Multicomponent Pharmacist Intervention Did Not Reduce Clinically Important Medication Errors for Ambulatory Patients Initiating Direct Oral Anticoagulants.

BACKGROUND: Anticoagulants including direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are among the highest-risk medications in the United States. We postulated that routine consultation and follow-up from a clinical pharmacist would reduce clinically important medication errors (CIMEs) among patients beginning or resuming a DOAC in the ambulatory care setting. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention for reducing CIMEs. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Ambulatory patients initiating a DOAC or resuming one after a complication. INTERVENTION: Pharmacist evaluation and monitoring based on the implementation of a recently published checklist. Key elements included evaluation of the appropriateness of DOAC, need for DOAC affordability assistance, three pharmacist-initiated telephone consultations, access to a DOAC hotline, documented hand-off to the patient's continuity provider, and monitoring of follow-up laboratory tests. CONTROL: Coupons and assistance to increase the affordability of DOACs. MAIN MEASURE: Anticoagulant-related CIMEs (Anticoagulant-CIMEs) and non-anticoagulant-related CIMEs over 90 days from DOAC initiation; CIMEs identified through masked assessment process including two physician adjudication of events presented by a pharmacist distinct from intervention pharmacist who reviewed participant electronic medical records and interview data. ANALYSIS: Incidence and incidence rate ratio (IRR) of CIMEs (intervention vs. control) using multivariable Poisson regression modeling. KEY RESULTS: A total of 561 patients (281 intervention and 280 control patients) contributed 479 anticoagulant-CIMEs including 31 preventable and ameliorable ADEs and 448 significant anticoagulant medication errors without subsequent documented ADEs (0.95 per 100 person-days). Failure to perform required blood tests and concurrent, inappropriate usage of a DOAC with aspirin or NSAIDs were the most common anticoagulant-related CIMEs despite pharmacist documentation systematically identifying these issues when present. There was no reduction in anticoagulant-related CIMEs among intervention patients (IRR 1.17; 95% CI 0.98-1.42) or non-anticoagulant-related CIMEs (IRR 1.05; 95% CI 0.80-1.37). CONCLUSION: A multi-component intervention in which clinical pharmacists implemented an evidence-based DOAC Checklist did not reduce CIMEs. NIH TRIAL NUMBER: NCT04068727.

Impact of a pharmacist intervention on DOAC knowledge and satisfaction in ambulatory patients.

Patient education of high-risk medications such as direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is limited in ambulatory care settings. Clinical pharmacists are uniquely equipped to educate patients about DOACS but seldom interact with patients in those settings where patient education and satisfaction are often overlooked. Recently, the Anticoagulation Forum endorsed a checklist (DOAC Checklist) to guide and educate patients initiating or resuming DOACs. We assessed the impact on knowledge and satisfaction of an intervention framed around the checklist. Randomized clinical trial. Ambulatory patients starting a DOAC or resuming one after setback (bleeding, stroke, or transient ischemic attack) in an ambulatory setting (office, emergency department, or short stay hospitalization). Three educational clinical pharmacist tele-visits, hotline access to the pharmacist, and coordination with continuity providers in 3 months. Patient knowledge scores from a 15-item DOAC-related questionnaire and satisfaction scores from an abbreviated version of the Duke Anticoagulation Satisfaction Survey (DASS). Of 561 randomized patients, 436 completed our follow-up surveys. Knowledge scores were similar for the 233 intervention patients vs. 203 control patients (63.7% vs 62.2% correct). Satisfaction scores on the 7-point Likert scale were virtually identical (6.24 and 6.22). Our pharmacist-led intervention framed around the DOAC checklist had little impact on knowledge and satisfaction. Delays between intervention end and completion of the follow-up questionnaires may have obscured benefits experienced earlier. More intensive education or strategies other than telephone-based consultation may be required to produce sustained knowledge.TRN: NCT04068727 retrospectively registered on August 22, 2019.

