Perioperative Medication Management.

Medication management in the perioperative period is a critical part of the decision-making prior to surgery. While randomized trial levels of evidence in this space are scant, retrospective data and expert consensus provide practical guidance for these decisions. Clinicians must understand risks and benefits of withholding versus continuing medications, stop medications based on pharmacokinetics and effect on primary disease and surgical risk, and resume medications after surgery in a timely manner. Knowing alternate routes of medication administration can help keep chronic disease processes stable through surgery.

Cross-sectional study to evaluate patients' medication management with a new model of care: incorporating a pharmacist into a community specialist palliative care telehealth service.

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving palliative care are often on complex medication regimes to manage their symptoms and comorbidities and at high risk of medication-related problems. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the involvement of a pharmacist to an existing community specialist palliative care telehealth service on patients' medication management. METHOD: The specialist palliative care pharmacist attended two palliative care telehealth sessions per week over a six-month period (October 2020 to March 2021). Attendance was allocated based on funding received. Data collected from the medication management reviews included prevalence of polypharmacy, number of inappropriate medication according to the Screening Tool of Older Persons Prescriptions in Frail adults with limited life expectancy criteria (STOPP/FRAIL) and recommendations on deprescribing, symptom control and medication management. RESULTS: In total 95 patients participated in the pharmaceutical telehealth service with a mean age of 75.2 years (SD 10.67). Whilst 81 (85.3%) patients had a cancer diagnosis, 14 (14.7%) had a non-cancer diagnosis. At referral, 84 (88.4%, SD 4.57) patients were taking ≥ 5 medications with 51 (53.7%, SD 5.03) taking ≥ 10 medications. According to STOPP/FRAIL criteria, 142 potentially inappropriate medications were taken by 54 (56.8%) patients, with a mean of 2.6 (SD 1.16) inappropriate medications per person. Overall, 142 recommendations were accepted from the pharmaceutical medication management review including 49 (34.5%) related to deprescribing, 20 (14.0%) to medication-related problems, 35 (24.7%) to symptom management and 38 (26.8%) to medication administration. CONCLUSION: This study provided evidence regarding the value of including a pharmacist in palliative care telehealth services. Input from the pharmacist resulted in improved symptom management of community palliative care patients and their overall medication management.

Orthopaedic Nurse Navigators and Total Joint Arthroplasty Preoperative Optimization: Payer Status and Medication Management-Part Six of the Movement Is Life Special ONJ Series.

This article is the sixth in the Movement is Life series and focuses on insurance coverage and medication management in the perioperative period, 2 tangentially related variables that affect patient outcomes. Our aim is to use current practices and literature to develop recommendations for nurse navigators' execution of preoperative optimization protocols related to payer status and medication management. Discussions with nurse navigators and a literature search were used to gather information and develop recommendations specific to optimizing payer status and medication management. Nurse navigators connected patients to resources and provided education regarding financial concerns and medications, and findings from the literature discussed insurance status among TJA patients. Nurse navigators can contribute to payer status and medication management optimization by providing patient education and resource referrals. In addition, we recommend conducting repeated medication reconciliation and developing awareness of financial resources and perioperative medication management guidelines.

Validation of an algorithm to prioritize patients for comprehensive medication management in primary care settings.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive medication management (CMM) programs optimize the effectiveness and safety of patients' medication regimens, but CMM may be underutilized. Whether healthcare claims data can identify patients appropriate for CMM is not well-studied. AIM: Determine the face validity of a claims-based algorithm to prioritize patients who likely need CMM. METHOD: We used claims data to construct patient-level markers of "regimen complexity" and "high-risk for adverse effects," which were combined to define four categories of claims-based CMM-need (very likely, likely, unlikely, very unlikely) among 180 patient records. Three clinicians independently reviewed each record to assess CMM need. We assessed concordance between the claims-based and clinician-review CMM need by calculating percent agreement as well as kappa statistic. RESULTS: Most records identified as 'very likely' (90%) by claims-based markers were identified by clinician-reviewers as needing CMM. Few records within the 'very unlikely' group (5%) were identified by clinician-reviewers as needing CMM. Interrater agreement between CMM-based algorithm and clinician review was moderate in strength (kappa = 0.6, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Claims-based pharmacy measures may offer a valid approach to prioritize patients into CMM-need groups. Further testing of this algorithm is needed prior to implementation in clinic settings.

