Inpatient pharmacists using a readmission risk model in supporting discharge medication reconciliation to reduce unplanned hospital readmissions: a quality improvement intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Reducing unplanned hospital readmissions is an important priority for all hospitals and health systems. Hospital discharge can be complicated by discrepancies in the medication reconciliation and/or prescribing processes. Clinical pharmacist involvement in the medication reconciliation process at discharge can help prevent these discrepancies and possibly reduce unplanned hospital readmissions. METHODS: We report the results of our quality improvement intervention at Duke University Hospital, in which pharmacists were involved in the discharge medication reconciliation process on select high-risk general medicine patients over 2 years (2018-2020). Pharmacists performed traditional discharge medication reconciliation which included a review of medications for clinical appropriateness and affordability. A total of 1569 patients were identified as high risk for hospital readmission using the Epic readmission risk model and had a clinical pharmacist review the discharge medication reconciliation. RESULTS: This intervention was associated with a significantly lower 7-day readmission rate in patients who scored high risk for readmission and received pharmacist support in discharge medication reconciliation versus those patients who did not receive pharmacist support (5.8% vs 7.6%). There was no effect on readmission rates of 14 or 30 days. The clinical pharmacists had at least one intervention on 67% of patients reviewed and averaged 1.75 interventions per patient. CONCLUSION: This quality improvement study showed that having clinical pharmacists intervene in the discharge medication reconciliation process in patients identified as high risk for readmission is associated with lower unplanned readmission rates at 7 days. The interventions by pharmacists were significant and well received by ordering providers. This study highlights the important role of a clinical pharmacist in the discharge medication reconciliation process.

Electronic health record usage among nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and junior residents.

BACKGROUND: Studies demonstrate significant electronic health record (EHR) use by junior residents; however, few studies have investigated this for nurse practitioners and physician assistants (NPs/PAs). PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to quantify the time spent on the EHR by NPs/PAs and junior residents. METHODS: Electronic health record usage data were collected from April 2015 through April 2016. Monthly EHR usage was compared between NPs/PAs and postgraduate second and third year residents. Further subgroup analysis of NPs/PAs and residents from surgical or nonsurgical fields was conducted. RESULTS: Data for 22 NPs/PAs (16 surgical and six nonsurgical) and 125 residents (31 surgical and 94 nonsurgical) were analyzed. Nurse practitioners/physician assistants opened fewer charts per day (4.9 ± 1.5 vs. 5.4 ± 3.1), placed more orders per month, and spent more daily time on the EHR (176.5 ± 51.7 minutes vs. 152.3 ± 71.9 minutes; p < .0001). Compared with residents, NPs/PAs spent more time per patient in all categories (chart review, documentation, order entry) and in total time per patient chart (all p < .05). Comparing surgical NPs/PAs to surgical residents, findings were similar with fewer charts per day, more total daily EHR time, and more EHR time per patient in every tracked category (all p < .05). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This is the first study to quantify time on the EHR for NPs/PAs. Nurse practitioners/physician assistants spent more time on the EHR than residents, and this is accentuated with surgical NPs/PAs. Electronic health record utilization appears more burdensome for NPs/PAs; however, the reason for this is unclear and highlights the need for targeted interventions.

The prevalence and impact of defensive medicine in the radiographic workup of the trauma patient: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Defensive medicine is estimated to cost the United States $210 billion annually. Trauma surgeons are at risk of practicing defensive medicine in the form of reflexively ordering computed tomography (CT) scans. The aim of this study is to quantify the monetary impact and radiation exposure related to the radiographic workup of trauma patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational study involving 295 trauma patients at Level I trauma center. Physicians were surveyed regarding specific CT scans ordered, likelihood of significant injuries found on scans, and which scans would have been ordered in a hypothetical, litigation-free environment. RESULTS: Four hundred sixteen of 1,097 CT scans (38%) were ordered out of defensive purposes. Nine CT scans (2.2%) that would not have been ordered resulted in a change in management. Defensively ordered CT scans resulted in nearly $120,000 in excess charges and 8.8 mSv of unnecessary radiation per patient. CONCLUSION: Defensively ordered CT scan in the workup of trauma patients is a prevalent and costly practice that exposes patients to potentially unnecessary and harmful radiation.