Effect of a Multifaceted Clinical Pharmacist Intervention on Medication Safety After Hospitalization in Persons Prescribed High-risk Medications: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event (ADE) Prevention identified 3 high-priority, high-risk drug classes as targets for reducing the risk of drug-related injuries: anticoagulants, diabetes agents, and opioids. Objective: To determine whether a multifaceted clinical pharmacist intervention improves medication safety for patients who are discharged from the hospital and prescribed medications within 1 or more of these high-risk drug classes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted at a large multidisciplinary group practice in Massachusetts and included patients 50 years or older who were discharged from the hospital and prescribed at least 1 high-risk medication. Participants were enrolled into the trial from June 2016 through September 2018. Interventions: The pharmacist-directed intervention included an in-home assessment by a clinical pharmacist, evidence-based educational resources, communication with the primary care team, and telephone follow-up. Participants in the control group were provided educational materials via mail. Main Outcomes and Measures: The study assessed 2 outcomes over a 45-day posthospital discharge period: (1) adverse drug-related incidents and (2) a subset defined as clinically important medication errors, which included preventable or ameliorable ADEs and potential ADEs (ie, medication-related errors that may not yet have caused injury to a patient, but have the potential to cause future harm if not addressed). Clinically important medication errors were the primary study outcome. Results: There were 361 participants (mean [SD] age, 68.7 [9.3] years; 177 women [49.0%]; 319 White [88.4%] and 8 Black individuals [2.2%]). Of these, 180 (49.9%) were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 181 (50.1%) to the control group. Among all participants, 100 (27.7%) experienced 1 or more adverse drug-related incidents, and 65 (18%) experienced 1 or more clinically important medication errors. There were 81 adverse drug-related incidents identified in the intervention group and 72 in the control group. There were 44 clinically important medication errors in the intervention group and 45 in the control group. The intervention did not significantly alter the per-patient rate of adverse drug-related incidents (unadjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.83-1.56) or clinically important medication errors (unadjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.65-1.49). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, there was not an observed lower rate of adverse drug-related incidents or clinically important medication errors during the posthospitalization period that was associated with a clinical pharmacist intervention. However, there were study recruitment challenges and lower than expected numbers of events among the study population. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02781662.

Supplying Pharmacist Home Visit and Anticoagulation Professional Consultation During Transition of Care for Patients With Venous Thromboembolism.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the feasibility, satisfaction, and effectiveness of a care transition intervention with pharmacist home visit and subsequent anticoagulation expert consultation for patients with new episode of venous thromboembolism within a not-for-profit health care network. METHODS: We randomized patients to the intervention or control. During the home visit, a clinical pharmacist assessed medication management proficiency, asked open-ended questions to discuss knowledge gaps, and distributed illustrated medication instructions. Subsequent consultation with anticoagulation expert further filled knowledge gaps. At 30 days, we assessed satisfaction with the intervention and also measured the quality of care transition, knowledge of anticoagulation and venous thromboembolism, and anticoagulant beliefs (level of agreement that anticoagulant is beneficial, is worrisome, and is confusing/difficult to take). RESULTS: The mean ± SD time required to conduct home visits was 52.4 ± 20.5 minutes and most patients agreed that the intervention was helpful. In general, patients reported a high-quality care transition including having been advised of safety issues related to medications. Despite that, the mean percentage of knowledge items answered correctly among patients was low (51.5 versus 50.7 for intervention and controls, respectively). We did not find any significant difference between intervention and control patients for care transition quality, knowledge, or anticoagulant beliefs. CONCLUSIONS: We executed a multicomponent intervention that was feasible and rated highly. Nevertheless, the intervention did not improve care transition quality, knowledge, or beliefs. Future research should examine whether alternate strategies potentially including some but not all components of our intervention would be more impactful.