The Impact of Health Equity-Informed Eligibility Criteria to Increase the Delivery of Pharmacist-Delivered Comprehensive Medication Management Services for Patients with High Blood Pressure.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate a cardiovascular care intervention intended to increase access to comprehensive medication management (CMM) pharmacy care and improve vascular health goals among socially disadvantaged patients. DESIGN: Retrospective electronic health records-based evaluation. SETTING: Thirteen health care clinics serving socially vulnerable neighborhoods within a large health system. PARTICIPANTS: Hypertensive and hyperlipidemic adult patients. INTERVENTION: CMM pharmacists increased recruitment among patients who met clinical criteria in clinics serving more diverse and socially vulnerable communities. CMM pharmacists partnered with patients to work toward meeting health goals through medication management and lifestyle modification. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in the engagement of socially disadvantaged patients between preintervention and intervention time periods; vascular health goals (ie, controlled blood pressure, appropriate statin and aspirin therapies, and tobacco nonuse); and the use of health system resources by CMM care group. RESULTS: The intervention indicated an overall shift in sociodemographics among patients receiving CMM care (fewer non-Hispanic Whites: N = 1988, 55.81% vs N = 2264, 59.97%, P < .001; greater place-based social vulnerability: N = 1354, 38.01% vs N = 1309, 34.68%, P = .03; more patients requiring interpreters: N = 776, 21.79% vs N = 698, 18.49%, P < .001) compared to the preintervention period. Among patients meeting intervention criteria, those who partnered with CMM pharmacists (N = 439) were more likely to connect with system resources (social work: N = 47, 10.71% vs 163, 3.74%, P < .001; medical specialists: N = 249, 56.72% vs N = 1989, 45.66%; P < .001) compared to those without CMM care (N = 4356). Intervention patients who partnered with CMM pharmacists were also more likely to meet blood pressure (N = 357, 81.32% vs N = 3317, 76.15%, P < .001) and statin goals (N = 397, 90.43% vs N = 3509, 80.56%, P < .001) compared to non-CMM patients. CONCLUSIONS: The demographics of patients receiving CMM became more diverse with the intervention, indicating improved access to CMM pharmacists. Cultivating relationships among patients with greater social disadvantage and cardiovascular disease and CMM pharmacists may improve health outcomes and connect patients to essential resources, thus potentially improving long-term cardiovascular outcomes.

Enhancing drug therapy in ostomy patients: Best practice recommendations for medication management.

BACKGROUND: Ostomy surgery is a common procedure that poses various challenges for patients and healthcare professionals. There are numerous guidelines addressing different ostomy-related problems (ORPs) and supporting an interdisciplinary approach for ostomy care, but evidence-based literature for optimizing drug therapy after ostomy surgery is lacking. AIM: To investigate and characterize typical ORPs in relation to drug therapy and provide best practice recommendations from a pharmaceutical point of view. METHODS: Patients with an ileo- or colostomy were consecutively enrolled in a prospective, interventional monocentric cohort study during hospitalization, with particular attention to medication. A clinical pharmacist assessed DRPs by performing level 3 medication reviews and patient interviews. Pharmacists' interventions (PIs) were evaluated by two senior clinical pharmacists and documented in DokuPIK (Documentation of Pharmacists' Interventions in the Hospital). Following interdisciplinary discussions, physicians either accepted or rejected the proposed changes in drug therapy. Comparisons were made between ileostomy and colostomy patients regarding type and extent of PIs. RESULTS: Out of the 80 patients included in the cohort, 54 (67.5%) had an ileostomy and 26 (32.5%) a colostomy. In this study, 288 PIs were documented (234 ileostomy vs. 54 colostomy), of wich 94.0% were accepted and implemented by the physicians. The most common reason for PIs in both subgroups (29.6% ileostomy vs. 26.1% colostomy) was a missing drug although indicated (e.g. no loperamide, but high stoma output). The proportion of PIs associated with the ostomy was higher in ileostomy patients (48.3% ileostomy vs. 31.5% colostomy; p = 0.025). Typical ORPs were extracted and analyzed as case studies including recommendations for their respective management and prevention. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the importance of clinical pharmacists being a part of interdisciplinary teams to collaboratively improve ostomy care and patient safety. Especially ileostomy patients are more vulnerable for ORPs in the context of drug therapy and need to be monitored carefully.

