ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT: Patients who have Parkinson disease require individualized medication regimens to optimize care. A review of the medication management of patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital with a secondary diagnosis of Parkinson disease found significant departures from the patients' home regimen. Medication regimens are often altered by health care teams unfamiliar with Parkinson disease-specific care in order to conform to standard hospital medication orders and administration times, potentially resulting in increased patient falls, delirium, and mortality.A nurse-led multidisciplinary team consisting of pharmacy, nursing, informatics, neurology, and quality personnel implemented a quality improvement (QI) project between July 2020 and July 2022 to identify patients with Parkinson disease, including those with a secondary diagnosis and those undergoing deep brain stimulation, and customize medication management in order to reduce length of stay, mortality, falls, falls with harm, and 30-day readmissions. The QI project team also evaluated patient satisfaction with medication management.Among patients with a secondary diagnosis of Parkinson disease, the proportion who had medication histories conducted by a pharmacy staff member increased from a baseline of 53% to more than 75% per month. For all patients with Parkinson disease, those whose medication history was taken by a pharmacy staff member had orders matching their home regimen 89% of the time, whereas those who did not had orders matching the home regimen only 40% of the time. Among patients with a secondary diagnosis of Parkinson disease, the length-of-stay index decreased from a baseline of 1 to 0.94 and observed-to-expected mortality decreased from 1.03 to 0.78. The proportion of patients experiencing a fall decreased from an average of 5% to 4.08% per quarter, while the proportion of patients experiencing a fall with harm decreased from an average of 1% to 0.75% per quarter. The rate of 30-day readmissions decreased from 10.81% to 4.53% per quarter. Patient satisfaction scores were 1.95 points higher for patients who had medication histories taken by pharmacy than for those who did not (5 versus 3.05).
Subject(s)
Parkinson Disease , Quality Improvement , Humans , Parkinson Disease/drug therapy , Male , Female , Aged , Inpatients/statistics & numerical data , Medication Therapy Management/standards , Patient Satisfaction , Accidental Falls/prevention & control , Patient Care Team , Middle AgedABSTRACT
Suicide prevention requires risk identification, appropriate intervention, and follow-up. Traditional risk identification relies on patient self-reporting, support network reporting, or face-to-face screening with validated instruments or history and physical exam. In the last decade, statistical risk models have been studied and more recently deployed to augment clinical judgment. Models have generally been found to be low precision or problematic at scale due to low incidence. Few have been tested in clinical practice, and none have been tested in clinical trials to our knowledge. Methods: We report the results of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) in three outpatient adult Neurology clinic settings. This two-arm trial compared the effectiveness of Interruptive and Non-Interruptive Clinical Decision Support (CDS) to prompt further screening of suicidal ideation for those predicted to be high risk using a real-time, validated statistical risk model of suicide attempt risk, with the decision to screen as the primary end point. Secondary outcomes included rates of suicidal ideation and attempts in both arms. Manual chart review of every trial encounter was used to determine if suicide risk assessment was subsequently documented. Results: From August 16, 2022, through February 16, 2023, our study randomized 596 patient encounters across 561 patients for providers to receive either Interruptive or Non-Interruptive CDS in a 1:1 ratio. Adjusting for provider cluster effects, Interruptive CDS led to significantly higher numbers of decisions to screen (42%=121/289 encounters) compared to Non-Interruptive CDS (4%=12/307) (odds ratio=17.7, p-value <0.001). Secondarily, no documented episodes of suicidal ideation or attempts occurred in either arm. While the proportion of documented assessments among those noting the decision to screen was higher for providers in the Non-Interruptive arm (92%=11/12) than in the Interruptive arm (52%=63/121), the interruptive CDS was associated with more frequent documentation of suicide risk assessment (63/289 encounters compared to 11/307, p-value<0.001). Conclusions: In this pragmatic RCT of real-time predictive CDS to guide suicide risk assessment, Interruptive CDS led to higher numbers of decisions to screen and documented suicide risk assessments. Well-powered large-scale trials randomizing this type of CDS compared to standard of care are indicated to measure effectiveness in reducing suicidal self-harm. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05312437.