Measuring Harm in Health Care: Optimizing Adverse Event Review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify modifiable factors that improve the reliability of ratings of severity of health care-associated harm in clinical practice improvement and research. METHODS: A diverse group of clinicians rated 8 types of adverse events: blood product, device or medical/surgical supply, fall, health care-associated infection, medication, perinatal, pressure ulcer, surgery. We used a generalizability theory framework to estimate the impact of number of raters, rater experience, and rater provider type on reliability. RESULTS: Pharmacists were slightly more precise and consistent in their ratings than either physicians or nurses. For example, to achieve high reliability of 0.83, 3 physicians could be replaced by 2 pharmacists without loss in precision of measurement. If only 1 rater was available for rating, ∼5% of the reviews for severe harm would have been incorrectly categorized. Reliability was greatly improved with 2 reviewers. CONCLUSIONS: We identified factors that influence the reliability of clinician reviews of health care-associated harm. Our novel use of generalizability analyses improved our understanding of how differences affect reliability. This approach was useful in optimizing resource utilization when selecting raters to assess harm and may have similar applications in other settings in health care.

Health literacy-listening skill and patient questions following cancer prevention and screening discussions.

OBJECTIVE: Patient question-asking is essential to shared decision making. We sought to describe patients' questions when faced with cancer prevention and screening decisions, and to explore differences in question-asking as a function of health literacy with respect to spoken information (health literacy-listening). METHODS: Four-hundred and thirty-three (433) adults listened to simulated physician-patient interactions discussing (i) prophylactic tamoxifen for breast cancer prevention, (ii) PSA testing for prostate cancer and (iii) colorectal cancer screening, and identified questions they would have. Health literacy-listening was assessed using the Cancer Message Literacy Test-Listening (CMLT-Listening). Two authors developed a coding scheme, which was applied to all questions. Analyses examined whether participants scoring above or below the median on the CMLT-Listening asked a similar variety of questions. RESULTS: Questions were coded into six major function categories: risks/benefits, procedure details, personalizing information, additional information, decision making and credibility. Participants who scored higher on the CMLT-Listening asked a greater variety of risks/benefits questions; those who scored lower asked a greater variety of questions seeking to personalize information. This difference persisted after adjusting for education. CONCLUSION: Patients' health literacy-listening is associated with distinctive patterns of question utilization following cancer screening and prevention counselling. Providers should not only be responsive to the question functions the patient favours, but also seek to ensure that the patient is exposed to the full range of information needed for shared decision making.

E-mail to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening Within Social Networks: Acceptability and Content.

Effective techniques to encourage colorectal cancer screening in underscreened populations have included social support interventions and e-mail reminders from physicians. Personalized e-mail messages to promote colorectal cancer screening within social networks could be even more effective but have not been studied. The authors interviewed 387 e-mail users, aged 42-73 years in Georgia, Hawaii, and Massachusetts. Participants were asked to edit a sample message in which the sender shares a recent colonoscopy experience and urges the recipient to discuss colorectal cancer screening with a doctor. For those reporting willingness to send this message, changes to the message and suggested subject lines were recorded. Edited text was analyzed for content and concordance with original message. The majority of participants (74.4%) were willing to e-mail a modifiable message. Of those willing, 63.5% edited the message. Common edits included deletion (17.7%) or modification (17.4%) of a negatively framed sentence on colon cancer risks and addition or modification of personalizing words (15.6%). Few edits changed the meaning of the message (5.6%), and even fewer introduced factual inaccuracies (1.7%). Modifiable e-mail messages offer a way for screened individuals to promote colorectal cancer screening to social network members. The accuracy and effects of such messages should be further studied.

Adult Willingness to Use Email and Social Media for Peer-to-Peer Cancer Screening Communication: Quantitative Interview Study.

