Impact of Clinical Pharmacy Surveillance on Pharmacy Services: A Quality Improvement Project.

GOAL: The purpose of this quality improvement project was to retrospectively evaluate pharmacist time to clinical surveillance alert intervention before and after implementing a pharmacy-directed alert priority category across a large for-profit United States health system with well-established clinical pharmacy surveillance software integrated into the clinical pharmacy workflow. The findings contributed to a financial evaluation of pharmacist productivity compared with drug spend for pharmacy-directed interventions that included intravenous (IV)-to-oral-conversion and renal dosing opportunities. METHODS: A retrospective quality improvement pre-/postanalysis of deidentified, prepopulated clinical surveillance alert data for the preimplementation period of January 1, 2021, through September 30, 2021, was compared with that for the postimplementation period of November 1, 2021, to January 31, 2022, for 169 hospitals. Clinical pharmacist workflow was mapped pre- and postimplementation. The average time to alert intervention was calculated using the mean time in minutes between the alert firing within the software and when the pharmacist reviewed the alert, grouped by hospital, alert status, and priority category. Medications converted from IV to oral were assessed using the clinical surveillance software IV-to-oral calculator. Postimplementation renal dose cost savings were modeled using pharmacist-completed alerts by rule name that indicated a possible dose decrease based on the patient's renal function and current medication. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Time to alert intervention for all completed pharmacist interventions was reduced for high-priority alerts by 32.6 min (p < .001) and routine-priority alerts by 65.1 min (p = .147). Alerts that moved to the pharmacy-directed alert priority category resulted in a reduced time to alert intervention of 38.7 min (p = .003). Normalized average wholesale price (AWP) cost savings from IV-to-oral conversion within 3 days of conversion eligibility were $1,693,600 in the preimplementation period and $1,867,400 in the postimplementation period, a $173,700 increase in cost savings. A total of 7,972 completed postimplementation renal dose adjustments resulted in a modeled AWP normalized cost savings of $1,076,700. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Results indicated that optimizing clinical surveillance software alerts was effective and increased pharmacist productivity. Specifically, creating a pharmacy-directed alert category that pharmacists were able to complete by hospital policy or protocol improved workflow efficiency and increased IV-to-oral medication conversion cost savings. Further study is needed to validate the renal dose-modeled cost savings and address the financial benefits of quality measures to prevent acute kidney injury.

Utilizing Pharmacists to Optimize Medication Management Strategies During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

As the COVID-19 pandemic swept through the United States, our heath-system mobilized clinical pharmacy services to address critical clinical medication management needs. Reinforcing recommended medication management strategies for clinical pharmacists was key to successful implementation. Best practice strategies include converting patients from intravenous (IV) to oral medication, transitioning to IV push medication administration, evaluating standard medication administration timing, reviewing metered dose inhaler (MDI) and nebulizer utilization, using alternatives for medications in short supply, reviewing coronavirus disease COVID-19 treatment recommendations, reviewing COVID-19 patient care on interdisciplinary rounds, de-prescribing and de-escalating to eliminate unnecessary medications, and assessing for appropriate venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. These strategies served to help protect medication supply, reduce number of staff entries into patient rooms to conserve personal protective equipment, limit nursing time in patient rooms to reduce COVID-19 exposure risk, and to conserve compounding supplies. Here we present example medication management guidance as used by a large healthcare system during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Characteristics Contributing to a Pharmacy Services Excellence Model in a Large Health System.

