Critical care pharmacy workforce: a 2020 re-evaluation of the UK deployment and characteristics.

INTRODUCTION: Critical care pharmacists improve the quality and efficiency of medication therapy whilst reducing treatment costs where they are available. UK critical care pharmacist deployment was described in 2015, highlighting a deficit in numbers, experience level, and critical care access to pharmacy services over the 7-day week. Since then, national workforce standards have been emphasised, quality indicators published, and service commissioning documents produced, reinforced by care quality assessments. Whether these initiatives have resulted in further development of the UK critical care pharmacy workforce is unknown. This evaluation provides a 2020 status update. METHODS: The 2015 electronic data entry tool was updated and circulated for completion by UK critical care pharmacists. The tool captured workforce data disposition as it was just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, at critical care unit level. MAIN FINDINGS: Data were received for 334 critical care units from 203 organisations (96% of UK critical care units). Overall, 98.2% of UK critical care units had specific clinical pharmacist time dedicated to the unit. The median weekday pharmacist input to each level 3 equivalent bed was 0.066 (0.043-0.088) whole time equivalents, a significant increase from the median position in 2015 (+ 0.021, p < 0.0001). Despite this progress, pharmacist availability remains below national minimum standards (0.1/level 3 equivalent bed). Most units (71.9%) had access to prescribing pharmacists. Geographical variation in pharmacist staffing levels were evident, and weekend services remain extremely limited. CONCLUSIONS: Availability of clinical pharmacists in UK adult critical care units is improving. However, national standards are not routinely met despite widely publicised quality indicators, commissioning specifications, and assessments. Additional measures are needed to address persistent deficits and realise gains in organisational and patient-level outcomes. These measures must include promotion of cross-professional collaborative working, adjusted funding models, and a nationally recognised training pathway for critical care pharmacists.

Multidisciplinary expert panel report on fluid stewardship: perspectives and practice.

Although effective and appropriate fluid management is a critical aspect of quality care during hospitalization, the widespread adoption of consistent policies that ensure adequate fluid stewardship has been slow and heterogenous. Despite evidence-based guidelines on fluid management being available, clinical opinions continue to diverge on important aspects of care in this setting, and the consistency of guideline implementation is far from ideal. A multidisciplinary panel of leading practitioners and experts convened to discuss best practices for ongoing staff education, intravenous fluid therapy, new training technologies, and strategies to track the success of institutional fluid stewardship efforts. Fluid leads should be identified in every hospital to ensure consistency in fluid administration and monitoring. In this article, strategies to communicate the importance of effective fluid stewardship for the purposes of education, training, institutional support, and improvement of patient outcomes are reviewed and recommendations are summarized.

Introducing NICE guidelines for intravenous fluid therapy into a district general hospital.

BACKGROUND: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on intravenous fluid prescribing for adults in hospital, issued in 2013, advised less use of 0.9% sodium chloride than current practice, provided a logical system for prescribing and suggested further study of electrolyte abnormalities. AIMS: To describe the steps taken to establish and monitor guideline introduction and to assess effects on clinical biochemistry results, in a general hospital setting. METHODS: We used established principles of change to modify education, teaching, record keeping and audit throughout the hospital, changed the availability of intravenous fluid preparations in the wards and monitored the use of intravenous fluids. We anonymously linked local clinical chemistry records to nationally available patient records (NHS Scotland SMR01). We chose specified medical emergencies, and major emergency and elective general and orthopaedic surgery, where management would require intravenous fluids, for a two-phase cross-sectional study between 2007 and 2017, spanning the change in prescribing. Primary outcomes were abnormal bicarbonate, sodium, potassium and incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI), and secondary outcomes were mortality and length of stay. RESULTS: Over the study period, sodium chloride 0.9% use decreased by 75%, and overall intravenous fluid use decreased from 0.65 to 0.40 L/occupied bed day. The incidence of acidosis decreased from 7.4% to 4.8% of all admissions (difference -2.7%, 95% CI -2.1 to -3.0). No important changes in other electrolytes were noted; in particular, plasma sodium values showed no adverse effects. Stage 1 AKI increased from 6.7% to 9.0% (difference 2.3%, 95% CI 1.6 to 3.0), but other causes for this cannot be excluded. Mortality and length of stay showed no adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Effective implementation of the guidelines required substantial time, effort and resource. NICE suggestions of fluid types for maintenance appear appropriate, but prescribed volumes continue to require careful clinical judgement.

Community prescribing of potentially nephrotoxic drugs and risk of acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy in critically ill adults: A national cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury demonstrates a high incidence in critically ill populations, with many requiring renal replacement therapy. Patients may be at increased risk of acute kidney injury if prescribed certain potentially nephrotoxic medications. We aimed to evaluate this association in ICU survivors. METHODS: Study design - secondary analysis of national cohort of ICU survivors to hospital discharge linked to Scottish healthcare datasets. Outcomes: primary - renal replacement therapy in ICU; secondary - early acute kidney injury (calculated using urine output and relative change from estimated baseline serum creatinine within first 24 h of ICU admission using modified-RIFLE criteria). Primary exposure: pre-admission community prescribing of at least one potential nephrotoxin: angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers, diuretics or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Statistical analyses: unadjusted associations - univariable logistic regression; confounder adjusted: multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: During 2011-2013, 12,838 of 23,116 patients (55.5%) were prescribed at least one community prescription of at least one nephrotoxin; 1330 (5.8%) patients received renal replacement therapy; 3061 (15.7%) had acute kidney injury. Patients exposed to at least one examined nephrotoxin experienced higher incidence of renal replacement therapy (6.8% vs 4.5%; adjOR 1.46, 95%CI 1.24, 1.72, p < 0.001) and acute kidney injury (19.8% vs 10.9%; adjOR 1.61, 1.44, 1.80, p < 0.001). Increased risk of RRT was also found for angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers (adjOR 1.65, 1.40, 1.94), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (adjOR 1.12, 1.02, 1.44) and diuretics (adjOR 1.35, 1.14, 1.59). CONCLUSIONS: Community prescribing of potential nephrotoxins increases the risk of renal replacement therapy/early acute kidney injury in ICU populations. Analyses were limited by the survivor dataset and potential residual confounding. Findings add consistency to previous research improving understanding of the harmful potential of these important medications and their timely cessation in acute illness.