Pharmacists' Perceptions on Their Role, Activities, Facilitators, and Barriers to Practicing in a Post-Intensive Care Recovery Clinic.

Background: Complex medication regimen changes burden intensive care unit (ICU) survivors and their caregivers during the transition to home. Intensive care unit recovery clinics are a prime setting for pharmacists to address patients' and their caregivers' medication-related needs. The purpose of this study was to describe ICU recovery clinic pharmacists' activities, roles, and perceived barriers and facilitators to practicing in ICU recovery clinics across different institutions. Methods: An expert panel of ICU recovery clinic pharmacists completed a 15-item survey. Survey items addressed the pharmacists' years in practice, education and training, activities performed, their perceptions of facilitators and barriers to practicing in an ICU recovery clinic setting, and general ICU recovery clinic characteristics. Descriptive statistics were used. Results: Nine ICU recovery clinic pharmacists participated. The average number of years in practice was 16.5 years (SD = 13.5, range = 2-38). All pharmacists practiced in an interprofessional ICU recovery clinic affiliated with an academic medical center. Seven (78%) pharmacists always performed medication reconciliation and a comprehensive medication review in each patient visit. Need for medication education was the most prevalent item found in patient comprehensive medication reviews. The main facilitators for pharmacists' successful participation in an ICU recovery clinic were incorporation into clinic workflow, support from other health care providers, and adequate space to see patients. The ICU recovery clinic pharmacists perceived the top barriers to be lack of dedicated time and inadequate billing for services. Conclusions: The ICU recovery clinic pharmacists address ICU survivors' medication needs by providing direct patient care in the clinic. Strategies to mitigate pharmacists' barriers to practicing in ICU recovery clinics, such as lack of dedicated time and adequate billing for pharmacist services, warrant a multifaceted solution, potentially including advocacy and policy work by national pharmacy professional organizations.

High-Alert Medication Stratification Tool-Revised: An Exploratory Study of an Objective, Standardized Medication Safety Tool.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an objective tool designed to standardize the identification of high-alert medications (HAMs) according to patient safety risk. METHODS: Medications were evaluated using the High-Alert Medication Stratification Tool (HAMST). Tool revision occurred through assessing medications on an organization-approved HAM list and comparing scores with control medications not included on the list. Because of variations in HAMST interpretation by end users in interdisciplinary committees, a revision of the scoring tool was completed to create the High-Alert Medication Stratification Tool-Revised (HAMST-R), and the assessment was repeated. Both tools range from 0 to 10, with 10 describing agents with highest risk. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range [IQR]) initial HAM (n = 44) score using HAMST was 6 (5-7). The median (IQR) control (n = 45) score was 1 (0-2). Using the modified tool, HAMST-R, the median (IQR) HAM score was 4 (4-6) versus 1 (0-1) for controls. Scores for HAMs were significantly higher than controls using both tools (P < 0.001). A HAMST-R score of 4 or higher defines medications as high alert, as this score includes 75% of HAMs and no controls. CONCLUSIONS: Through this exploratory study, clarification of the tool was required to increase its concurrent validity, interrater reliability, and implementation among other health systems. The revised tool, HAMST-R, is a newly developed, objective tool for standardized identification of HAMs. The tool may also be used for prospective identification of medications as high risk to patient safety during formulary review.

High-Alert Medication Stratification Tool-Revised Phase II: A Multisite Study Examining the Validity, Interrater Reliability, and Ease of Use of the High-Alert Medication Stratification Tool-Revised.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this multisite study, High-Alert Medication Stratification Tool-Revised (HAMST-R) phase II, was to assess the content validity of HAMST-R. Secondary outcomes included interrater reliability and ease of use. METHODS: HAMST-R was designed as an objective tool to evaluate high-alert medications (HAMs) at a single site during HAMST-R Phase I. Medication safety experts from 7 health systems across the United States volunteered to participate in this phase II study. Participants completed a demographic survey, oversaw evaluation of 47 HAMs and 35 non-HAMs using HAMST-R, and submitted scores for each medication evaluated. In addition, participants rated each question of HAMST-R on its relevance to assess a medication's safety risk, measured as scale-content validity index. Positive and negative predictive values were evaluated in a post hoc analysis. Interrater reliability was evaluated using the Kendall coefficient of concordance (K), and ease of use was assessed using a mixed-methods approach. RESULTS: Scale-content validity index was 0.80, indicating that the tool was valid. Positive predictive value was 90.5% (95% confidence interval, 87.2%-93.0%), and negative predictive value was 98.2% (95% confidence interval, 95.4%-99.3%). A score of 4 or more differentiated between HAMs and non-HAMs, confirming phase I findings. K was 0.56, indicating moderate agreement. Participants confirmed that the tool was easy to use and plan to incorporate the tool into HAM policies and procedures, formulary review, and safety strategy implementation. CONCLUSIONS: HAMST-R is a valid, objective, and easy to use method that institutions may implement to evaluate a medication's potential safety risk.

