Impact of a perioperative oral opioid substitution protocol during the nationwide intravenous opioid shortage: A single center, interrupted time series with segmented regression analysis.

INTRODUCTION: To mitigate the recent nationwide shortage of intravenous opioids, we developed a standardized perioperative oral opioid guideline anchored with appropriate use of nonopioid analgesia, neuraxial and loco-regional techniques. We hypothesize that adoption of this new guideline was associated with: 1) equivalent patient reported pain scores in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU); and 2) equivalent total opioid use (oral and parenteral) during the perioperative period. METHODS: Cases performed from July 1, 2017 to May 31, 2019 were screened. All opioids administered were converted to intravenous morphine milligram equivalents. Segmented regression analyses of interrupted time series were performed examining the change in opioid use, PACU pain scores and number of non-opioid analgesic medications used before and after the protocol implementation in April 2018. RESULTS: After exclusions, 29, 621 cases were included in the analysis. No significant differences in demographic, ASA status, case length and surgical procedure type were present in the pre and post-intervention period. A significant decrease in total (Estimate: -39.9 mg, SE: 6.9 mg, p < 0.001) and parenteral (Estimate: -51.6 mg, SE: 7.1 mg, p < 0.001) opioid use with a significant increase in oral opioid use (Estimate: 9.4 mg, SE: 1.1 mg, p < 0.001) was noted after the intervention. Pain scores were not significantly different between the pre- and post-intervention period (Estimate: 0.05, SE: 0.13, p = 0.69). CONCLUSION: We report our experience with a primary perioperative oral based opioid regimen that is associated with decreased total opioid consumption and equivalent patient reported pain scores.

Clinical and Procedural Evaluation of a Pharmacy Pharmacokinetic Consult Service.

PURPOSE: Though previous studies have shown benefit with pharmacist-managed dosing of antibiotics, many institutions still do not offer such services. Our objective was to determine and report novel outcomes associated with the implementation of a pharmacist-managed pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic consult service and to assess the impact of direct pharmacist involvement in therapeutic drug monitoring. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of patients who received vancomycin or an aminoglycoside in the medical intensive care unit from January 5, 2013, to January 6, 2015, divided into 2 groups: before/after implementation of the consult service on January 6, 2014. RESULTS: Nine-hundred sixty-two patients were included. Groups were similar at baseline. There were fewer critical values after implementation of the consult service (40.8% vs 27.3%, P < .001). The intervention group had significantly more vancomycin troughs within therapeutic range (15.4% vs 32.8%, P = .019). Time from order entry to medication administration was shorter when pharmacists entered the medication order, although this difference was nonsignificant (103 minutes vs 77 minutes, P = .054). CONCLUSION: Implementation of a pharmacist-managed dosing and monitoring program led to significantly decreased rates of critical value drug concentrations and increased rates of therapeutic concentrations, with a 25% (NS) decreased time-to-antibiotic administration, therefore demonstrating the additive value of the pharmacist-managed over pharmacist-monitored approach.