Implementation of hyperlinks to medication management policies and guidelines in the electronic health record.

PURPOSE: The implementation and maintenance of a process for adding and removing hyperlinks to medication management policies and guidelines approved by a pharmacy and therapeutics (P&T) committee into the electronic health record (EHR) are described. SUMMARY: Medication management policies and guidelines approved by the P&T committee are published on the University of Utah Health intranet, making it possible to add hyperlinks to this information within the EHR. Adding these hyperlinks allows policy and guideline information to be available to clinicians on the medication ordering, verification, and administration screens without requiring a separate search of the intranet. In a quality-improvement project, all medication management policies and guidelines posted on the intranet were reviewed for relevance to the medication ordering, verification, and administration processes. Hyperlinks to relevant policies and guidelines were implemented into the EHR for specific medications. At the beginning of the review, 100 unique drugs associated with 1 or more hyperlinks were identified. The hyperlinks referenced a total of 33 Web documents: 8 policies and 25 guidelines. There are 74 medication management policies and 78 medication management guidelines approved by the P&T committee at University of Utah Health. After investigator review, 12 of 74 policies (16%) and 41 of 78 guidelines (53%) were deemed relevant during the medication ordering, verification, and administration processes. The review and hyperlink implementation process took a total of 101 hours. A continual review process was developed to enable addition and removal of hyperlinks as appropriate. CONCLUSION: Providing direct access to relevant medication management policies and guidelines approved by the P&T committee during the medication ordering, verification, and administration processes via hyperlinks in the EHR makes formulary information readily accessible by appropriate staff. These hyperlinks may also improve adherence to formulary information, reduce medication expenditure, and improve safety and therapeutic outcomes of medication therapy.

Assessment and use of drug information references in Utah pharmacies.

OBJECTIVE: To determine which drug references Utah pharmacists use most frequently. To determine which types of drug information questions are most commonly asked, and whether Utah pharmacists have access to adequate references to respond to these questions. METHODS: A 19-question survey was created using Qualtrics, LLC (Provo, Utah) software. An electronic survey link was sent to 1,431 pharmacists with a valid e-mail address listed in the Department of Professional Licensing database. Questions focused on available references in the participant's pharmacy, how current the references are, and the participant's use of the references. Surveys were analyzed for participants practicing in either community or hospital pharmacies in the state of Utah. RESULTS: A total of 147 responses were included in the analysis. Approximately 44% of respondents practiced in the community, and 56% practiced in a hospital setting. The most commonly used references by Utah pharmacists are Micromedex, Lexicomp, UpToDate, Clinical Pharmacology, and Drug Facts & Comparisons. Pharmacists in the community frequently receive questions related to adverse drug reactions, drug interactions, and over-the-counter medications. Pharmacists in the hospital frequently receive questions relating to dosage and administration, drug interactions, and adverse drug reactions. About 89% of community pharmacists and 96% of hospital pharmacists feel available references are adequate to answer the questions they receive. CONCLUSIONS: Utah pharmacists generally use large reference suites to answer drug information questions. The majority of pharmacists consider the references available to them to be adequate to answer the questions they receive.

Assessment and use of drug information references in Utah pharmacies

Objective: To determine which drug references Utah pharmacists use most frequently. To determine which types of drug information questions are most commonly asked, and whether Utah pharmacists have access to adequate references to respond to these questions. Methods: A 19-question survey was created using Qualtrics, LLC (Provo, Utah) software. An electronic survey link was sent to 1,431 pharmacists with a valid e-mail address listed in the Department of Professional Licensing database. Questions focused on available references in the participant’s pharmacy, how current the references are, and the participant’s use of the references. Surveys were analyzed for participants practicing in either community or hospital pharmacies in the state of Utah. Results: A total of 147 responses were included in the analysis. Approximately 44% of respondents practiced in the community, and 56% practiced in a hospital setting. The most commonly used references by Utah pharmacists are Micromedex, Lexicomp, UpToDate, Clinical Pharmacology, and Drug Facts & Comparisons. Pharmacists in the community frequently receive questions related to adverse drug reactions, drug interactions, and over-the-counter medications. Pharmacists in the hospital frequently receive questions relating to dosage and administration, drug interactions, and adverse drug reactions. About 89% of community pharmacists and 96% of hospital pharmacists feel available references are adequate to answer the questions they receive. Conclusions: Utah pharmacists generally use large reference suites to answer drug information questions. The majority of pharmacists consider the references available to them to be adequate to answer the questions they receive (AU)

