Medication Safety Event Reporting: Factors That Contribute to Safety Events During Times of Organizational Stress.

BACKGROUND: Incident reports submitted during times of organizational stress may reveal unique insights. PURPOSE: To understand the insights conveyed in hospital incident reports about how work system factors affected medication safety during a coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) surge. METHODS: We randomly selected 100 medication safety incident reports from an academic medical center (December 2020 to January 2021), identified near misses and errors, and classified contributing work system factors using the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System-Healthcare. RESULTS: Among 35 near misses/errors, incident reports described contributing factors (mean 1.3/report) involving skill-based errors (n = 20), communication (n = 8), and tools/technology (n = 4). Reporters linked 7 events to COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Skill-based errors were the most common contributing factors for medication safety events during a COVID-19 surge. Reporters rarely deemed events to be related to COVID-19, despite the tremendous strain of the surge on nurses. Future efforts to improve the utility of incident reports should emphasize the importance of describing work system factors.

Comprehensive Pharmacist-led Transitions-of-care Medication Management around Hospital Discharge Adds Modest Cost Relative to Usual Care: Time-and-Motion Cost Analysis.

Optimal medication management is important during hospitalization and at discharge because post-discharge adverse drug events (ADEs) are common, often preventable, and contribute to patient harms, healthcare utilization, and costs. Conduct a cost analysis of a comprehensive pharmacist-led transitions-of-care medication management intervention for older adults during and after hospital discharge. Twelve intervention components addressed medication reconciliation, medication review, and medication adherence. Trained, experienced pharmacists delivered the intervention to older adults with chronic comorbidities at 2 large U.S. academic centers. To quantify and categorize time spent on the intervention, we conducted a time-and-motion analysis of study pharmacists over 36 sequential workdays (14 519 min) involving 117 patients. For 40 patients' hospitalizations, we observed all intervention activities. We used the median minutes spent and pharmacist wages nationally to calculate cost per hospitalization (2020 U.S. dollars) from the hospital perspective, relative to usual care. Pharmacists spent a median of 66.9 min per hospitalization (interquartile range 46.1-90.1), equating to $101 ($86 to $116 in sensitivity analyses). In unadjusted analyses, study site was associated with time spent (medians 111 and 51.8 min) while patient primary language, discharge disposition, number of outpatient medications, and patient age were not. In this cost analysis, comprehensive medication management around discharge cost about $101 per hospitalization, with variation across sites. This cost is at least an order of magnitude less than published costs associated with ADEs, hospital readmissions, or other interventions designed to reduce readmissions. Work is ongoing to assess the current intervention's effectiveness.

Comparing the Safety Action Feedback and Engagement (SAFE) Loop with an established incident reporting system: Study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

Background: Incident reporting is widely used in hospitals to improve patient safety, but current reporting systems do not function optimally. The utility of incident reports is limited because hospital staff may not know what to report, may fear retaliation, and may doubt whether administrators will review reports and respond effectively. Methods: This is a clustered randomized controlled trial of the Safety Action Feedback and Engagement (SAFE) Loop, an intervention designed to transform hospital incident reporting systems into effective tools for improving patient safety. The SAFE Loop has six key attributes: obtaining nurses' input about which safety problems to prioritize on their unit; focusing on learning about selected high-priority events; training nurses to write more informative event reports; prompting nurses to report high-priority events; integrating information about events from multiple sources; and providing feedback to nurses on findings and mitigation plans. The study will focus on medication errors and randomize 20 nursing units at a large academic/community hospital in Los Angeles. Outcomes include: (1) incident reporting practices (rates of high-priority reports, contributing factors described in reports), (2) nurses' attitudes toward incident reporting, and (3) rates of high-priority events. Quantitative analyses will compare changes in outcomes pre- and post-implementation between the intervention and control nursing units, and qualitative analyses will explore nurses' experiences with implementation. Conclusion: If effective, SAFE Loop will have several benefits: increasing nurses' engagement with reporting, producing more informative reports, enabling safety leaders to understand problems, designing system-based solutions more effectively, and lowering rates of high-priority patient safety events.