Drug-Related Problems and Recommendations Made during Home Medicines Reviews for Sick Day Medication Management in Australia.

Backgrounds and Objectives: Using certain medications during an intercurrent illness can increase the risk of drug related problems (DRP) occurring such as acute kidney injury (AKI). Medications that increase this risk include sulfonylureas, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, diuretics, metformin, angiotensin receptor blockers, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories drugs, and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SADMANS). Sick day medication guidance (SDMG) recommends withholding SADMANS medications during an intercurrent illness where adequate fluid intake cannot be maintained. But uptake of these recommendations is poor, and it is not known whether Australian pharmacists currently provide these recommendations during home medicine reviews (HMR) as per SDMG. We aimed to gain an understanding of the characteristics of DRP identified by pharmacists during HMR, especially those relating to SADMANS medications. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective audit of 201 randomly selected HMR reports, conducted by accredited pharmacists from 2020 to 2022, that were analysed in 2023. All DRP and recommendations were categorised using a modified DOCUMENT system. Results: Overall, over 98% of participants experienced a DRP and a total of 710 DRP were found, where participants experienced an average of 4.0 ± 2.0 DRP each. Non-SADMANS medications accounted for 83.1% of all DRPs, with nervous system medications contributing the most. Common problems seen in non-SADMANS medications were related to toxicity, over/underdosing and undertreating. Diuretics contributed most to DRP in SADMANS medications. Problems with SADMANS were mainly related to toxicity and contraindications. No pharmacists provided SDMG despite 71.1% of participants using at least one SADMANS medication. Conclusions: We conclude that DRP remain prevalent in community pharmacy settings. Sick day recommendations were not provided in the HMRs included in our study, possibly due to lack of pharmacist knowledge and awareness. To ensure best practice, more research should be conducted to determine pharmacists' knowledge of and barriers to provision of sick day recommendations.

A survey on the implementation of clinical medication reviews in community pharmacies within a multidisciplinary setting.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is common in chronic medication users, which increases the risk of drug related problems. A suitable intervention is the clinical medication review (CMR) that was introduced in the Netherlands in 2012, but the effectiveness might be hindered by limited implementation in community pharmacies. Therefore our aim was to describe the current implementation of CMRs in Dutch community pharmacies and to identify barriers to the implementation. METHODS: An online questionnaire was developed based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and consisted of 58 questions with open ended, multiple choice or Likert-scale answering options. It was sent out to all Dutch community pharmacies (n = 1,953) in January 2021. Descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS: A total of 289 (14.8%) community pharmacies filled out the questionnaire. Most of the pharmacists agreed that a CMR has a positive effect on the quality of pharmacotherapy (91.3%) and on medication adherence (64.3%). Pharmacists structured CMRs according to available selection criteria or guidelines (92%). Pharmacists (90%) believed that jointly conducting a CMR with a general practitioner (GP) improved their mutual relationship, whereas 21% believed it improved the relationship with a medical specialist. Lack of time was reported by 43% of pharmacists and 80% (fully) agreed conducting CMRs with a medical specialist was complicated. Most pharmacists indicated that pharmacy technicians can assist in performing CMRs, but they rarely do in practice. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of time and suboptimal collaboration with medical specialists are the most important barriers to the implementation of CMRs.