Multicomponent Pharmacist Intervention Did Not Reduce Clinically Important Medication Errors for Ambulatory Patients Initiating Direct Oral Anticoagulants.

BACKGROUND: Anticoagulants including direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are among the highest-risk medications in the United States. We postulated that routine consultation and follow-up from a clinical pharmacist would reduce clinically important medication errors (CIMEs) among patients beginning or resuming a DOAC in the ambulatory care setting. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention for reducing CIMEs. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Ambulatory patients initiating a DOAC or resuming one after a complication. INTERVENTION: Pharmacist evaluation and monitoring based on the implementation of a recently published checklist. Key elements included evaluation of the appropriateness of DOAC, need for DOAC affordability assistance, three pharmacist-initiated telephone consultations, access to a DOAC hotline, documented hand-off to the patient's continuity provider, and monitoring of follow-up laboratory tests. CONTROL: Coupons and assistance to increase the affordability of DOACs. MAIN MEASURE: Anticoagulant-related CIMEs (Anticoagulant-CIMEs) and non-anticoagulant-related CIMEs over 90 days from DOAC initiation; CIMEs identified through masked assessment process including two physician adjudication of events presented by a pharmacist distinct from intervention pharmacist who reviewed participant electronic medical records and interview data. ANALYSIS: Incidence and incidence rate ratio (IRR) of CIMEs (intervention vs. control) using multivariable Poisson regression modeling. KEY RESULTS: A total of 561 patients (281 intervention and 280 control patients) contributed 479 anticoagulant-CIMEs including 31 preventable and ameliorable ADEs and 448 significant anticoagulant medication errors without subsequent documented ADEs (0.95 per 100 person-days). Failure to perform required blood tests and concurrent, inappropriate usage of a DOAC with aspirin or NSAIDs were the most common anticoagulant-related CIMEs despite pharmacist documentation systematically identifying these issues when present. There was no reduction in anticoagulant-related CIMEs among intervention patients (IRR 1.17; 95% CI 0.98-1.42) or non-anticoagulant-related CIMEs (IRR 1.05; 95% CI 0.80-1.37). CONCLUSION: A multi-component intervention in which clinical pharmacists implemented an evidence-based DOAC Checklist did not reduce CIMEs. NIH TRIAL NUMBER: NCT04068727.

SUPPORT-AF II: Supporting Use of Anticoagulants Through Provider Profiling of Oral Anticoagulant Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation: A Cluster-Randomized Study of Electronic Profiling and Messaging Combined With Academic Detailing for Providers Making Decisions About Anticoagulation in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Previous provider-directed electronic messaging interventions have not by themselves improved anticoagulation use in patients with atrial fibrillation. Direct engagement with providers using academic detailing coupled with electronic messaging may overcome the limitations of the prior interventions. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomized outpatient providers affiliated with our health system in a 2.5:1 ratio to our electronic profiling/messaging combined with academic detailing intervention. In the intervention, we emailed providers monthly reports of their anticoagulation percentage relative to peers for atrial fibrillation patients with elevated stroke risk (CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2). We also sent electronic medical record-based messages shortly before an appointment with an anticoagulation-eligible but untreated atrial fibrillation patient. Providers had the option to send responses with explanations for prescribing decisions. We also offered to meet with intervention providers using an academic detailing approach developed based on knowledge gaps discussed in provider focus groups. To assess feasibility, we tracked provider review of our messages. To assess effectiveness, we measured the change in anticoagulation for patients of intervention providers relative to controls. We identified 85 intervention and 34 control providers taking care of 3591 and 1908 patients, respectively; 33 intervention providers participated in academic detailing. More than 80% of intervention providers read our emails, and 98% of the time a provider reviewed our in-basket messages. Replies to messages identified patient refusal as the most common reason for patients not being on anticoagulation (11.2%). For the group of patients not on anticoagulation at baseline assigned to an intervention versus control provider, the adjusted percent increase in the use of anticoagulation over 6 months was 5.2% versus 7.4%, respectively (P=0.21). CONCLUSIONS: Our electronic messaging and academic detailing intervention was feasible but did not increase anticoagulation use. Patient-directed interventions or provider interventions targeting patients declining anticoagulation may be necessary to raise the rate of anticoagulation. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03583008.

Reducing Hospitalizations and Emergency Department Visits in Patients With Venous Thromboembolism Using a Multicomponent Care Transition Intervention.

Preventing utilization of hospital and emergency department after diagnosis of venous thromboembolism is a complex problem. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of a care transition intervention on hospitalizations and emergency department visits after venous thromboembolism. We randomized adults diagnosed with a new episode of venous thromboembolism to usual care or a multicomponent intervention that included a home pharmacist visit in the week after randomization (typically occurring at time of discharge), illustrated medication instructions distributed during home visit, and a follow-up phone call with an anticoagulation expert scheduled for 8 to 30 days from time of randomization. Through physician chart review of the 90 days following randomization, we measured the incidence rate of hospital and emergency department visits for each group and their ratio. We also determined which visits were related to recurrent venous thromboembolism, bleeding, or anticoagulation and which where preventable. We enrolled 77 intervention and 85 control patients. The incidence rate was 4.50 versus 6.01 visits per 1000 patient days in the intervention versus control group (incidence rate ratio = 0.71; 95% confidence interval = 0.40-1.27). Most visits in the control group were not related to venous thromboembolism or bleeding (21%) and of those that were, most were not preventable (25%). The adjusted incidence rate ratio for the intervention was 1.05 (95% confidence interval = 0.57-1.91). Our patients had a significant number of hospital and emergency department visits after diagnosis. Most visits were not related to recurrent venous thromboembolism or bleeding and of those that were, most were not preventable. Our multicomponent intervention did not decrease hospitalizations and emergency department visits.