Collaborative Management Strategies for Drug Shortages in Neurocritical Care.

Drug shortages have become all too familiar in the health care environment, with over 200 drugs currently on shortage. In the wake of Hurricane Maria in September 2017, hospitals across the USA had to quickly and creatively adjust medication preparation and administration techniques in light of decreased availability of intravenous (IV) bags used for compounding a vast amount of medications. Amino acid preparations, essential for compounding parenteral nutrition, were also directly impacted by the hurricane. Upon realization of the impending drug shortages, hospitals resorted to alternative methods of drug administration, such as IV push routes, formulary substitutions, or alternative drug therapies in hopes of preserving the small supply of IV bags available and prioritizing them for them most critical needs. In some cases, alternative drug therapies were required, which increased the risk of medication errors due to the use of less-familiar treatment options. Clinical pharmacists rounding with medical teams provided essential, patient-specific drug regimen alternatives to help preserve a dwindling supply while ensuring use in the most critical cases. Drug shortages also frequently occur in the setting of manufacturing delays or discontinuation and drug recalls, with potential to negatively impact patient care. The seriousness of the drug shortage crisis reached public attention by December 2017, when political and pharmacy organizations called for response to the national drug shortage crisis. In this article, we review institutional mitigation strategies in response to drug shortages and discuss downstream effects of these shortages, focusing on medications commonly prescribed in neurocritical care patients.

Evaluation of Medication Errors at the Transition of Care From an ICU to Non-ICU Location.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the point prevalence of medication errors at the time of transition of care from an ICU to non-ICU location and assess error types and risk factors for medication errors during transition of care. DESIGN: This was a multicenter, retrospective, 7-day point prevalence study. SETTING: Fifty-eight ICUs within 34 institutions in the United States and two in the Netherlands. PATIENTS: Nine-hundred eighty-five patients transferred from an ICU to non-ICU location. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 985 patients transferred, 450 (45.7%) had a medication error occur during transition of care. Among patients with a medication error, an average of 1.88 errors per patient (SD, 1.30; range, 1-9) occurred. The most common types of errors were continuation of medication with ICU-only indication (28.4%), untreated condition (19.4%), and pharmacotherapy without indication (11.9%). Seventy-five percent of errors reached the patient but did not cause harm. The occurrence of errors varied by type and size of institution and ICU. Renal replacement therapy during ICU stay and number of medications ordered following transfer were identified as factors associated with occurrence of error (odds ratio, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.42-6.05; odds ratio 1.08, 95% CI, 1.02-1.14, respectively). Orders for anti-infective (odds ratio, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.19-2.32), hematologic agents (1.75; 95% CI, 1.17-2.62), and IV fluids, electrolytes, or diuretics (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.21-2.48) at transition of care were associated with an increased odds of error. Factors associated with decreased odds of error included daily patient care rounds in the ICU (odds ratio, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.07-0.34) and orders discontinued and rewritten at the time of transfer from the ICU (odds ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.17-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of patients experienced medication errors at the time of transition of care from an ICU to non-ICU location. Most errors reached the patient but did not cause harm. This study identified risk factors upon which risk mitigation strategies should be focused.

Impact of an external ventricular drain bundle and limited duration antibiotic prophylaxis on drain-related infections and antibiotic resistance.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Systemic prophylactic antibiotics have been used to reduce the rate of neurosurgical drain-related infections (DRIs) but the optimal duration is unknown. The Neurocritical Care Society Consensus Statement for External Ventricular Drain (EVD) management recommends a single antibiotic dose preoperatively. Data regarding antibiotic management for other neurosurgical drains (e.g. subgaleal and subdural drains) are lacking. Previously at our institution antibiotics were continued for the duration of drain placement. In 2016 an EVD bundle was implemented to standardize nursing care, and antibiotic duration was changed to one preoperative dose for all neurosurgical drains. The objective of this study was to compare the incidence of DRI, non-DRI, and antibiotic resistance before and after the implementation of an EVD bundle and limited duration antibiotics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a single center, quasi-experimental study that included patients status post EVD or craniotomy/craniectomy with subgaleal or subdural drain placement. The pre-intervention period was June 2014 through May 2015 and the post-intervention period was January 2017 through December 2017. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients were included in the pre-intervention group and 54 in the post-intervention group. The use of limited duration antibiotics (< 48 h) was 14.3 % in the pre-intervention group and 96.3 % in the post-intervention group (p < 0.001). Five DRIs were identified in the pre-intervention group and 3 in the post-intervention group (5.5 % vs 5.6 %, p = 1.00). Of patients who developed a non-DRI, 77.5 % had a resistant non-DRI in the pre-intervention group compared to 48 % in the post-intervention group (p = 0.01). The rates of resistant DRI (80 % vs 66.7 %, p = 1.00) and Clostridium difficile infection (1.1 % vs 3.7 %, p = 0.56) were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an EVD bundle and limited duration antibiotics reduced antibiotic exposure with no associated increase in risk of DRI. Rates of resistant non-DRI were significantly lower in the post-intervention group.