Obtaining medication histories via telepharmacy: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Medication reconciliation is an effective strategy to reduce medication errors upon hospital admission. The process involves obtaining a best possible medication history (BPMH), which can be both time-consuming and resource-intensive. During the COVID-19 pandemic, telepharmacy was used to reduce the risk of viral transmission. Telepharmacy is the remote provision of pharmacy-led clinical services, such as obtaining BPMHs, using telecommunications. However, the accuracy of telephone-obtained BPMHs has not yet been evaluated. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to evaluate the proportion of patients who have an accurate BPMH from the telephone-obtained BPMH compared to an in-person obtained BPMH. METHODS: This prospective, observational study took place in a large tertiary hospital. Recruited patients or carers had their BPMH obtained by a pharmacist over the telephone. The same patients or carers then had their BPMH conducted in-person to identify any deviations between the telephone-obtained and in-person obtained BPMH. All telephone-obtained BPMHs were timed with a stopwatch. Any deviations were categorised according to their potential consequence. An accurate BPMH was defined as having no deviations. Descriptive statistics were used to report all quantitative variables. A multivariable logistic regression was conducted to identify risk factors for patients and medications for having medication deviations. RESULTS: In total, 116 patients were recruited to receive both a telephone-obtained and in-person obtained BPMH. Of these, 91 patients (78%) had an accurate BPMH with no deviations. Of the 1104 medications documented across all the BPMHs, 1064 (96%) had no deviation. Of the 40 (4%) medication deviations, 38 were deemed low-risk (3%) and 2 high-risk (1%). A patient was more likely to have a deviation if they are taking more medications (aOR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.01-1.22; p < 0.05). A medication was more likely to have a deviation if it was regular non-prescription medication (aOR: 4.82; 95% CI: 2.14-10.82; p < 0.001) or 'when required' non-prescription medication (aOR: 3.12; 95% CI: 1.20-8.11; p = 0.02) or a topical medication (aOR: 12.53; 95% CI: 4.34-42.17; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Telepharmacy represents a reliable and time-efficient alternative to in-person BPMHs.

Building a pharmacy workforce from the ground up to support the COVID-19 vaccine rollout: lessons learned and recommendations.

The COVID-19 pandemic has required an unprecedented surge in the pharmacy workforce to support mass vaccination hubs. This review discusses the challenges faced while training and credentialing a surge pharmacy workforce and how these challenges were overcome. The process used for training and credentialing new employees has been described and recommendations and insights have been provided based on the lessons learned at two COVID-19 mass vaccination hubs in New South Wales. Operationalising one of the largest mass vaccination hubs in Australia required efficient training and credentialing of the pharmacy workforce. This process included the use of pharmacist-extenders such as students, assistants, and those from other healthcare and non-healthcare backgrounds. Training was optimised by using a flipped classroom model, so that the vaccine preparation process was provided via asynchronous online videos. The videos covered each step of vaccine dose preparation with visual cues to guide appropriate technique. On-site training involved use of simulation and checklists for credentialing. Many factors contributed to the success of this process, including the use of triaging and the re-allocation of personnel based on skill level, collaboration with the Sydney Pharmacy School to train and support a surge workforce involving students, initial on-site information technology support in the form of pharmacy superusers, the use of checklists and guides for troubleshooting, and assigned pharmacy educators to train new employees. The public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic forced us to rapidly adapt to build a pharmacy workforce in record time to support mass vaccination hubs. The recommendations and insights provided from our experience can guide future surges. Some of these concepts may also be applied to pharmacy practice in hospitals when resources are constrained.

Persistent postoperative opioid use after total hip or knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To identify the proportion of patients with continued opioid use after total hip or knee arthroplasty. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis searched Embase, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts for articles published from January 1, 2009, to May 26, 2021. The search terms (opioid, postoperative, hospital discharge, total hip or knee arthroplasty, and treatment duration) were based on 5 key concepts. We included studies of adults who underwent total hip or knee arthroplasty, with at least 3 months postoperative follow-up. RESULTS: There were 30 studies included. Of these, 17 reported on outcomes of total hip arthroplasty and 19 reported on outcomes of total knee arthroplasty, with some reporting on outcomes of both procedures. In patients having total hip arthroplasty, rates of postoperative opioid use at various time points were as follows: at 3 months, 20% (95% CI, 13%-26%); at 6 months, 17% (95% CI, 12%-21%); at 9 months, 19% (95% CI, 13%-24%); and at 12 months, 16% (95% CI, 15%-16%). In patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty, rates of postoperative opioid use were as follows: at 3 months, 26% (95% CI, 19%-33%); at 6 months, 20% (95% CI, 17%-24%); at 9 months, 23% (95% CI, 17%-28%); and at 12 months, 21% (95% CI, 12%-29%). Opioid naïve patients were less likely to have continued postoperative opioid use than those who were opioid tolerant preoperatively. CONCLUSION: Over 1 in 5 patients continued opioid use for longer than 3 months after total hip or knee arthroplasty. Clinicians should be aware of this trajectory of opioid consumption after surgery.