Objective: To identify characteristics that contribute to and promote a pharmacy services center of excellence model in a large health system. Methods: In 2019, a survey was conducted of 161 acute care pharmacy departments of health system-affiliated hospitals. Information captured included pharmacy practice models, pharmacist resource allocation, training of pharmacy residents, postgraduate training and pharmacist certifications. Results were combined with clinical pharmacy metric performance and centralized electronic data to identify features of top performing pharmacy departments. Results: Survey results were received from 141 of 161 affiliated hospitals (88%). Hospitals with 100 to 299 beds comprised 54% (n = 16 of 30) of the hospitals "at goal" and 66% (n = 26 of 40) of hospitals with "opportunity". Hospitals with top performing pharmacy services had greater participation in interdisciplinary rounds, reporting "always" participating in Adult Critical Care (67% versus 43%) and Medical/Surgical (30% vs. 8%) rounds. Hospitals that trained pharmacy residents had a greater number of clinical pharmacy metrics at goal (5.89 ± 1.59 versus 4.16 ± 1.86, p < 0.001), employed more board-certified pharmacists (2.32 ± 1.49 versus 1.57 ± 1.62, p = 0.019), more postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) trained pharmacists (2.06 ± 1.33 versus 1.19 ± 1.19, p < 0.001) and more PGY2 trained pharmacists (0.58 ± 0.64 versus 0.19 ± 0.44, p = 0.002). When including several key hospital characteristics into a single model, hospitals that trained pharmacy residents were significantly associated with achieving "at goal" status (p = 0.011). Conclusion: Defining characteristics of a pharmacy services center of excellence model included "at goal" clinical pharmacy metrics performance, clinical pharmacist time dedicated to patient care activities, accredited pharmacy residency training programs, presence of pharmacists with advanced training or board certification and optimal operations and scheduling.

Pharmacy Services Reboot Roadmap: Resiliency During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Description Planning for resumption of patient care services during and following the impact of novel coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) while controlling costs are essential for pharmacy services resiliency. Implementation of a pharmacy services reboot roadmap across a 179 hospital health-system is described. The roadmap encompassed eight key areas: pharmacy leadership, staffing and scheduling, clinical pharmacy services, medication safety, medication supply, regulatory and compliance, team support opportunities, and financial stewardship. A supporting checklist and volume-based staffing plan are included as examples to assist pharmacy leaders in planning optimal pharmacy services support as patient volumes increase, particularly in the emergency department, surgical services and critical care areas. Resiliency strategies are provided as tangible planning considerations to assess the current status of, and prepare for, future operational and clinical pharmacy practice needs to support optimal patient care.

A quantitative evaluation of medication histories and reconciliation by discipline.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Medication reconciliation at transitions of care decreases medication errors, hospitalizations, and adverse drug events. We compared inpatient medication histories and reconciliation across disciplines and evaluated the nature of discrepancies. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients admitted from the emergency department at our 760-bed hospital. Eligible patients had their medication histories conducted and reconciled in order by the admitting nurse (RN), certified pharmacy technician (CPhT), and pharmacist (RPh). Discharge medication reconciliation was not altered. Admission and discharge discrepancies were categorized by discipline, error type, and drug class and were assigned a criticality index score. A discrepancy rating system systematically measured discrepancies. RESULTS: Of 175 consented patients, 153 were evaluated. Total admission and discharge discrepancies were 1,461 and 369, respectively. The average number of medications per participant at admission was 8.59 (1,314) with 9.41 (1,374) at discharge. Most discrepancies were committed by RNs: 53.2% (777) at admission and 56.1% (207) at discharge. The majority were omitted or incorrect. RNs had significantly higher admission discrepancy rates per medication (0.59) compared with CPhTs (0.36) and RPhs (0.16) (P < .001). RPhs corrected significantly more discrepancies per participant than RNs (6.39 vs 0.48; P < .001); average criticality index reduction was 79.0%. Estimated prevented adverse drug events (pADEs) cost savings were $589,744. CONCLUSIONS: RPhs committed the fewest discrepancies compared with RNs and CPhTs, resulting in more accurate medication histories and reconciliation. RPh involvement also prevented the greatest number of medication errors, contributing to considerable pADE-related cost savings.

Fall risk associated with inpatient medications.