Preventing medication history errors in high-risk patients: Impact of California Senate Bill 1254.

PURPOSE: California Senate Bill (SB) 1254 (effective January 1, 2019) requires pharmacy staff at acute hospitals with more than 100 beds to obtain a medication profile for high-risk patients upon hospital admission. This multicenter study sought to evaluate the statewide impact of California SB 1254 by capturing the errors intercepted and harm prevented as a result of the passage of the bill. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study conducted at 11 hospitals in California for 6 consecutive weeks between January 2020 and March 2020. Participating sites captured medication history errors identified among high-risk patients using organization-specific criteria. Errors were categorized by type and ranked for severity of potential or actual harm based on the modified National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) categories. RESULTS: Study sites had an average daily census of 180 to 800 patients. Approximately 94% (n = 2,554) of medication histories conducted disclosed at least 1 error. Approximately 54% (n = 1,474) of histories disclosed at least 1 serious or potentially life-threatening error. Approximately 6 errors were identified and prevented per patient (95% CI, 5.62-6.01 errors per patient), and 1 in 4 errors (25%) was categorized as potentially serious or life-threatening. CONCLUSION: Among high-risk patients, pharmacy-led medication histories significantly reduced medication errors. If not intercepted, these errors would have likely resulted in substantial morbidity and mortality. Future research should evaluate opportunities to standardize high-risk criteria to support patient prioritization and allocation of resources.

Identifying barriers and facilitators to deprescribing benzodiazepines and sedative hypnotics in the hospital setting using the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour (COM-B) Model: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Geriatric guidelines strongly recommend avoiding benzodiazepines and non-benzodiazepine sedative hypnotics in older adults. Hospitalisation may provide an important opportunity to begin the process of deprescribing these medications, particularly as new contraindications arise. We used implementation science models and qualitative interviews to describe barriers and facilitators to deprescribing benzodiazepines and non-benzodiazepine sedative hypnotics in the hospital and develop potential interventions to address identified barriers. DESIGN: We used two implementation science models, the Capability, Opportunity and Behaviour Model (COM-B) and the Theoretical Domains Framework, to code interviews with hospital staff, and an implementation process, the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW), to codevelop potential interventions with stakeholders from each clinician group. SETTING: Interviews took place in a tertiary, 886-bed hospital located in Los Angeles, California. PARTICIPANTS: Interview participants included physicians, pharmacists, pharmacist technicians, and nurses. RESULTS: We interviewed 14 clinicians. We found barriers and facilitators across all COM-B model domains. Barriers included lack of knowledge about how to engage in complex conversations about deprescribing (capability), competing tasks in the inpatient setting (opportunity), high levels of resistance/anxiety among patients to deprescribe (motivation), concerns about lack of postdischarge follow-up (motivation). Facilitators included high levels of knowledge about the risks of these medications (capability), regular rounds and huddles to identify inappropriate medications (opportunity) and beliefs that patients may be more receptive to deprescribing if the medication is related to the reason for hospitalisation (motivation). Potential modes of delivery included a seminar aimed at addressing capability and motivation barriers in nurses, a pharmacist-led deprescribing initiative using risk stratification to identify and target patients at highest need for deprescribing, and the use of evidence-based deprescribing education materials provided to patients at discharge. CONCLUSIONS: While we identified numerous barriers and facilitators to initiating deprescribing conversations in the hospital, nurse- and pharmacist-led interventions may be an appropriate opportunity to initiate deprescribing.

Effect of the population health inpatient Medicare Advantage pharmacist intervention on hospital readmissions: A quasi-experimental controlled study.

