Assessing the Impact of a Clinical Pharmacist in a Postsurgical Inpatient Population.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the number and type of clinical pharmacist interventions with an impact on patient care in a postsurgical nonintensive care patient population. BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that pharmacists are able to improve the quality of patient care; however, the pharmacist role in postsurgical nonintensive care areas is not well defined. METHODS: A clinical pharmacist provided care for 2 postsurgical floors for 2 weeks and collected information about the number and type of interventions made and adverse events avoided. In addition, the study team conducted an anonymous survey amongst the multidisciplinary team who collaborated with the pharmacist at the end of the trial period to understand the perception of having access to a clinical pharmacist who was designated to their floor. RESULTS: In a 2-week time period, the clinical pharmacist was able to make 218 interventions, including 38 recommendations for optimization of antimicrobials, 26 recommendations for anticoagulation optimization, and providing education for 20 patients planned for discharge on high-risk medications. Interventions made by the clinical pharmacist helped decrease adverse events, improve patient safety and knowledge, and potentially avoid readmissions and reduce hospital length of stay. The survey results revealed that 100% strongly agreed that a clinical pharmacist should be a member of the multidisciplinary team for the postsurgical floors. CONCLUSION: This data signifies that having a clinical pharmacist dedicated to the postsurgical patient population allows for optimization of antimicrobial and anticoagulant use, improves outcomes for patients through medication education, and enhances provider satisfaction.

Exploring the impact of route of administration on medication acceptance in hospitalized patients: Implications for venous thromboembolism prevention.

BACKGROUND: Non-administration of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis contributes to preventable patient harm. We hypothesized that non-administration would be more common for parenteral VTE prophylaxis than oral infectious disease or cardiac prophylaxis or for treatment medications. The primary study goal was to determine if non-administration of parenteral VTE prophylaxis is more frequent than other prophylactic or treatment medications. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study of consecutive admissions we used descriptive statistics and risk ratios (RR) to compare the number of non-administered doses of VTE prophylaxis, oral infectious disease and cardiovascular prophylaxis and treatment medications. To quantify the influence of demographic and clinical characteristics on non-administration, we estimated incidence rate ratios from Poisson regression models. RESULTS: 645 patients were admitted from July 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015. Median age was 52years (Interquartile range 43-57) and 365 (56.6%) were male. Subcutaneous VTE prophylaxis doses were not administered nearly 4-fold more frequently than oral infectious disease and cardiovascular prophylaxis (RR=3.93; 95% CI 3.36-4.59) and 3-fold more frequently than treatment medications (RR=3.06; 95% CI 2.91-3.22). Ninety percent of non-administered doses of VTE prophylaxis were refused. Risk factors for non-administration included younger age (age 18-35years), male sex, uninsured status, HIV-positivity and high VTE risk status. CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous VTE prophylaxis is not administered more frequently than oral infectious diseases or cardiac prophylaxis and treatment medications. These data suggest that availability of an oral medication could improve the effectiveness of VTE prophylaxis in real world settings.