A Multicenter Evaluation of Outcomes Following the Use of Nebulized Heparin for Inhalation Injury (HIHI2 Study).

Inhalation injury causes significant morbidity and mortality secondary to compromise of the respiratory system as well as systemic effects limiting perfusion and oxygenation. Nebulized heparin reduces fibrin cast formation and duration of mechanical ventilation in patients with inhalation injury. To date, no study has compared both dosing strategies of 5000 and 10,000 units to a matched control group. This multicenter, retrospective, case-control study included adult patients with bronchoscopy-confirmed inhalation injury. Each control patient, matched according to age and percent of total body surface area, was matched to a patient who received 5000 units and a patient who received 10,000 units of nebulized heparin. The primary endpoint of the study was duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary endpoints included 28-day mortality, ventilator-free days in the first 28 days, difference in lung injury scores, length of hospitalization, incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia, and rate of major bleeding. Thirty-five matched patient trios met inclusion criteria. Groups were well-matched for age (P = .975) and total body surface area (P = .855). Patients who received nebulized heparin, either 5000 or 10,000 units, had 8 to 11 less days on the ventilator compared to controls (P = .001). Mortality ranged from 3 to 14% overall and was not statistically significant between groups. No major bleeding events related to nebulized heparin were reported. Mechanical ventilation days were significantly decreased in patients who received 5000 or 10,000 units of nebulized heparin. Nebulized heparin, either 5000 units or 10,000 units, is a safe and effective treatment for inhalation injury.

Investigating multiple sources of data for smart infusion pump and electronic health record interoperability.

PURPOSE: Infusion pump data, which describe compliance to dose-error reduction software among other metrics, are retrievable from infusion pump vendor software, electronic health record (EHR) systems, and regional and national data repositories such as the Regenstrief National Center for Medical Device Informatics (REMEDI). Smart infusion pump and EHR interoperability has added to the granularity and complexity of data collected, and clinicians are challenged with efficiently comprehending and interpreting the data and reports available. SUMMARY: Collaborative partnerships between the Indianapolis Coalition for Patient Safety and the Regenstrief Center for Healthcare Engineering allowed for clinicians, informaticists, researchers, and engineers to compare the information gained and strengths of using smart infusion pumps, EHR, and REMEDI to assess hospital medication safety in a setting of interoperability. Seven reporting capabilities were used to compare available reports, and 2 hypothetical scenarios were developed to highlight these processes. Infusion pump vendor-provided software and reports were found to provide the most usable information for detailed infusion reporting, while the EHR was strongly usable for interoperability compliance and REMEDI excelled in benchmarking capabilities. CONCLUSION: While infusion analytics needs may differ across health systems, a better understanding of the strengths of infusion pump data and EHR data may help provide structure and direction in the infusion analytics process. Infusion data repositories such as REMEDI are useful tools to obtain information in a way not delivered by smart pump data.

Stakeholder perceptions of smart infusion pumps and drug library updates: A multisite, interdisciplinary study.

PURPOSE: Results of a questionnaire-based study to evaluate smart infusion pump end users' perceptions and understanding of the drug library update process are reported. METHODS: The Indianapolis Coalition for Patient Safety, Inc., in partnership with the Regenstrief Center for Healthcare Engineering, conducted a 33-item electronic, cross-sectional survey across 5 Indiana health systems from May through November 2017. Interdisciplinary participants identified for survey distribution included nurses, pharmacists, biomedical engineers, administrators, and medication safety officers. The survey assessed the following domains: patient safety, the drug library update process, knowledge of drug libraries and the update process, and end-user perceptions. RESULTS: A total of 778 submitted surveys were included in the data analysis, with a large majority of responses (90.2%) provided by nurses. The use of drug libraries for ensuring patient safety was deemed extremely important or important by 88% of respondents, but 36% indicated that they were unsure of whether drug libraries are updated on a routine basis in their health system. Approximately two-thirds agreed that the current update process improves quality of care (65.0%) and patient safety (68.1%). Moreover, 53.3% agreed that the current drug library update process was effective. However, less than 10% responded correctly when asked about the steps required to update the drug library. Furthermore, only 18% correctly indicated that when a pump is on it may not necessarily contain the most up-to-date version of the drug library. CONCLUSION: A survey of 5 health systems in Indianapolis identified several end-user knowledge gaps related to smart pump drug library updates. The results suggest that these gaps were most likely due to a combination of the 2-step update process and the fact that the current drug library version is not easy to find and/or user-friendly and it is unclear when an update is pending.