METHODS: This study included participants from the intervention arm of a randomised controlled trial which was conducted to evaluate the effects of pharmacist-led interventions on CML patients treated with TKIs. Participants were recruited and followed up in the haematology clinics of two hospitals in Malaysia from March 2017 to January 2019. A pharmacist identified DRPs and helped to resolve them. Patients were followed-up for six months, and their DRPs were assessed based on the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe Classification for DRP v7.0. The identified DRPs, the pharmacist's interventions, and the acceptance and outcomes of the interventions were recorded. A Poisson multivariable regression model was used to analyse factors associated with the number of identified DRPs per participant.
RESULTS: A total of 198 DRPs were identified from 65 CML patients. The median number of DRPs per participants was 3 (interquartile range: 2, 4). Most participants (97%) had at least one DRP, which included adverse drug events (45.5%), treatment ineffectiveness (31.5%) and patients' treatment concerns or dissatisfaction (23%). The 228 causes of DRPs identified comprised the following: lack of disease or treatment information, or outcome monitoring (47.8%), inappropriate drug use processes (23.2%), inappropriate patient behaviour (19.9%), suboptimal drug selection (6.1%), suboptimal dose selection (2.6%) and logistic issues in dispensing (0.4%). The number of concomitant medications was significantly associated with the number of DRPs (adjusted Odds Ratio: 1.100; 95% CI: 1.005, 1.205; p = 0.040). Overall, 233 interventions were made. These included providing patient education on disease states or TKI-related side effects (75.1%) and recommending appropriate instructions for taking medications (7.7%). Of the 233 interventions, 94.4% were accepted and 83.7% were implemented by the prescriber or patient. A total of 154 DRPs (77.3%) were resolved.
CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacist-led interventions among CML patients managed to identify various DRPs, were well accepted by both TKI prescribers and patients, and had a high success rate of resolving the DRPs.
METHODS: The study consisted of two phases. In Phase 1, a 10-item instrument (SAIL-10) was developed and tested on a cohort of medical and pharmacy students who attended the workshop. In Phase 2, different cohorts of medical and pharmacy students completed SAIL-10 before and after participating in the workshop.
RESULTS: Factor analysis showed that SAIL-10 has two domains: "facilitators of interprofessional learning" and "acceptance to learning in groups". The overall SAIL-10 and the two domains have adequate internal consistency and stable reliability. The total score and scores for the two domains were significantly higher after students attended the prescribing skills workshop.
CONCLUSIONS: This study produced a valid and reliable instrument, SAIL-10 which was used to demonstrate that the prescribing skills workshop, where medical and pharmacy students were placed in an authentic context, was a promising activity to promote interprofessional learning among future healthcare professionals.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to explore the barriers and facilitators to SMBG, in people with type 2 diabetes using insulin.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Qualitative methodology was employed to explore participants' experience with SMBG. Semistructured, individual in-depth interviews were conducted on people with type 2 diabetes using insulin who had practiced SMBG, in the primary care clinic of a teaching hospital in Malaysia. Participants were purposively sampled from different age groups, ethnicity, education level, and level of glycemic control (as reflected by the glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c]), to achieve maximum variation in sampling. All interviews were conducted using a topic guide and were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, checked, and analyzed using a thematic approach.
RESULTS: A total of 15 participants were interviewed, and thematic saturation was reached. The factors that influenced SMBG were mainly related to cost, participants' emotion, and the SMBG process. The barriers identified included: frustration related to high blood glucose reading; perception that SMBG was only for insulin titration; stigma; fear of needles and pain; cost of test strips and needles; inconvenience; unconducive workplace; and lack of motivation, knowledge, and self-efficacy. The facilitators were: experiencing hypoglycemic symptoms; desire to see the effects of dietary changes; desire to please the physician; and family motivation.
CONCLUSION: Participants' perceptions of the purpose of SMBG, the emotions associated with SMBG, and the complexity, pain, and cost related to SMBG as well as personal and family motivation are the key factors that health care providers must consider when advising people with diabetes on SMBG.
Patients and methods: Participants received either usual care or CCM by a team of health care professionals including pharmacists, nurses, dietitians, and general practitioners. The participants in the intervention group received medication counseling, adherence, and dietary advice from the health care team. The QoL was measured using the EQ-5D (EuroQoL-five dimension, health-related quality of life questionnaire) and comparison was made between usual care and intervention groups at the beginning and end of the study at 6 months.
Results: Mean (standard deviation) EQ-5D index scores improved significantly in the intervention group (0.92±0.10 vs 0.95±0.08; P≤0.01), but not in the usual care group (0.94±0.09 vs 0.95±0.09; P=0.084). Similarly, more participants in the intervention group reported improvements in their QoL compared with the usual care group, especially in the pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression dimensions.
Conclusion: The implementation of the CCM resulted in significant improvement in QoL. An interdisciplinary team CCM approach should be encouraged, to ultimately result in behavior changes and improve the QoL of the patients.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study involved direct, undisguised observations of drug administrations in two pediatric wards of a major teaching hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. This study consisted of two phases: Phase 1 (pre-intervention) and Phase 2 (post-intervention). Data were collected by two observers over a 40-day period in both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the study. Both observers were pharmacy graduates: Observer 1 just completed her undergraduate pharmacy degree, whereas Observer 2 was doing her one-year internship as a provisionally registered pharmacist in the hospital under study. A drug administration error was defined as a discrepancy between the drug regimen received by the patient and that intended by the prescriber and also drug administration procedures that did not follow standard hospital policies and procedures. Results from Phase 1 of the study were analyzed, presented and discussed with the ward staff before commencement of data collection in Phase 2.
RESULTS: A total of 1,284 and 1,401 doses of drugs were administered in Phase 1 and Phase 2, respectively. The rate of drug administration errors reduced significantly from Phase 1 to Phase 2 (44.3% versus 28.6%, respectively; P<0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that the adjusted odds of drug administration errors in Phase 1 of the study were almost three times that in Phase 2 (P<0.001). The most common types of errors were incorrect administration technique and incorrect drug preparation. Nasogastric and intravenous routes of drug administration contributed significantly to the rate of drug administration errors.
CONCLUSION: This study showed that sharing of the types of errors that had occurred was significantly associated with a reduction in drug administration errors.
METHODS: A parallel RCT was conducted in two hospitals in Malaysia, where 129 CML patients were randomised to MMS or control (usual care) groups using a stratified 1:1 block randomisation method. The 6-month MMS included three face-to-face medication use reviews, CML and TKI-related education, two follow-up telephone conversations, a printed information booklet and two adherence aids. Medication adherence (primary outcome), molecular responses and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores were assessed at baseline, 6th and 12th month. Medication adherence and HRQoL were assessed using medication possession ratio and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment in Cancer questionnaire (EORTC_QLQ30_CML24) respectively.
RESULTS: The MMS group (n = 65) showed significantly higher adherence to TKIs than the control group (n = 64) at 6th month (81.5% vs 56.3%; p = 0.002), but not at 12th month (72.6% vs 60.3%; p = 0.147). In addition, a significantly higher proportion of participants in the MMS group achieved major molecular response at 6th month (58.5% vs 35.9%; p = 0.010), but not at 12th month (66.2% vs 51.6%; p = 0.092). Significant deep molecular response was also obtained at 12th month (24.6% vs 10.9%; p = 0.042). Six out of 20 subscales of EORTC-QLQ30-CML24 were significantly better in the MMS group.
CONCLUSIONS: The MMS improved CML patients' adherence to TKI as well as achieved better clinical outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrial.gov (ID: NCT03090477).