Evaluation of the Role of a Clinical Pharmacist on Medication Management in an Adult Burn Clinic via a Collaborative Drug Therapy Management Protocol.

Historically, pharmacists have not been formally involved in managing burn clinic patients. Collaborative Drug Therapy Management (CDTM) protocols allow pharmacists working within a defined context to independently assume responsibility for direct patient care activities. The objective of this study was to evaluate the number and type of medication-related interventions made by a clinical pharmacist, in an adult burn clinic, via a CDTM protocol. The protocol allows pharmacists to independently manage the following disease states: pain, agitation, delirium, insomnia, venous thromboembolism, skin/soft tissue infections, and hypermetabolic complications. All pharmacist visits between 1/1/22 and 9/22/22 were included. A total of 16 patients were seen at 28 visits with a clinical pharmacist for a total of 148 interventions. Patients were mostly males (81%) with a mean ± SD age of 41 ± 15 years. The majority of patients were in-state (94%), with 9 (56%) being from an outlying county. Patients were seen for a median (IQR) of 2 (1,2) visits. Interventions were made at all visits (100%) with a median of 5 (4,6) per visit. Interventions (per visit) included medication reconciliation [28 (100%)], a median of 1 (0,2) medication ordered or adjusted, labs ordered at 7 (25%) visits, with adherence and patient education both reviewed at over 90% of visits. To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first burn center to implement a Clinical Pharmacist CDTM Protocol, with a pharmacist directly impacting transitions of care. This may serve as a framework for other sites. Future directions include continuing to track data for medication adherence and access, billing/reimbursement, and clinical outcomes.

Burn Patient Insurance Status Influences Hospital Discharge Disposition and Utilization of Postdischarge Outpatient Care.

Postdischarge services, such as outpatient wound care, may affect long-term health outcomes and postrecovery quality-of-life. Access to these services may vary according to insurance status and ability to cover out-of-pocket expenses. Our objective was to compare discharge location between burn patients who were uninsured, publicly insured, and privately insured at the time of their burn unit admissions. A retrospective review from July 1, 2015 to November 1, 2019 was performed at an American Burn Association-verified burn center. All admitted burn patients 18 years and older were identified and categorized according to insurance payer type. The primary outcome was discharge location, and secondary outcomes included readmission and outpatient burn care attendance. In total, 284 uninsured, 565 publicly insured, and 293 privately insured patients were identified. There were no significant differences in TBSA (P = .3), inhalation injury (P = .3), intensive care unit days (P = .09), or need for skin grafting (P = .1) between the three groups. For primary outcome, uninsured patients were more likely to be discharged without ancillary services (P < .0001) compared to both publicly and privately insured. Publicly insured patients were more likely to receive skilled nursing care (P = .0007). Privately insured patients were more likely to receive homecare (P = .0005) or transfer for ongoing inpatient care (P < .0001). There was no difference in burn unit readmission rates (P = .5). The uninsured were more likely to follow up with outpatient burn clinic after discharge (P = .004). Uninsured patients were less likely to receive postdischarge resources. Uninsured patients received fewer postdischarge wound care resources which could result in suboptimal long-term results, and diminished return to preinjury functional status. Given the impact of insurance status on discharge location and resources, efforts to increase access for uninsured patients to postdischarge resources will ensure greater healthcare equity and improve quality of comprehensive care regardless of insurance status.

Incisions and reconstruction approaches for large sarcomas.

Large intraabdominal, retroperitoneal, and abdominal wall sarcomas provide unique challenges in treatment due to their variable histology, potential considerable size at the time of diagnosis, and the ability to invade into critical structures. Historically, some of these tumors were considered inoperable if surgical access was limited or the consequential defect was unable to be closed primarily as reconstructive options were limited. Over time, there has been a greater understanding of the abdominal wall anatomy and mechanics, which has resulted in the development of new techniques to allow for sound oncologic resections and viable, durable options for abdominal wall reconstruction. Currently, intra-operative positioning and employment of a variety of abdominal and posterior trunk incisions have made more intraabdominal and retroperitoneal tumors accessible. Primary involvement or direct invasion of tumor into the abdominal wall is no longer prohibitive as utilization of advanced hernia repair techniques along with the application of vascularized tissue transfer have been shown to have the ability to repair large area defects involving multiple quadrants of the abdominal wall. Both local and distant free tissue transfer may be incorporated, depending on the size and location of the area needing reconstruction and what residual structures are remaining surrounding the resection bed. There is an emphasis on selecting the techniques that will be associated with the least amount of morbidity yet will restore and provide the appropriate structure and function necessary for the trunk. This review article summarizes both initial surgical incisional planning for the oncologic resection and a variety of repair options for the abdominal wall spanning the reconstructive ladder.