Implementation of a COVID-19 Closed/Open POD Partnership: A Creative Professional Practice Exemplar for Occupational and Environmental Health Nurses.

BACKGROUND: For more than 15 years, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that all community agencies and workplace environments create structured communication and collaborative plans for emergency or disaster events (2008). This recommendation is aligned with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's (2022) National Infrastructure Protection Plan. The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic ultimately demonstrated the importance of having organized plans and processes in place for the effective and rapid dispensing of medical countermeasures (MCMs) to the general populace. Occupational and environmental health nurses (OHNs) can utilize examples of successful MCM dispensing programs and adjust details to fit individual organizational needs. METHODS: This report examines a closed point of dispensing (Closed POD) mass vaccination program as a guide for designing successful workplace partnerships. FINDINGS: Closed PODs are public or private sites that have set up a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with local health authorities to dispense MCMs to their populations during a public health emergency. The desired outcome of a closed POD agreement is the facilitation of employee health and safety, as well as enabling workplace continuity of operations. CONCLUSIONS/APPLICATIONS TO PRACTICE: OHNs will play a pivotal role in any future disaster or emergency event. Because OHNs understand the critical need for anticipatory planning, they are in a prime position to drive the creation and implementation of a closed POD partnership between their workplace and their local health department.

Development of the Leapfrog Group's Bar Code Medication Administration Standard to Address Hospital Inpatient Medication Safety.

ABSTRACT: Medication errors are the most common type of error in hospitals and reflect a leading cause of avoidable harm to patients. Bar code medication administration (BCMA) systems are a technology designed to help intercept medication errors at the point of medication administration. This article describes the process of developing, testing, and refining a standard for BCMA adoption and use in U.S. hospitals, as measured through the Leapfrog Hospital Survey. Building on the published literature and an expert panel's collective experience in studying, implementing, and using BCMA systems, the expert panel recommended a standard with 4 key domains. Leapfrog's BCMA standard provides hospitals with a "how-to guide" on what best practice looks like for using BCMA to ensure safe medication administration at the bedside.

Inpatient transfers to the intensive care unit: delays are associated with increased mortality and morbidity.

OBJECTIVE: To examine if delayed transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU) after physiologic deterioration is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. DESIGN: Inception cohort. SETTING: Community hospital in Ogden, Utah. PATIENTS: Ninety-one consecutive inpatients with noncardiac diagnoses at the time of emergent transfer to the ICU. We determined the time when each patient first met any of 11 pre-specified physiologic criteria. We classified patients as "slow transfer" when patients met a physiologic criterion 4 or more hours before transfer to the ICU. Patients were followed until discharge. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: In-hospital mortality, functional status at hospital discharge, hospital resources. MAIN RESULTS: At the time when the first physiologic criterion was met on the ward, slow- and rapid-transfer patients were similar in terms of age, gender, diagnosis, number of days in hospital prior to ICU transfer, prehospital functional status, and APACHE II scores. By the time slow-transfer patients were admitted to the ICU, they had significantly higher APACHE II scores (21.7 vs 16.2; P =.002) and were more likely to die in-hospital (41% vs 11%; relative risk [RR], 3.5; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.4 to 9.5). Slow-transfer patients were less likely to have had their physician notified of deterioration within 2 hours of meeting physiologic criteria (59% vs 31%; P =.001) and less likely to have had a bedside physician evaluation within the first 3 hours after meeting criteria (23% vs 83%; P =.001). CONCLUSIONS: Slow transfer to the ICU of physiologically defined high-risk hospitalized patients was associated with increased risk of death. Slow response to physiologic deterioration may explain these findings.