RESUMO
Background: The balance between reducing patient wait time and mitigating waste of parenteral products has not been well described in literature. Objective: Evaluate the patient wait times and cost-effectiveness of employing a premix versus an on-demand workflow model for compounding parenteral admixtures in a hematology/oncology infusion setting. Methods: This single center, retrospective cost analysis compiled manually documented monthly waste reports and estimated drug pricing for the institution to calculate the cost of waste during both premix and on-demand compounding workflows. Time to administration was audited for one week with both models. Results: Over a period of 28.5 months following the premix model, 564 products were documented as wasted ($1,196,014.01 in estimated drug purchasing cost). Over a period of 3 months following the on-demand model, 12 products were wasted ($34,823.98 in estimated drug purchasing cost). Switching models reduced the monthly average number of wasted products from 20 to 4 per month; the average cost of waste was reduced from $41,965.40 to $11,607.99 per month (P < .0001). Overall patient wait time from clearance until administration, excluding any recommended wait times after premedication administration (if applicable), was similar in both models: an average of 38.26 minutes in the premix model and 40.97 minutes in the on-demand model. Conclusion: Premixing parenteral admixtures was not cost effective at our institution. After resuming an on-demand compounding model, the monthly cost of waste (based on drug pricing alone) was reduced by over 70%. The wait time from clearance to treatment administration was similar in both models.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: With an aging population suffering from increased prevalence of chronic conditions in the United States (U.S.), a large portion of these patients are on multiple medications. High-risk medications can increase the risk for drug-drug interactions and medication nonadherence. This study aims to describe the prevalence of polypharmacy and high-risk medication prescribing in U.S. physician offices. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 2009 to 2016. All patients over 65 years old were included. Polypharmacy was categorized as no polypharmacy (< 2 medications), minor polypharmacy (2-3 medications), moderate polypharmacy (4-5 medications), and major polypharmacy (>5 medications). Medications were further categorized into high-risk medication categories (anticholinergics, cardiovascular agents, central nervous system (CNS) medications, pain medications, and other). Comparisons between the degrees of polypharmacy were performed utilizing chi-square or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests with JMP Pro 14® (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). RESULTS: Over 2 billion patient visits were included. Overall, Polypharmacy was common (65.1%): minor polypharmacy (16.2%), moderate polypharmacy (12.1%), and major polypharmacy (36.8%). Patients with major polypharmacy were older compared to those with moderate or minor polypharmacy (75 vs. 73 years, respectively) and were most frequently prescribed pain medications (477.3 per 1,000 total visits). NSAIDs were the most frequently prescribed, with 232.4 per 1,000 total visits resulting in one high-risk NSAID prescription, while 21.9 per 1,000 total visits resulted in two or more high-risk NSAIDs. CONCLUSION: Most patients over 65 years experienced some degree of polypharmacy, with many experiencing major polypharmacy. This indicates an increased need for expanded pharmacist roles through medication therapy management and safety monitoring in this patient population.