BACKGROUND: Adults over age 40 are increasing their use of email and social media, raising interest in use of peer-to-peer Internet-based messaging to promote cancer screening. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to assess current practices and attitudes toward use of email and other e-communication for peer-to-peer dialogues on cancer screening. METHODS: We conducted in-person interviews with 438 insured adults ages 42-73 in Georgia, Hawaii, and Massachusetts. Participants reported on use of email and other e-communication including social media to discuss with peers routine health topics including breast and colorectal cancer (CRC). We ascertained willingness to share personal CRC screening experiences via conversation, postcard, email, or other e-communication. Health literacy scores were measured. RESULTS: Email had been used by one-third (33.8%, 148/438) to discuss routine health topics, by 14.6% (64/438) to discuss breast cancer screening, and by 12.6% (55/438) to discuss CRC screening. Other e-communication was used to discuss routine health topics (11.6%, 51/438), screening for breast cancer (3.9%, 17/438), and CRC (2.3%, 10/438). In the preceding week, 84.5% (370/438) of participants had used email, 55.9% (245/438) had used e-communication of some type; 44.3% (194/438) text, 32.9% (144/438) Facebook, 12.3% (54/438) instant message, 7.1% (31/438) video chat, and 4.8% (21/438) Twitter. Many participants were willing to share their CRC screening experiences via email (32.4%, 142/438 might be willing; 36.3%, 159/438 very willing) and via other e-communication (15.8%, 69/438 might be willing; 14.4%, 63/438 very willing). Individuals willing to send CRC screening emails scored significantly higher on tests of health literacy compared to those willing to send only postcards (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Many adults are willing to use email and e-communication to promote cancer screening to peers. Optimal approaches for encouraging peer-to-peer transmission of accurate and appropriate cancer screening messages must be studied.

The association between health literacy and cancer-related attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge.

Using a multidimensional assessment of health literacy (the Cancer Message Literacy Test-Listening, the Cancer Message Literacy Test-Reading, and the Lipkus Numeracy Scale), the authors assessed a stratified random sample of 1013 insured adults (40-70 years of age). The authors explored whether low health literacy across all 3 domains (n =111) was associated with sets of variables likely to affect engagement in cancer prevention and screening activities: (a) attitudes and behaviors relating to health care encounters and providers, (b) attitudes toward cancer and health, (c) knowledge of cancer screening tests, and (d) attitudes toward health related media and actual media use. Adults with low health literacy were more likely to report avoiding doctor's visits, to have more fatalistic attitudes toward cancer, to be less accurate in identifying the purpose of cancer screening tests, and more likely to avoid information about diseases they did not have. Compared with other participants, those with lower health literacy were more likely to say that they would seek information about cancer prevention or screening from a health care professional and less likely to turn to the Internet first for such information. Those with lower health literacy reported reading on fewer days and using the computer on fewer days than did other participants. The authors assessed the association of low health literacy with colorectal cancer screening in an age-appropriate subgroup for which colorectal cancer screening is recommended. In these insured subjects receiving care in integrated health care delivery systems, those with low health literacy were less likely to be up to date on screening for colorectal cancer, but the difference was not statistically significant.

A critical review of methods to evaluate the impact of FDA regulatory actions.

PURPOSE: To conduct a synthesis of the literature on methods to evaluate the impacts of FDA regulatory actions and identify best practices for future evaluations. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE for manuscripts published between January 1948 and August 2011 that included terms related to FDA, regulatory actions, and empirical evaluation; the review additionally included FDA-identified literature. We used a modified Delphi method to identify preferred methodologies. We included studies with explicit methods to address threats to validity and identified designs and analytic methods with strong internal validity that have been applied to other policy evaluations. RESULTS: We included 18 studies out of 243 abstracts and papers screened. Overall, analytic rigor in prior evaluations of FDA regulatory actions varied considerably; less than a quarter of studies (22%) included control groups. Only 56% assessed changes in the use of substitute products/services, and 11% examined patient health outcomes. Among studies meeting minimal criteria of rigor, 50% found no impact or weak/modest impacts of FDA actions and 33% detected unintended consequences. Among those studies finding significant intended effects of FDA actions, all cited the importance of intensive communication efforts. There are preferred methods with strong internal validity that have yet to be applied to evaluations of FDA regulatory actions. CONCLUSIONS: Rigorous evaluations of the impact of FDA regulatory actions have been limited and infrequent. Several methods with strong internal validity are available to improve trustworthiness of future evaluations of FDA policies.

