Sara E Ibrahim1
,
Shoroq Al-Gadi2,
Mohammed A El-Sisi3,
Mohammed A Alrifai4,
Mona Maher5,
Amina Ibrahim Badawy6,
Huda Mahmoud Saadat7,
Hammad Yahia Abdoh8,
Mai Mostafa Hegazy9,
Rasha Saad Abdalhamid6,
Briegeen Girvin10
For correspondence:- Sara Ibrahim Email: Se.Ibrahim@amc.edu.sa Tel:00966-549575056
Received: 9 February 2025 Accepted: 2 September 2025 Published: 30 September 2025
Citation: Ibrahim SE, Al-Gadi S, El-Sisi MA, Alrifai MA, Maher M, Badawy AI, et al. Impact of pharmacist independent prescription on critical care: A prospective interventional study in Madinah, Saudi Arabia. Trop J Pharm Res 2025; 24(9):1185-1192 doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/tjpr.v24i9.11
© 2025 The authors.
This is an Open Access article that uses a funding model which does not charge readers or their institutions for access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) and the Budapest Open Access Initiative (http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read), which permit unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited..
Purpose: To compare the impact of pharmacist independent prescribers (PIPs) with that of regular physician-based prescriptions in the Madinah Region, Saudi Arabia. Methods: This prospective interventional study was conducted over 4 months and involved 40 critically ill patients in an adult medical intensive care unit (ICU) in a medium-sized non-teaching (private) hospital in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Data from 20 patients based on typical physician prescriptions were compared with data from 20 patients under PIP prescriptions. The primary outcomes comprised the rate of medication errors (MEs), length of hospital stay (LOS), cost-effectiveness of prescriptions, and patients’ status. The secondary outcomes were guideline adherence and mortality rates. Results: There were significant PIP-mediated reductions in MEs. A total of 156 errors were identified: 23 by PIP (14 %) and 133 (86 %) by physicians. Moreover, PIP had 75 % guideline adherence when compared to physicians. The difference in cost-effectiveness was statistically significant in favor of PIP, resulting in a lower LOS of 7½ days compared to the physician group. Conclusion: These results indicate that integrating PIP into a multidisciplinary team will enhance medication use, reduce the rate of MEs, improve cost-effectiveness, and enhance patients’ outcomes. Further studies with larger sample size are needed to measure the effect of PIP on mortality rate.