Obtaining the Best Possible Medication History at Hospital Admission: Description of a Pharmacy Technician-Driven Program to Identify Medication Discrepancies.

PURPOSE: Describe the process of obtaining the best possible medication history (BPMH) by Certified Pharmacy Technicians (CPhTs) on hospital admission to identify medication discrepancies. METHODS: Cross-sectional, descriptive study conducted between December 2016 and June 2017 at a quaternary center in New York, including all patients 18 years and older admitted to the medicine service through the Emergency Department (ED) and seen by a CPhT. CPhTs obtained the BPMH using a systematic approach involving a standardized interview, checking medications with secondary sources and updating the electronic health record (EHR). Medication discrepancies were identified and categorized by type and risk. Summary statistics were provided as average and standard deviation (SD) for continuous variables, and as frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. Multivariable regression was used to test for associations between patient factors and presence of a medication discrepancy. RESULTS: Of the 3,087 patient visits, the average age was 69 (SD 17.8), 54% were female (n = 1652) and 65% white (n = 2017); comorbidity score breakdown was: 0 (25%, n = 757), 1-2 (33%, n = 1023), 3-4 (23%, n = 699), > 4 (20%, n = 608). The average number of home and discharge medications were 10 (SD 6.1) and 10 (SD 5.4), respectively. The average time spent obtaining the BPMH was 30.6 minutes (SD 12.9). 69% of patients (n = 2130) had at least 1 discrepancy with an average of 4.2 (SD 4.6), of which 43% (n = 920) included high-risk medications. Having a medication discrepancy was associated with a higher number of home medications (p < 0.0001) comorbidities (p < 0.0001), and source of information (p < 0.04). CONCLUSION: Obtaining the BPMH by CPhTs on hospital admission frequently identifies medication discrepancies. Further studies are needed to evaluate the association between obtaining the BPMH and clinical outcomes.

Impact of Respiratory Viral Panel Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay Turnaround Time on Length of Stay and Antibiotic Use in Patients With Respiratory Viral Illnesses.

Background: Respiratory viral illnesses account for many hospitalizations and inappropriate antibiotic use. Respiratory viral panels by polymerase chain reaction (RVP-PCR) provide a reliable means of diagnosis. In 2015, the RVP-PCR assay at our institution was switched from respiratory viral panel (RVP) to rapid respiratory panel (rapid RP), which has a faster turnaround time (24 hours vs 12 hours, respectively). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of RVP-PCR tests on duration of antibiotic use and length of stay (LOS) in hospitalized patients. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients who had a RVP-PCR ordered within a 1-year time period before and after the assay switch. Patients who were pregnant, had received antibiotics within 30 days prior to admission, were not discharged, or had not completed antibiotics by end of study period were excluded. Results: Data were obtained from a total of 140 patients (70 in each group). Of these, 25 (35.7%) in the RVP group and 28 (40.0%) in the rapid RP group had a positive result. The median LOS was 4.5 days (IQR, 3-9 days) in the RVP group and 5 days (IQR, 3-9 days) in the rapid RP group (P = .78). The median duration of antibiotic use was 4 days (IQR, 2-7 days) in the RVP group and 5 days (IQR, 1-7 days) in the rapid RP group (P = .8). Conclusion: Despite faster turnaround time, there was no significant difference in duration of antibiotic use, or LOS between the RVP and rapid RP groups.

Assessing outcomes of adult oncology patients treated with linezolid versus daptomycin for bacteremia due to vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus.

BACKGROUND: The incidence and severity of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus blood stream infections continue to rise and is a significant burden in the healthcare setting. Literature thus far is minimal regarding treatment outcomes in patients with malignancy and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus bacteremia. Appropriate antibiotic selection is vital to treatment success due to high rates of resistance, limited antimicrobials and mortality in this patient population. We conducted this study to determine whether treatment outcomes differed between cancer patients treated with linezolid and those treated with daptomycin for vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus bacteremia. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective study included adult patients hospitalized on the oncology service with documented vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium or Enterococcus faecalis bacteremia who received at least 48 h of either linezolid or daptomycin as primary treatment. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients were included in the analysis. Thirty-two patients received daptomycin as primary treatment, and 33 patients received linezolid as primary treatment. Twenty-six (76.5%) patients in the linezolid cohort versus 22 (71%) patients in the daptomycin cohort achieved microbiological cure (p = 0.6141). Median length of stay in days (30 vs. 42, p = 0.0714) and mortality (7/32 (20.6%) vs. 8/33 (25.8%), p = 0.6180) were also similar between the linezolid and daptomycin treated patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: No differences in microbiological cure, length of stay or mortality were identified between the groups. This study suggests that linezolid and daptomycin are each reasonable options for treating vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus bacteremia in oncology patients. Further prospective, randomized controlled trials are needed to assess the optimal treatment for vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus bacteremia in this patient population.