Proposed guidance on cost-avoidance studies in pharmacy practice.

PURPOSE: Cost-avoidance studies of pharmacist interventions are common and often the first type of study conducted by investigators to quantify the economic impact of clinical pharmacy services. The purpose of this primer is to provide guidance for conducting cost-avoidance studies pertaining to clinical pharmacy practice. SUMMARY: Cost-avoidance studies represent a paradigm conceptually different from traditional pharmacoeconomic analysis. A cost-avoidance study reports on cost savings from a given intervention, where the savings is estimated based on a counterfactual scenario. Investigators need to determine what specifically would have happened to the patient if the intervention did not occur. This assessment can be fundamentally flawed, depending on underlying assumptions regarding the pharmacists' action and the patient trajectory. It requires careful identification of the potential consequence of nonaction, as well as probability and cost assessment. Given the uncertainty of assumptions, sensitivity analyses should be performed. A step-by-step methodology, formula for calculations, and best practice guidance is provided. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-avoidance studies focused on pharmacist interventions should be considered low-level evidence. These studies are acceptable to provide pilot data for the planning of future clinical trials. The guidance provided in this article should be followed to improve the quality and validity of such investigations.

Can ultrasound novices develop image acquisition skills after reviewing online ultrasound modules?

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care ultrasound is becoming a ubiquitous diagnostic tool, and there has been increasing interest to teach novice practitioners. One of the challenges is the scarcity of qualified instructors, and with COVID-19, another challenge is the difficulty with social distancing between learners and educators. The purpose of our study was to determine if ultrasound-naïve operators can learn ultrasound techniques and develop the psychomotor skills to acquire ultrasound images after reviewing SonoSim® online modules. METHODS: This was a prospective study evaluating first-year medical students. Medical students were asked to complete four SonoSim® online modules (aorta/IVC, cardiac, renal, and superficial). They were subsequently asked to perform ultrasound examinations on standardized patients utilizing the learned techniques/skills in the online modules. Emergency Ultrasound-trained physicians evaluated medical students' sonographic skills in image acquisition quality, image acquisition difficulty, and overall performance. Data are presented as means and percentages with standard deviation. All P values are based on 2-tailed tests of significance. RESULTS: Total of 44 medical students participated in the study. All (100%) students completed the hands-on skills evaluation with a median score of 83.7% (IQR 76.7-88.4%). Thirty-three medical students completed all the online modules and quizzes with median score of 87.5% (IQR 83.8-91.3%). There was a positive association between module quiz performance and the hands-on skills performance (R-squared = 0.45; p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant association between module performance and hands-on performance for any of the four categories individually. In all four categories, the evaluators' observation of the medical students' difficulty obtaining views correlated with hands-on performance scores. CONCLUSIONS: Our study findings suggest that ultrasound-naïve medical students can develop basic hands-on skills in image acquisition after reviewing online modules.

Interleukin-6 Receptor Antagonists in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: We evaluated tocilizumab and sarilumab in an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial. Adult patients with Covid-19, within 24 hours after starting organ support in the intensive care unit (ICU), were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight), sarilumab (400 mg), or standard care (control). The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support to day 21. The trial uses a Bayesian statistical model with predefined criteria for superiority, efficacy, equivalence, or futility. An odds ratio greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. RESULTS: Both tocilizumab and sarilumab met the predefined criteria for efficacy. At that time, 353 patients had been assigned to tocilizumab, 48 to sarilumab, and 402 to control. The median number of organ support-free days was 10 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the tocilizumab group, 11 (interquartile range, 0 to 16) in the sarilumab group, and 0 (interquartile range, -1 to 15) in the control group. The median adjusted cumulative odds ratios were 1.64 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.14) for tocilizumab and 1.76 (95% credible interval, 1.17 to 2.91) for sarilumab as compared with control, yielding posterior probabilities of superiority to control of more than 99.9% and of 99.5%, respectively. An analysis of 90-day survival showed improved survival in the pooled interleukin-6 receptor antagonist groups, yielding a hazard ratio for the comparison with the control group of 1.61 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.08) and a posterior probability of superiority of more than 99.9%. All secondary analyses supported efficacy of these interleukin-6 receptor antagonists. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19 receiving organ support in ICUs, treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonists tocilizumab and sarilumab improved outcomes, including survival. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.).