An assessment of a sleep aid and sleep promotion practices in hospitalized medical patients.

BACKGROUND: Half of patients admitted to medicine units report sleep disruption, which increases the risk of sleep deprivation. Non-pharmacological interventions are the first step to improving sleep. However, utilization of sleep aids continues to be prevalent. Limited data are available on sleep aid prescribing practices across transitions of care. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe the current practices for assessing sleep and prescribing pharmacologic agents to promote sleep in the adult medicine population. METHODS: This study was designed as a single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study of all patients discharged by the general medicine teams over a 3-month period (September 2019- November 2019). Prior to admission, inpatient and discharge prescriptions for sleep aids were recorded, and documentation of sleep assessments and non-pharmacological interventions were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 754 patients included, 211 (28%) were prescribed a sleep aid while inpatient. During hospitalization, 124 (16%) patients had at least one documented sleep assessment, and only 22 (3%) were ordered the institutional non-pharmacological sleep promotion order set. The most prescribed sleep aid in inpatients was melatonin (50%), as well as prior to admission (35%) and at discharge (25%). Overall, the relative reduction in sleep aid prescriptions between admission and discharge was 67%. CONCLUSION: Inpatient sleep aid prescribing is common in medical patients. Despite this, sleep assessments and the standard of care of non-pharmacological interventions are rarely utilized. Future efforts should focus on implementation of strategies to make sleep assessments and non-pharmacological sleep promotion routine and consistent in the inpatient setting.

Reprint of: An assessment of a sleep aid and sleep promotion practices in hospitalized medical patients.

BACKGROUND: Half of patients admitted to medicine units report sleep disruption, which increases the risk of sleep deprivation. Non-pharmacological interventions are the first step to improving sleep. However, utilization of sleep aids continues to be prevalent. Limited data are available on sleep aid prescribing practices across transitions of care. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe the current practices for assessing sleep and prescribing pharmacologic agents to promote sleep in the adult medicine population. METHODS: This study was designed as a single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study of all patients discharged by the general medicine teams over a 3-month period (September 2019- November 2019). Prior to admission, inpatient and discharge prescriptions for sleep aids were recorded, and documentation of sleep assessments and non-pharmacological interventions were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 754 patients included, 211 (28%) were prescribed a sleep aid while inpatient. During hospitalization, 124 (16%) patients had at least one documented sleep assessment, and only 22 (3%) were ordered the institutional non-pharmacological sleep promotion order set. The most prescribed sleep aid in inpatients was melatonin (50%), as well as prior to admission (35%) and at discharge (25%). Overall, the relative reduction in sleep aid prescriptions between admission and discharge was 67%. CONCLUSION: Inpatient sleep aid prescribing is common in medical patients. Despite this, sleep assessments and the standard of care of non-pharmacological interventions are rarely utilized. Future efforts should focus on implementation of strategies to make sleep assessments and non-pharmacological sleep promotion routine and consistent in the inpatient setting.

An International, Multicenter Evaluation of Comprehensive Medication Management by Pharmacists in ICU Recovery Centers.

BACKGROUND: Post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) is defined as a new or worsening impairment in physical, cognitive, or mental health following critical illness. Intensive care unit recovery centers (ICU-RC) are one means to treat patients who have PICS. The purpose of this study is to describe the role of pharmacists in ICU-RCs. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the number and type of medication interventions made by a pharmacist at an ICU-RC at 12 different centers? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This prospective, observational study was conducted in 12 intensive care units (ICUs)/ICU-RCs between September 2019 and July 2021. A full medication review was conducted by a pharmacist on patients seen at the ICU-RC. RESULTS: 507 patients were referred to the ICU-RC. Of these patients, 474 attended the ICU-RC and 472 had a full medication review performed by a pharmacist. Baseline demographic and hospital course data were obtained from the electronic health record and at the ICU-RC appointment. Pharmacy interventions were made in 397 (84%) patients. The median number of pharmacy interventions per patient was 2 (interquartile range [IQR] = 1,3). Medications were stopped and started in 124 (26%) and 91 (19%) patients, respectively. The number of patients that had a dose decreased and a dose increased was 51 (11%) and 43 (9%), respectively. There was no difference in the median total number of medications that the patient was prescribed at the start and end of the patient visit (10, IQR = 5, 15). Adverse drug event (ADE) preventive measures were implemented in 115 (24%) patients. ADE events were identified in 69 (15%) patients. Medication interactions were identified in 30 (6%) patients. INTERPRETATION: A pharmacist plays an integral role in an ICU-RC resulting in the identification, prevention, and treatment of medication-related problems. This paper should serve as a call to action on the importance of the inclusion of a pharmacist in ICU-RC clinics.

An international, multicenter post hoc analysis comparing in-person and virtual medication management strategies in post-ICU recovery clinics.

