Scoring big: Aligning inpatient clinical pharmacy services through implementation of an electronic scoring system.

PURPOSE: Data are limited on utilizing a comprehensive scoring system in the electronic health record to help prioritize, align, and standardize clinical pharmacy services across multiple hospitals and practice models within a health system. The purpose of this article is to describe the development and implementation of an electronic scoring system to help inpatient pharmacists prioritize patient care activities and standardize clinical services across a diverse health system. SUMMARY: Inpatient pharmacists from all specialty areas across the health system partnered with health information technology pharmacists to develop a scoring system directly integrated into the electronic health record that would help triage patient care, identify opportunities for pharmacist intervention, and prioritize clinical pharmacy services. Individual variables were built based on documented patient parameters such as use of high-risk medications, pharmacy consults, laboratory values, disease states, and patient acuity. Total overall scores were assigned to patients based on the sum of the scores for the individual variables, which update automatically in real time. The total scores were designed to help inpatient pharmacists prioritize patients with higher scores, thus reducing the need for manual chart review to identify high-risk patients. CONCLUSION: An electronic scoring system with a tiered point system developed for inpatient pharmacists creates a method to prioritize and align clinical pharmacy services across a health system with diverse pharmacy practice models.

Deterioration free discharge comparison of andexanet-alfa and prothrombin complex concentrates (PCC) for reversal of factor Xa inhibitor associated bleeds.

Given the paucity of comparative efficacy data and the difference in cost between andexanet-alfa and prothrombin complex concentrates (PCC), debates continue regarding optimal cost-effective therapy for patients who present with major bleeding associated with oral factor Xa inhibitors. Available literature comparing the cost-effectiveness of the reversal agents is limited, and the large difference in price between therapy options has led many health systems to exclude andexanet-alfa from their formularies. To evaluate the clinical outcomes and cost of PCC compared to andexanet-alfa for patients with factor Xa inhibitor associated bleeds. We performed a quasi-experimental, single health system study of patients treated with PCC or andexanet-alfa from March 2014 to April 2021. Deterioration-free discharge, thrombotic events, length of stay, discharge disposition, and cost were reported. 170 patients were included in the PCC group and 170 patients were included in the andexanet-alfa group. Deterioration-free discharge was achieved in 66.5% of PCC-treated patients compared to 69.4% in the andexanet alfa-treated patients. 31.8% of PCC-treated patients were discharged home compared to 30.6% in the andexanet alfa-treated patients. The cost per deterioration-free discharge was $20,773.62 versus $5230.32 in the andexanet alfa and 4 F-PCC group, respectively. Among patients that experienced a bleed while taking a factor Xa inhibitor, there was no difference in clinical outcomes for patients treated with andexanet-alfa compared to PCC. Although there was no difference in the clinical outcomes, there was a significant difference in cost with andexanet-alfa costing approximately four times as much as PCC per deterioration-free discharge.