BACKGROUND: The population health inpatient Medicare Advantage pharmacist (PHIMAP) intervention is a pharmacist-led, transitions-of-care intervention that aims to reduce hospital readmissions among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. PHIMAP includes inpatient pharmacist participation in interdisciplinary rounds, admission and discharge medication reconciliation, pharmacy staff delivery of discharge medications to the bedside, personalized discharge medication lists and counseling, and communication with outpatient pharmacists through an electronic health record. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of the PHIMAP intervention on unplanned 30-day same-hospital readmissions among Medicare Advantage patients. METHODS: Those included were patients admitted to a large urban academic medical center between May 2018 and March 2020 who had a Medicare Advantage plan and were aged at least 18 years. A 2-group, quasi-experimental design was utilized. Control patients received the usual care, which included a best possible medication history and a postdischarge phone call. A multivariable logistic regression model was estimated to predict unplanned 30-day same-hospital readmissions. This study was a Hypothesis Evaluating Treatment Effectiveness study. RESULTS: In total, 884 patients were included. The majority were White (59.0%), non-Hispanic (87.7%), English speaking (90.5%), and older adults (median age, 75 years; interquartile range, 70-83 years). We detected no statistically significant association between the PHIMAP intervention and unplanned 30-day same-hospital readmissions (odds ratio [OR] = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.56-1.52). After adjusting for patient demographics and clinical covariates, significant predictors of 30-day readmissions included the number of emergency department/inpatient visits within 180 days prior to index admission (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.11-1.77); discharge to a post-acute care facility, such as an inpatient rehabilitation facility, long-term acute care facility, or skilled nursing facility (OR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.06-2.66); hospital length of stay in days (OR = 1.04, 95% CI=1.01-1.07); and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Elixhauser Comorbidity Index score (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 1.01-1.02). CONCLUSIONS: Significant predictors of readmissions among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries were consistent with greater illness severity, including a recent history of prior hospital utilization, a discharge to post-acute care facility (vs home), a longer length of hospital stay, and a higher comorbidity burden. Although we detected no statistically significant association between PHIMAP and unplanned 30-day same-hospital readmissions, differences in study group assignment based on the day of hospital discharge (weekend vs weekday) was a noted limitation of this study. Future studies of inpatient pharmacist-led interventions should plan to minimize the risk of selection bias due to differences in the time of patient discharge. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported in part by the National Institute on Aging under award number R01AG058911 (to Pevnick) and the UCLA Clinical Translational Science Institute (UL1 TR001881). The sponsor had no role in the design and conduct of the study, nor the writing of this report.

The Pharmacist Discharge Care (PHARM-DC) study: A multicenter RCT of pharmacist-directed transitional care to reduce post-hospitalization utilization.

BACKGROUND: Older adults commonly face challenges in understanding, obtaining, administering, and monitoring medication regimens after hospitalization. These difficulties can lead to avoidable morbidity, mortality, and hospital readmissions. Pharmacist-led peri-discharge interventions can reduce adverse drug events, but few large randomized trials have examined their effectiveness in reducing readmissions. Demonstrating reductions in 30-day readmissions can make a financial case for implementing pharmacist-led programs across hospitals. METHODS/DESIGN: The PHARMacist Discharge Care, or the PHARM-DC intervention, includes medication reconciliation at admission and discharge, medication review, increased communication with caregivers, providers, and retail pharmacies, and patient education and counseling during and after discharge. The intervention is being implemented in two large hospitals: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and the Brigham and Women's Hospital. To evaluate the intervention, we are using a pragmatic, randomized clinical trial design with randomization at the patient level. The primary outcome is utilization within 30 days of hospital discharge, including unforeseen emergency department visits, observation stays, and readmissions. Randomizing 9776 patients will achieve 80% power to detect an absolute reduction of 2.5% from an estimated baseline rate of 27.5%. Qualitative analysis will use interviews with key stakeholders to study barriers to and facilitators of implementing PHARM-DC. A cost-effectiveness analysis using a time-and-motion study to estimate time spent on the intervention will highlight the potential cost savings per readmission. DISCUSSION: If this trial demonstrates a business case for the PHARM-DC intervention, with few barriers to implementation, hospitals may be much more likely to adopt pharmacist-led peri-discharge medication management programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04071951.