Kevin D Murphy, Clare Kinahan, Emma Coyle, Laura J Sahm, Stephen Byrne, Ciara Kirke\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11096-024-01732-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists improve patient outcomes, but little is known about the associated economic outcomes, particularly in patients at higher risk of medicines-related harm.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To conduct an economic cost-benefit analysis of pharmacists providing person-centred medicines reviews to patients with hyperpolypharmacy (prescribed ≥ 10 regular medicines) and/or at high risk of medicines-related harm across multiple general practice settings.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Service delivery costs were calculated based on the pharmacist's salary, recorded timings, and a general practitioner fee. Direct cost savings were calculated from the cost change of patients' medicines post review, projected over 1 year. Indirect savings were calculated using two models, a population-based model for avoidance of hospital admissions due to adverse drug reactions and an intervention-based model applying a probability of adverse drug reaction avoidance. Sensitivity analyses were performed using varying workday scenarios.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Based on 1471 patients (88.4% with hyperpolypharmacy), the cost of service delivery was €153 per review. Using the population-based model, net cost savings ranging from €198 to €288 per patient review and from €73,317 to €177,696 per annum per pharmacist were calculated. Using the intervention-based model, net cost savings of €651-€741 per review, with corresponding annual savings of €240,870-€457,197 per annum per pharmacist, were calculated. Savings ratios ranged from 181 to 584% across all models and inputs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Person-centred medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists for patients at high risk of medicines-related harm result in substantial cost savings. Wider investment in general practice pharmacists will be beneficial to minimise both patient harm and healthcare system expenditure.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13828,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"957-965\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11286700/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-024-01732-y\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-024-01732-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Economic cost-benefit analysis of person-centred medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists.
Background: Medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists improve patient outcomes, but little is known about the associated economic outcomes, particularly in patients at higher risk of medicines-related harm.
Aim: To conduct an economic cost-benefit analysis of pharmacists providing person-centred medicines reviews to patients with hyperpolypharmacy (prescribed ≥ 10 regular medicines) and/or at high risk of medicines-related harm across multiple general practice settings.
Method: Service delivery costs were calculated based on the pharmacist's salary, recorded timings, and a general practitioner fee. Direct cost savings were calculated from the cost change of patients' medicines post review, projected over 1 year. Indirect savings were calculated using two models, a population-based model for avoidance of hospital admissions due to adverse drug reactions and an intervention-based model applying a probability of adverse drug reaction avoidance. Sensitivity analyses were performed using varying workday scenarios.
Results: Based on 1471 patients (88.4% with hyperpolypharmacy), the cost of service delivery was €153 per review. Using the population-based model, net cost savings ranging from €198 to €288 per patient review and from €73,317 to €177,696 per annum per pharmacist were calculated. Using the intervention-based model, net cost savings of €651-€741 per review, with corresponding annual savings of €240,870-€457,197 per annum per pharmacist, were calculated. Savings ratios ranged from 181 to 584% across all models and inputs.
Conclusion: Person-centred medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists for patients at high risk of medicines-related harm result in substantial cost savings. Wider investment in general practice pharmacists will be beneficial to minimise both patient harm and healthcare system expenditure.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy (IJCP) offers a platform for articles on research in Clinical Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Care and related practice-oriented subjects in the pharmaceutical sciences.
IJCP is a bi-monthly, international, peer-reviewed journal that publishes original research data, new ideas and discussions on pharmacotherapy and outcome research, clinical pharmacy, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacoeconomics, the clinical use of medicines, medical devices and laboratory tests, information on medicines and medical devices information, pharmacy services research, medication management, other clinical aspects of pharmacy.
IJCP publishes original Research articles, Review articles , Short research reports, Commentaries, book reviews, and Letters to the Editor.
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy is affiliated with the European Society of Clinical Pharmacy (ESCP). ESCP promotes practice and research in Clinical Pharmacy, especially in Europe. The general aim of the society is to advance education, practice and research in Clinical Pharmacy .
Until 2010 the journal was called Pharmacy World & Science.