Multisite parent-centered risk assessment to reduce pediatric oral chemotherapy errors.

PURPOSE: Observational studies describe high rates of errors in home oral chemotherapy use in children. In hospitals, proactive risk assessment methods help front-line health care workers develop error prevention strategies. Our objective was to engage parents of children with cancer in a multisite study using proactive risk assessment methods to identify how errors occur at home and propose risk reduction strategies. METHODS: We recruited parents from three outpatient pediatric oncology clinics in the northeast and southeast United States to participate in failure mode and effects analyses (FMEA). An FMEA is a systematic team-based proactive risk assessment approach in understanding ways a process can fail and develop prevention strategies. Steps included diagram the process, brainstorm and prioritize failure modes (places where things go wrong), and propose risk reduction strategies. We focused on home oral chemotherapy administration after a change in dose because prior studies identified this area as high risk. RESULTS: Parent teams consisted of four parents at two of the sites and 10 at the third. Parents developed a 13-step process map, with two to 19 failure modes per step. The highest priority failure modes included miscommunication when receiving instructions from the clinician (caused by conflicting instructions or parent lapses) and unsafe chemotherapy handling at home. Recommended risk assessment strategies included novel uses of technology to improve parent access to information, clinicians, and other parents while at home. CONCLUSION: Parents of pediatric oncology patients readily participated in a proactive risk assessment method, identifying processes that pose a risk for medication errors involving home oral chemotherapy.

Immediate financial impact of computerized clinical decision support for long-term care residents with renal insufficiency: a case study.

In a randomized trial of a clinical decision support system for drug prescribing for residents with renal insufficiency in a large long-term care facility, analyses were conducted to estimate the system's immediate, direct financial impact. We determined the costs that would have been incurred if drug orders that triggered the alert system had actually been completed compared to the costs of the final submitted orders and then compared intervention units to control units. The costs incurred by additional laboratory testing that resulted from alerts were also estimated. Drug orders were conservatively assigned a duration of 30 days of use for a chronic drug and 10 days for antibiotics. It was determined that there were modest reductions in drug costs, partially offset by an increase in laboratory-related costs. Overall, there was a reduction in direct costs (US$1391.43, net 7.6% reduction). However, sensitivity analyses based on alternative estimates of duration of drug use suggested a reduction as high as US$7998.33 if orders for non-antibiotic drugs were assumed to be continued for 180 days. The authors conclude that the immediate and direct financial impact of a clinical decision support system for medication ordering for residents with renal insufficiency is modest and that the primary motivation for such efforts must be to improve the quality and safety of medication ordering.

Medication errors in the homes of children with chronic conditions.

BACKGROUND: Children with chronic conditions often have complex medication regimens, usually administered at home by their parents. OBJECTIVE: To describe the types of medication errors in the homes of children with chronic conditions. METHODS Our home visit methods include direct observation of administration, medication review and prescription dose checking. Parents of children with sickle cell disease and seizure disorders taking daily medications were recruited from paediatric subspecialty clinics from November 2007 to April 2009. Potential errors were reviewed by two physicians who made judgments about whether an error had occurred or not, and its severity. RESULTS: On 52 home visits, the authors reviewed 280 medications and found 61 medication errors (95% CI 46 to 123), including 31 with a potential to injure the child and 9 which did injure the child. Injuries often occurred when parents failed to fill prescriptions or to change doses due to communication problems, leading to further testing or continued pain, inflammation, seizures, vitamin deficiencies or other injuries. Errors not previously reported in the literature included communication failures between two parents at home leading to administration errors and difficulty preparing the medication for administration. 95% of parents not using support tools (eg, alarms, reminders) for medication use at home had an error compared to 44% of those using supports (χ(2)=13.9, p=0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: Home visits detected previously undescribed types of outpatient errors which were common among children with sickle cell disease and seizure disorders. These should be targeted in future intervention development.