International pharmacy survey of peripheral vasopressor infusions in critical care (INFUSE).

PURPOSE: The primary objective was to determine the proportion of hospitals that administered norepinephrine peripheral vasopressor infusions (PVIs) in critically ill adult patients. Secondary objectives were to describe how norepinephrine is used such as the maximum duration, infusion rate and concentration, and to determine the most common first-line PVI used by country. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An international multi-centre cross-sectional survey study was conducted in adult intensive care units in Australia, US, UK, Canada, and Saudi Arabia. RESULTS: Critical care pharmacists from 132 institutions responded to the survey. Norepinephrine PVIs were utilised in 86% of institutions (n = 113/132). The median maximum duration of norepinephrine PVIs was 24 h (IQR 24-24) (n = 57/113). The most common maximum norepinephrine PVI rate was between 11 and 20 µg/min (n = 16/113). The most common maximum norepinephrine PVI concentration was 16 µg/mL (n = 60/113). Half of the institutions had a preference to administer another PVI over norepinephrine as a first-line agent (n = 66/132). The most common alternative PVI used by country was: US (phenylephrine 41%, n = 37/90), Canada (dopamine 31%, n = 5/16), UK (metaraminol 82%, n = 9/11), and Australia (metaraminol 89%, n = 8/9). CONCLUSIONS: There is variability in clinical practice regarding PVI administration in critically ill adult patients dependent on drug availability and local institutional recommendations.

Critical care pharmacy workforce: a 2020 re-evaluation of the UK deployment and characteristics.

INTRODUCTION: Critical care pharmacists improve the quality and efficiency of medication therapy whilst reducing treatment costs where they are available. UK critical care pharmacist deployment was described in 2015, highlighting a deficit in numbers, experience level, and critical care access to pharmacy services over the 7-day week. Since then, national workforce standards have been emphasised, quality indicators published, and service commissioning documents produced, reinforced by care quality assessments. Whether these initiatives have resulted in further development of the UK critical care pharmacy workforce is unknown. This evaluation provides a 2020 status update. METHODS: The 2015 electronic data entry tool was updated and circulated for completion by UK critical care pharmacists. The tool captured workforce data disposition as it was just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, at critical care unit level. MAIN FINDINGS: Data were received for 334 critical care units from 203 organisations (96% of UK critical care units). Overall, 98.2% of UK critical care units had specific clinical pharmacist time dedicated to the unit. The median weekday pharmacist input to each level 3 equivalent bed was 0.066 (0.043-0.088) whole time equivalents, a significant increase from the median position in 2015 (+ 0.021, p < 0.0001). Despite this progress, pharmacist availability remains below national minimum standards (0.1/level 3 equivalent bed). Most units (71.9%) had access to prescribing pharmacists. Geographical variation in pharmacist staffing levels were evident, and weekend services remain extremely limited. CONCLUSIONS: Availability of clinical pharmacists in UK adult critical care units is improving. However, national standards are not routinely met despite widely publicised quality indicators, commissioning specifications, and assessments. Additional measures are needed to address persistent deficits and realise gains in organisational and patient-level outcomes. These measures must include promotion of cross-professional collaborative working, adjusted funding models, and a nationally recognised training pathway for critical care pharmacists.

Strategies for managing imaging utilization.

Imaging represents a substantial and growing portion of the costs of American health care. When performed correctly and for the right reasons, medical imaging facilitates quality medical care that brings value to both patients and payers. When used incorrectly because of inappropriate economic incentives, unnecessary patient demands, or provider concerns for medical-legal risk, imaging costs can increase without increasing diagnostic yields. A number of methods have been tried to manage imaging utilization and achieve the best medical outcomes for patients without incurring unnecessary costs. The best method should combine a prospective approach; be transparent, evidence based, and unobtrusive to the doctor-patient relationship and provide for education and continuous quality improvement. Combining the proper utilization of imaging and its inherent cost reduction, with improved quality through credentialing and accreditation, achieves the highest value and simultaneous best outcomes for patients.