Impact of a multidisciplinary workflow on safety and management of patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.

PURPOSE: Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a serious complication of heparin administration. Management strategies are complex and include discontinuing heparin products, initiating alternative anticoagulants, interpreting laboratory test results, documenting heparin allergies, and providing patient education. Medication error reports and a retrospective review conducted at an academic medical center revealed an opportunity for a quality improvement initiative and led to the creation of a multidisciplinary workflow for the management of HIT. In a pre-post study, the impact of the multidisciplinary workflow on the safety and management of HIT was evaluated. METHODS: The preimplementation group consisted of adult patients tested for suspected HIT from April 4, 2014, through May 31, 2016; the postimplementation group consisted of adult patients tested from November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2018. The primary outcome was the incidence of heparin product administration while HIT testing was ongoing. The secondary outcome was the rate of appropriate heparin allergy documentation. RESULTS: The incidence of heparin product administration while HIT testing results were pending was significantly reduced, from 54.2% to 20.0% (P < 0.001), after workflow implementation. The rate of appropriate heparin allergy documentation significantly increased, from 95.0% to 100% (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Implementation of a multidisciplinary workflow for the management of HIT significantly reduced the incidence of heparin administration while testing was ongoing and improved the rate of appropriate heparin allergy documentation.

Evaluation of the Safety of Intravenous Thiamine Administration in a Large Academic Medical Center.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Previous literature describes increased incidence of infusion-related reactions when administering thiamine doses greater than 100 mg as an intravenous (IV) push. The purpose of this evaluation was to assess the safety of administering higher doses of thiamine as IV push compared to infusion. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective review was performed from June to October 2017. Included patients were aged 18 years or older and received 1 dose of IV thiamine 200 mg or greater. Patients were divided into 2 groups: group 1 included patients who received 200-mg IV push and, group 2 included patients who received any dose greater than 200 mg. The primary objective was to quantify and compare rate of adverse reactions between the 2 groups. Institutional thiamine prescribing practices were examined. Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Fischer exact tests were performed. RESULTS: Sixty-six percent of patients were male, and the median age was 55 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 44-63). Fifty percent received 200-mg IV push, 20% received a combination of IV infusion and IV push, and 30% received IV infusion. Adverse reactions possibly due to thiamine administration occurred in 4 (2.0%) patients. One patient received 200 mg via IV infusion, while 3 received 200 mg via IV push. There was no significant difference in adverse reaction rate between IV push and IV infusion administrations (P = .640). CONCLUSION: Our results support administering thiamine doses of 200 mg or less as an IV push. Given lack of robust safety data, it is recommended to continue to dilute doses greater than 200 mg and infuse over 30 minutes.

Evaluation of gravimetric-based technology-assisted workflow for nonhazardous sterile product preparation.

PURPOSE: The impact of a gravimetric-based technology-assisted workflow (TAWF) system on the nonhazardous compounded sterile product (CSP) error capture rate, production times, and pharmacy staff perceptions of compounding methods was evaluated. METHODS: For 2 weeks prior to TAWF implementation, staff used a punch clock to document production times with a volumetric method. Preimplementation error data were captured in a previous study; TAWF software captured error and time data in the postimplementation period. An online staff survey was administered before and 90 days after TAWF implementation to evaluate perceptions of the 2 methods. RESULTS: The error capture rates were 0.47% in the preimplementation period and 41.48% in the postimplementation period. The median time to prepare CSPs was significantly shorter in the preimplementation period versus the postimplementation period (p < 0.0001). The median time to check CSPs was significantly shorter at both 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 180 days (p = 0.0006) after TAWF implementation. When asked if the current method was the safest and the most accurate method for preparation, staff members' perceptions improved from neutrality to agreement when the TAWF was implemented. Staff members were in agreement that the volumetric method was faster than the gravimetric TAWF method but were neutral as to whether the latter was the preferred compounding method. CONCLUSION: The study results indicated that gravimetric-based TAWF preparation of nonhazardous CSPs is slower than manual volumetric preparation but can improve the error capture rate. Staff perceived the gravimetric TAWF method to be the safest and most accurate for producing CSPs.