Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk stratification in general medical patients at an academic medical center.

Hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE) is still a concern for general medical patients. Pharmacologic prophylaxis can reduce VTE incidence, but there is the potential for adverse effects. Therefore, determining which patients should receive VTE prophylaxis via risk scoring tools is essential. Limited evidence exists for the ideal venous thromboembolism risk assessment model (RAM) in hospitalized medical patients, as compared to other hospitalized patient subgroups such as surgical patients. The primary objective was to investigate the utilization and appropriateness of our institution-based VTE RAM and comparison to the Padua Prediction Score (PPS). This would allow for a gauge of provider risk assessment accuracy as well as appropriate predictive potential of the PPS or whether an alternative to the PPS should be considered. A total of 330 adult general medicine patients were included in this retrospective chart review. When compared to our institution-based VTE RAM, providers predominately stratified patients at a higher VTE risk than the institution-based VTE RAM. VTE incidence was 0.3%, which was lower than predicted. Significant discordance exists between providers' VTE risk assessment and that predicted by RAMs. Our institution-based VTE RAM appears comparable to PPS; however, it was not being utilized by providers, resulting in potentially unnecessary use of pharmacologic prophylaxis. The most appropriate venous thromboembolism risk assessment model for general medicine patients is undetermined. Our providers generally assess patients as moderate or high VTE risk, despite our institution-based RAM which typically recommends a lower risk category than provider selection. Because of provider risk assessment, more patients received pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis than would have been recommended by the RAM, which might correlate to the low incidence of VTE which was < 0.5%, although bleeding complications were not assessed in this study. A prospective study utilizing the Padua Prediction Score (or similar RAM) in general medicine patients is warranted in order to decipher the best method of predicting VTE risk.

An update for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia pharmacotherapy: what's new and where does it fit?

In 2007, 1.2 million people in the United States were hospitalized with pneumonia, and more than 52 000 died from the disease. Community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) can be caused by a variety of organisms as a result of patient factors such as comorbidities, epidemiologic conditions, or the setting in which the infection was contracted. Treatment of CABP differs depending on the types of bacteria that are suspected. In the last several years, due to the concern regarding multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs), 2 new antibiotics have been developed and approved for use in CABP. Ceftaroline fosamil (Teflaro) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in October 2010 and tigecycline (Tygacil) in March 2009. In clinical trials, both agents have been shown to be efficacious and are generally well tolerated. Although these agents have received approval as therapy for CABP, it is the responsibility of physicians and pharmacists to prudently use these antimicrobials where they are truly needed. Until these agents show superiority over conventional therapy for selected patient populations, given the wide variety of pharmacotherapy that can prove efficacious for pneumonia, the new agents should be reserved for patients who have known risk factors for MDROs. Further studies are warranted for these agents in the setting of CABP.

Clostridium difficile-associated disease: impact of the updated SHEA/IDSA guidelines.

Clostridium difficile-associated disease (CDAD) is an increasingly difficult condition to treat because of the emergence of antibiotic resistance and highly pathogenic strains of bacteria. These newly identified strains affect patients in every facet of health care, from individuals in the community to those in intensive care units and all points in between. Appropriate management regarding diagnosis, infection control, pharmacotherapy, and prevention is the key to good outcomes in all patient populations. Geriatric patients are particularly at risk of acquiring CDAD as a result of their gradually declining immune systems and increased exposure to health care facilities. Therefore, they merit a higher level of attention when CDAD is suspected. In an effort to identify the best practices, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America in conjunction with the Infectious Diseases Society of America developed guidelines regarding the diagnosis and management of Clostridium-associated disease. By utilizing these guidelines to educate other health care practitioners and by considering the recommendations in their own practice, pharmacists can have a positive impact on every facet of CDAD prevention and management.

Discrepancies between home medications listed at hospital admission and reported medical conditions.

BACKGROUND: One of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organization's National Patient Safety Goals is for hospitals to accurately and completely reconcile patients' medications. Unfortunately, medication histories in charts might bc inaccurate and incomplete. In a thorough medication history, each medication should match a particular reported medical condition. The use of medications without a clear reported indication is of particular concern and has been associated with inappropriate use and polypharmacy. OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this study were to evaluate the occurrence of discrepancies between home medications listed in hospital admission notes and patients' reported medical conditions and to describe the types of medications most often identified as not having a corresponding indication. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, data were included from adult patients (> or =18 years of age) who were receiving > or =3 home medications on admission to medical wards at a university hospital during a 6-month period. Each home medication listed in the admission note, together with any preadmission paperwork, was matched with an indication listed in the note. Medications were deemed unspecified if an indicated disease state or condition for the medication was not reported. RESULTS: Data from 121 patients were included. The majority (91.7%) of the patients were admitted to an internal medicine service. Eighty-four patients (69.4%) had > or =1 unspecified medication listed in the admission note. Patients with > or =1 unspecified home medication reported taking a significantly higher number of home medications (10.2 [4.5] vs 7.5 [3.5] in those without unspecified medications; P = 0.007). Thirty-two patients (26.4%) were receiving proton pump inhibitors or histamine type 2 antagonists without a reported indication. Seventeen patients (14.0%) were receiving selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors without a reported indication. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 70% of patients admitted to a medical ward had > or =1 unspecified medication listed in the admission note. Based on these results, health care professionals must bc careful to obtain and document complete medication histories with matching indications.