No disponible

Defining and implementing a model for pharmacy resident research projects.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a standard approach to provide a support structure for pharmacy resident research that emphasizes self-identification of a residency research project. METHODS: A subcommittee of the residency advisory committee was formed at our institution. The committee was initially comprised of 2 clinical pharmacy specialists, 1 drug information pharmacist, and 2 pharmacy administrators. The committee developed research guidelines that are distributed to residents prior to the residency start that detail the research process, important deadlines, and available resources. Instructions for institutional review board (IRB) training and deadlines for various assignments and presentations throughout the residency year are clearly defined. Residents conceive their own research project and emphasis is placed on completing assignments early in the residency year. RESULTS: In the 4 years this research process has been in place, 15 of 16 (94%) residents successfully identified their own research question. All 15 residents submitted a complete research protocol to the IRB by the August deadline. Four residents have presented the results of their research at multi-disciplinary national professional meetings and 1 has published a manuscript. Feedback from outgoing residents has been positive overall and their perceptions of their research projects and the process are positive. CONCLUSION: Pharmacy residents selecting their own research projects for their residency year is a feasible alternative to assigning or providing lists of research projects from which to select a project.

Definign and implementing a model for pharmacy resident research projects / Definición e implantación de un modelo de proyectos de investigación para residentes en farmacia

Objective: To describe a standard approach to provide a support structure for pharmacy resident research that emphasizes self-identification of a residency research project. Methods: A subcommittee of the residency advisory committee was formed at our institution. The committee was initially comprised of 2 clinical pharmacy specialists, 1 drug information pharmacist, and 2 pharmacy administrators. The committee developed research guidelines that are distributed to residents prior to the residency start that detail the research process, important deadlines, and available resources. Instructions for institutional review board (IRB) training and deadlines for various assignments and presentations throughout the residency year are clearly defined. Residents conceive their own research project and emphasis is placed on completing assignments early in the residency year. Results: In the 4 years this research process has been in place, 15 of 16 (94%) residents successfully identified their own research question. All 15 residents submitted a complete research protocol to the IRB by the August deadline. Four residents have presented the results of their research at multi-disciplinary national professional meetings and 1 has published a manuscript. Feedback from outgoing residents has been positive overall and their perceptions of their research projects and the process are positive. Conclusion: Pharmacy residents selecting their own research projects for their residency year is a feasible alternative to assigning or providing lists of research projects from which to select a project (AU)

Objetivo: Describir un abordaje estándar para proporcionar una estructura de apoyo a los residentes de investigación en farmacia que enfatice la autoidentificación de un proyecto de investigación en la residencia. Métodos: En nuestra institución se creó un subcomité del comité asesor de la residencia. Inicialmente el comité se componía de 2 especialistas en farmacia clínica, un farmacéutico de información sobre medicamentos, y dos administradores de farmacia. El comité desarrolló guías que detallaban el proceso de investigación, fechas límite importantes, y recursos disponibles, y que se distribuyeron entre los residentes antes de comenzase la residencia. Se definieron claramente instrucciones para la junta de investigación de la institución (IRB) con entrenamiento y fechas límite para varias tareas y presentaciones a lo largo del año de residencia. Los residentes concebían su propio proyecto de investigación y se colocaba énfasis en completar las tareas de la parte inicial del año de residencia. Resultados: En los 4 años que este procedimiento de investigación lleva en vigor, 15 de los 16 (94%) residentes identificaron con éxito sus propias preguntas de investigación. Todos los 15 residentes enviaron un protocolo de investigación completo al IRB en la fecha límite de agosto. Cuatro residentes presentaron resultados de su investigación en reuniones profesionales nacionales multidisciplinarias y uno publicó un artículo. El retorno de los residentes salientes ha sido en general positivo y sus percepciones sobre sus proyectos de investigación y el proceso son positivas. Conclusión: Residentes de farmacia seleccionando su propio proyecto de investigación es una alternativa factible a asignar oa proporcionar listas de proyectos para que elijan uno (AU)