Evaluation of medication safety resources in pediatric hospitals.

PURPOSE: As health systems continue to expand pharmacy and clinical services, the ability to evaluate potential medication safety risks and mitigate errors remains a high priority. Workload and productivity monitoring tools for the assessment of operational and clinical pharmacy services exist. However, such tools are not currently available to justify medication safety pharmacy services. The purpose of this study is to determine methods used to assess, allocate, and justify medication safety resources in pediatric hospitals. METHODS: A 32-question survey was designed and distributed utilizing the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) tool. The survey was disseminated to 46 pediatric hospitals affiliated with the Children's Hospital Association (CHA). The survey was distributed in October 2018, and the respondents were given 3 weeks to submit responses. Data analysis includes the use of descriptive statistics. Categorical variables were summarized by frequencies and percentages to distinguish the differences between pediatric health systems. RESULTS: Of 26 respondents, 15.4% utilized metrics to justify medication safety resources. Metrics utilized were based on medication dispenses, projects, and error coding. Twenty-three percent of respondents were dissatisfied with current pharmacy-based medication safety resources within the organization. There was variability of medication safety resources within pediatric hospitals, including the number of dedicated full-time equivalents, time spent on tasks, and task prioritization. CONCLUSION: Assessing medication safety resources at various pediatric hospitals highlights several potential barriers and opportunities. This information will serve as the foundation for the creation of a standardized workload assessment tool to assist pharmacy leaders with additional resource justification.

Evaluation of Outcomes Before and After Implementation of a Standardized Postoperative Care Pathway in Pediatric Posterior Spinal Fusion Patients.

BACKGROUND: Standardized pathways decrease variability and improve outcomes and safety. PURPOSE: The article aims to evaluate outcomes of a standardized postoperative care pathway compared with individual surgeon preference. METHODS: A review of patients prestandardization and poststandardization was performed. Patients between the ages of 10-21 years with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (ICD-9 code 737.30) admitted to the hospital for posterior spinal fusion (CPT code 22630) were included in the study. The prestandardization group (25 patients) was enrolled from April 1, 2010, through March 30, 2011, and the poststandardization group (25 patients) from April 1, 2014, to March 30, 2015. Exclusion criteria were renal disease, epilepsy, neurological disorder, or postoperative complications that led to change in routine care including ileus or fever greater than 102 °F. Data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, with significance set at p < .001. RESULTS: The length of stay (p = .0166), time to ambulation (p < .0001), patient-controlled analgesia use (p < .0001), and postoperative time to resumption of regular diet (p < .0001) were all significantly decreased in the poststandardization group. There were no complications or readmissions in either group. CONCLUSION: The standardized pathway resulted in shorter length of stay, decreased narcotic use, decreased time to regular diet, and decreased time to ambulation with no increase in complication rates.

Comparison of caffeine disposition following administration by oral solution (energy drink) and inspired powder (AeroShot) in human subjects.

AIMS: To determine the disposition and effects of caffeine after administration using a new dosage form (AeroShot) that delivers caffeine by inspiration of a fine powder into the oral cavity and compare it to an equivalent dose of an oral solution (energy drink) as the reference standard. METHODS: Healthy human subjects (n = 17) inspired a 100 mg caffeine dose using the AeroShot device or consumed an energy drink on separate study days. Heart rate, blood pressure and subject assessments of effects were measured over an 8-h period. Plasma concentrations of caffeine and its major metabolites were determined by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Pharmacokinetic, cardiovascular and perceived stimulant effects were compared between AeroShot and energy drink phases using a paired t test and standard bioequivalency analysis. RESULTS: Caffeine disposition was similar after caffeine administration by the AeroShot device and energy drink: peak plasma concentration 1790 and 1939 ng ml-1 , and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) 15 579 and 17 569 ng ml-1 × h, respectively, but they were not bioequivalent: AeroShot AUC of 80.3% (confidence interval 71.2-104.7%) and peak plasma concentration of 86.3% (confidence interval 62.8-102.8%) compared to the energy drink. Female subjects did have a significantly larger AUC compared to males after consumption of the energy drink. The heart rate and blood pressure were not significantly affected by the 100 mg caffeine dose, and there were no consistently perceived stimulant effects by the subjects using visual analogue scales. CONCLUSION: Inspiration of caffeine as a fine powder using the AeroShot device produces a similar caffeine profile and effects compared to administration of an oral solution (energy drink).