Implementation of pharmacogenomics into inpatient general medicine.

Pharmacogenomics is a crucial piece of personalized medicine. Preemptive pharmacogenomic testing is only used sparsely in the inpatient setting and there are few models to date for fostering the adoption of pharmacogenomic treatment in the inpatient setting. We created a multi-institutional project in Chicago to enable the translation of pharmacogenomics into inpatient practice. We are reporting our implementation process and barriers we encountered with solutions. This study, 'Implementation of Point-of-Care Pharmacogenomic Decision Support Accounting for Minority Disparities', sought to implement pharmacogenomics into inpatient practice at three sites: The University of Chicago, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, and the University of Illinois at Chicago. This study involved enrolling African American adult patients for preemptive genotyping across a panel of actionable germline variants predicting drug response or toxicity risk. We report our approach to implementation and the barriers we encountered engaging hospitalists and general medical providers in the inpatient pharmacogenomic intervention. Our strategies included: a streamlined delivery system for pharmacogenomic information, attendance at hospital medicine section meetings, use of physician and pharmacist champions, focus on hospitalists' care and optimizing system function to fit their workflow, hand-offs, and dealing with hospitalists turnover. Our work provides insights into strategies for the initial engagement of inpatient general medicine providers that we hope will benefit other institutions seeking to implement pharmacogenomics in the inpatient setting.

Implementation of a Medication Reconciliation Risk Stratification Tool Integrated within an electronic health record: A Case Series of Three Academic Medical Centers.

Medication errors during transitions of care are common, dangerous and costly. Medication reconciliation can help mitigate this risk, but it is a complex and time-consuming process when performed properly. Increasingly, pharmacy staff have been engaged to help improve medication reconciliation. However, many organizations lack the resources and staff required to perform accurate medication histories and other reconciliation tasks on all patients. We describe how three academic medical centers implemented risk scoring systems to allocate limited pharmacy resources to patients with the highest likelihood of medication reconciliation related errors. We found that (1) development of a tailored medication risk scoring system and integration into the electronic health record is feasible, (2) workflow around the risk calculator is critical to the success of the implementation, and (3) the complex coordination of professional disciplines during the medication reconciliation process remains an ongoing challenge at all three institutions.

Pilot Findings of Pharmacogenomics in Perioperative Care: Initial Results From the First Phase of the ImPreSS Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacogenomics, which offers a potential means by which to inform prescribing and avoid adverse drug reactions, has gained increasing consideration in other medical settings but has not been broadly evaluated during perioperative care. METHODS: The Implementation of Pharmacogenomic Decision Support in Surgery (ImPreSS) Trial is a prospective, single-center study consisting of a prerandomization pilot and a subsequent randomized phase. We describe findings from the pilot period. Patients planning elective surgeries were genotyped with pharmacogenomic results, and decision support was made available to anesthesia providers in advance of surgery. Pharmacogenomic result access and prescribing records were analyzed. Surveys (Likert-scale) were administered to providers to understand utilization barriers. RESULTS: Of eligible anesthesiology providers, 166 of 211 (79%) enrolled. A total of 71 patients underwent genotyping and surgery (median, 62 years; 55% female; average American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, 2.6; 58 inpatients and 13 ambulatories). No patients required postoperative intensive care or pain consultations. At least 1 provider accessed pharmacogenomic results before or during 41 of 71 surgeries (58%). Faculty were more likely to access results (78%) compared to house staff (41%; P = .003) and midlevel practitioners (15%) ( P < .0001). Notably, all administered intraoperative medications had favorable genomic results with the exception of succinylcholine administration to 1 patient with genomically increased risk for prolonged apnea (without adverse outcome). Considering composite prescribing in preoperative, recovery, throughout hospitalization, and at discharge, each patient was prescribed a median of 35 (range 15-83) total medications, 7 (range 1-22) of which had annotated pharmacogenomic results. Of 2371 prescribing events, 5 genomically high-risk medications were administered (all tramadol or omeprazole; with 2 of 5 pharmacogenomic results accessed), and 100 genomically cautionary mediations were administered (hydralazine, oxycodone, and pantoprazole; 61% rate of accessing results). Providers reported that although results were generally easy to access and understand, the most common reason for not considering results was because remembering to access pharmacogenomic information was not yet a part of their normal clinical workflow. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot data for result access rates suggest interest in pharmacogenomics by anesthesia providers, even if opportunities to alter prescribing in response to high-risk genotypes were infrequent. This pilot phase has also uncovered unique considerations for implementing pharmacogenomic information in the perioperative care setting, and new strategies including adding the involvement of surgery teams, targeting patients likely to need intensive care and dedicated pain care, and embedding pharmacists within rounding models will be incorporated in the follow-on randomized phase to increase engagement and likelihood of affecting prescribing decisions and clinical outcomes.

Applicability of Pharmacogenomically Guided Medication Treatment during Hospitalization of At-Risk Minority Patients.

Known disparities exist in the availability of pharmacogenomic information for minority populations, amplifying uncertainty around clinical utility for these groups. We conducted a multi-site inpatient pharmacogenomic implementation program among self-identified African-Americans (AA; n = 135) with numerous rehospitalizations (n = 341) from 2017 to 2020 (NIH-funded ACCOuNT project/clinicaltrials.gov#NCT03225820). We evaluated the point-of-care availability of patient pharmacogenomic results to healthcare providers via an electronic clinical decision support tool. Among newly added medications during hospitalizations and at discharge, we examined the most frequently utilized medications with associated pharmacogenomic results. The population was predominantly female (61%) with a mean age of 53 years (range 19-86). On average, six medications were newly prescribed during each individual hospital admission. For 48% of all hospitalizations, clinical pharmacogenomic information was applicable to at least one newly prescribed medication. Most results indicated genomic favorability, although nearly 29% of newly prescribed medications indicated increased genomic caution (increase in toxicity risk/suboptimal response). More than one of every five medications prescribed to AA patients at hospital discharge were associated with cautionary pharmacogenomic results (most commonly pantoprazole/suboptimal antacid effect). Notably, high-risk pharmacogenomic results (genomic contraindication) were exceedingly rare. We conclude that the applicability of pharmacogenomic information during hospitalizations for vulnerable populations at-risk for experiencing health disparities is substantial and warrants continued prospective investigation.

Recommendations to improve the usability of drug-drug interaction clinical decision support alerts.

OBJECTIVE: To establish preferred strategies for presenting drug-drug interaction (DDI) clinical decision support alerts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A DDI Clinical Decision Support Conference Series included a workgroup consisting of 24 clinical, usability, and informatics experts representing academia, health information technology (IT) vendors, healthcare organizations, and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT. Workgroup members met via web-based meetings 12 times from January 2013 to February 2014, and two in-person meetings to reach consensus on recommendations to improve decision support for DDIs. We addressed three key questions: (1) what, how, where, and when do we display DDI decision support? (2) should presentation of DDI decision support vary by clinicians? and (3) how should effectiveness of DDI decision support be measured? RESULTS: Our recommendations include the consistent use of terminology, visual cues, minimal text, formatting, content, and reporting standards to facilitate usability. All clinicians involved in the medication use process should be able to view DDI alerts and actions by other clinicians. Override rates are common but may not be a good measure of effectiveness. DISCUSSION: Seven core elements should be included with DDI decision support. DDI information should be presented to all clinicians. Finally, in their current form, override rates have limited capability to evaluate alert effectiveness. CONCLUSION: DDI clinical decision support alerts need major improvements. We provide recommendations for healthcare organizations and IT vendors to improve the clinician interface of DDI alerts, with the aim of reducing alert fatigue and improving patient safety.