DISCLAIMER: In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. PURPOSE: To compare the incidence of ICU pharmacist interventions in intensive care unit recovery center (ICU-RC) in-person and virtual clinic visits. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of interventions implemented by ICU pharmacists among adult patients who were referred to 12 ICU-RCs across the United States and the United Kingdom between September 2019 and July 2021, as reported in a previously published study "An International, Multicenter Evaluation of Comprehensive Medication Management by Pharmacists in ICU Recovery Centers." That study included patients who received a comprehensive medication review by an ICU pharmacist. Medication-related interventions performed by an ICU pharmacist during ICU-RC in-person clinic visits were compared to those performed during virtual clinic visits. RESULTS: There were 507 patients referred to an ICU-RC, of whom 474 patients attended a clinic visit. Of those, 472 received a comprehensive medication review, with 313 patients attending in-person visits and 159 patients attending virtual visits. The incidence of medication-related interventions implemented was higher in the ICU-RC in-person clinic group compared to the virtual clinic group (86.5% vs 79.2%, P = 0.04). There was no difference in the median number of ICU pharmacist interventions per patient between the in-person and virtual clinic groups (2 vs 2, P = 0.13). An ICU admission diagnosis was an independent predictor of medication-related interventions among all patients. CONCLUSION: The incidence of ICU pharmacist interventions was higher at ICU-RC in-person clinic visits compared to virtual clinic visits. Pharmacists aid in meeting the complex pharmacologic challenges of post-intensive care syndrome in both settings.

Candidate reactions to a postgraduate year 1 pharmacy residency supplemental application.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to gauge postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) pharmacy residency candidates' reactions to supplemental applications, as well as aspects specific to our process, including a personality test and situational judgment test (SJT). METHODS: After rank lists were submitted, applicants to our program were invited to complete an online survey. Outcomes of interest included candidates' perceptions of relevance and fairness. Whether candidates' attitudes differed based on the receipt of an interview offer was also assessed. RESULTS: Of 199 applicants to our program for the 2021-2022 training year, 48 applicants (24.1%) completed the survey, 15 of whom had received an interview offer. Most (64.6%) agreed that supplemental applications were useful, and nearly all (95.8%) indicated that they were willing to submit one for programs in which they were most interested. The process was seen as being fair, although ratings were higher among those who received interview offers. Most respondents believed that the personality test and SJT were relevant to the role of a resident, but attitudes towards the SJT were generally more favorable and less likely to vary according to whether candidates received an interview offer. Candidates believed that the personality test and SJT were not as representative of them as letters of reference or their curriculum vitae, but perceptions of academic performance varied. CONCLUSION: Applicants responded positively to our supplemental application and indicated that they would be willing to complete one for programs of interest. These findings should help assuage concerns about the use of supplemental applications, particularly when short-answer or essay formats are avoided.

Personality: A potentially untapped resource in the selection of postgraduate pharmacy residents.

PURPOSE: This study assessed whether personality testing of postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) pharmacy residency applicants was feasible and predicted important selection outcomes, including interview offers. METHODS: Applicants to the PGY1 pharmacy residency program at a large academic medical center were invited to complete a 50-item online personality test based on the 5-factor model (ie, the "Big Five"). Scores were sealed until after matching, at which point they were compared to screening, interview, and ranking and match outcomes. Endpoints of interest included the feasibility of the test (eg, time required for completion, completion rate) and whether personality predicted the odds of an interview offer. RESULTS: The personality test was taken by 137 PGY1 applicants (69.5%) and required a median of 6.8 minutes to complete. Openness to experience was associated with decreased odds of an interview offer (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.98), whereas conscientiousness and extraversion were associated with increased odds of an interview offer (conscientiousness: adjusted OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.02-1.55; extraversion: OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.03-1.31). When combined with traditional screening criteria (eg, awards, leadership positions), openness to experience and extraversion remained predictors of an interview offer (in the directions specified above), whereas conscientiousness did not. In an exploratory analysis of interviewees, agreeableness was a negative predictor of interview score. Personality did not predict screening scores or final ranking. CONCLUSION: Personality testing, based on the traits desired at individual residency programs, could be a valuable addition to the methods used for selecting PGY1 pharmacy residents.

Selection by design: Using job analysis to guide the selection of postgraduate pharmacy residents.

PURPOSE: To help ensure that we were accurately and consistently evaluating applicants to our postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) pharmacy residency program, we performed a job analysis to inform a redesign of our selection process. SUMMARY: A diverse panel of subject matter experts from our program was convened to develop a task inventory; a list of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics necessary for success in our program; and behavioral snapshots representing especially strong or weak resident performance (ie, critical incidents). After achieving a priori thresholds of consensus, these items were used to augment our application screening instrument (eg, development of anchored rating scales), build an online supplemental application consisting of a personality test and situational judgment test, develop a work sample consisting of a patient case presentation, and enhance the structure of our interviews (eg, by asking a consistent pattern of questions for all candidates). Preceptors reported that the redesigned process was more organized, easier to complete, and facilitated greater rating consistency. CONCLUSION: Job analysis represents an approach to designing selection processes that are more valid, reliable, transparent, and fair. Based on our experiences, recommendations for those who are considering changes to their selection process are provided.