PURPOSE: The association between fall risk and inpatient medications was evaluated. METHODS: A retrospective, case-control study was performed to compare the medication use of patients sustaining at least one fall during hospitalization (case group) with a control group of patients who did not fall. Data were collected from medical records and generated reports. A fall was defined by the hospital as an event in which the patient comes to rest on the floor from a lying, standing, or sitting position. Adult patients (≥18 years of age) admitted between January 1 and December 31, 2006, experiencing a fall at least 48 hours after hospital admission were included in the case group. Each case was matched with one control by age (within five years), sex, admission date (within 30 days), patient care unit, and length of stay. Medications administered within 48 hours before the fall for the case group or designated fall date and time for the control group were documented. RESULTS: Of the 414 documented fall events, 209 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of those patients, 96 matched control patients on all criteria. Significantly more case patients received a greater number of central nervous system (CNS) agents compared with matched control patients (p = 0.017). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of medications from all other drug classes or the total number of medications received by the groups. CONCLUSION: In a sample of hospitalized patients, CNS agents were significantly associated with falls.

Implementation of an electronic system for medication reconciliation.

PURPOSE: The feasibility of implementing an electronic system for targeted pharmacist- and nurse-conducted admission and discharge medication reconciliation and its effects on patient safety, cost, and satisfaction among providers and nurses were studied. METHODS: This study was conducted in two phases: a preimplementation phase and a postimplementation phase. In the preimplementation phase, admission medication histories and discharge medication counseling followed standard care processes. During postimplementation, pharmacists and nurses collaborated to electronically complete admission and discharge medication reconciliation documentation. Four reports were developed for medication reconciliation documentation: (1) home medication profile report, (2) home medication reconciliation report, (3) discharge medication reconciliation report, and (4) patient discharge medication report. Patients were contacted after discharge to measure their satisfaction with the medication counseling and medication instructions received. Health care providers completed a survey indicating their satisfaction with the electronic medication reconciliation processes. RESULTS: A total of 283 patients were included in the study. Patients in the postimplementation group took significantly more prescription and nonprescription medications, and their total number of medications significantly exceeded the number taken by the preimplementation group. Pharmacists completed significantly more dosage changes in the postimplementation phase than in the preimplementation phase. In the preimplementation phase, nurses identified more incomplete medication orders, dosage changes, and allergies than they did in the postimplementation phase. Patients in the postimplementation group reported a higher level of agreement on all survey items regarding adequate discharge medication instructions. CONCLUSION: Patients who had their medications electronically reconciled reported a greater understanding of the medications they were to take after discharge from the hospital, including medication administration instructions and potential adverse effects.

Effectiveness of half-dose versus full-dose influenza vaccine in health care workers.

PURPOSE: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study comparing the effectiveness of half-dose versus full-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) in health care workers was conducted. METHODS: The study was conducted at a 760-bed tertiary care community hospital. Study participants (n = 444) were hospital staff or employees over 18 years of age who were enrolled during a two-week period in October and November 2004. Participants were assigned to either full-dose (n = 222) or half-dose (n = 222) TIV. The participants completed a standardized questionnaire monthly from November 2004 through March 2005. The primary outcome was the incidence of influenza between the two groups; the secondary outcomes were self-reported days of work missed as a result of influenza and the proportion of participants in each group self-reporting signs and symptoms of influenza. Laboratory confirmation of influenza diagnosis was sought in participants reporting a clinical diagnosis by their physicians. Differences in the groups were analyzed with Fisher's exact test, with a < 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: There was no difference between the full-dose and half-dose groups in the diagnosis of influenza (4% versus 7%, p = 0.198). Laboratory confirmation of an influenza diagnosis occurred in one participant who received full-dose TIV. CONCLUSION: Half-dose TIV demonstrated a similar effectiveness to full-dose TIV, measured by the number of diagnoses of influenza and symptom survey of participating health care workers. Administration of half-dose TIV is an acceptable strategy for maximizing the number of vaccinations in health care workers, but additional studies are needed to confirm the comparable immunogenicity and effectiveness between the two doses.