RESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Hospitalización , Pacientes Internos , Humanos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Masculino , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Pacientes Internos/estadística & datos numéricos , Sueño , Melatonina/uso terapéutico , Adulto , Estudios de Cohortes , Alta del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina/estadística & datos numéricos , Anciano de 80 o más AñosRESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
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.