A Continuous Observation Workflow Time Study to Assess Intravenous Push Waste.

Background: There are significant costs associated with proper controlled substance disposal, management, and regulatory compliance. Given the high abuse potential of fentanyl, hydromorphone, and morphine it is imperative that (1) product waste is minimized; and (2) waste procedures are followed to ensure safe disposal. Research is needed to better understand the financial and workforce impacts of drug waste on inpatient hospital units. The primary objective of this study was to quantify the waste associated with administering fentanyl, hydromorphone, and morphine via the intravenous push route. Two categories of waste were evaluated: (1) the quantity (mg/µg) of drug disposed; and (2) workforce time associated with the waste disposal process. Methods: A workflow time study design, a sub-set of continuous direct observation time motion studies, was employed to achieve the research objectives. A data collection tool was developed to capture medication type, waste amount, activity time stamps, total time, and number of interruptions at two separate study sites. Descriptive statistics were conducted on all the data measures. The number of assessments, total values, and mean values were reported for each drug (fentanyl, hydromorphone, and morphine) separately as well as grouped data. Results: A total of 669 distinct waste observations meeting inclusion criteria were collected during a study period of 15 days. In total, 207 mg of hydromorphone and 17 962.50 µg of fentanyl were wasted during this study. Nursing staff time associated with the wasting process totaled 50 990 seconds (849.83 minutes or 14.16 hours). A combined waste (loss) of approximately $1605.39 was associated with controlled substance wasting. The cost per dose wasted in this study was found to be $2.40 for all medications. When a yearly extrapolation model was applied to the four study units, the total combined product and workforce waste cost was $35 425. Conclusion: There are financially significant costs associated with wasting both the product and the valuable time of a skilled workforce. Optimizing product size, taking special note to match product availability with common practice use, would reduce the associated financial burden on our health-systems nationwide.

State of Privileging in Pharmacy: A Survey of Vizient-Affiliated Institutions.

Purpose: The process of privileging pharmacists is an important step in developing optimal pharmacy practice models. Currently, little published literature exists detailing the status of pharmacist privileging efforts. The objective of this study is to assess and characterize a snapshot of the current and future state of privileging practices in pharmacy at Vizient academic medical centers (AMCs) and their affiliate institutions. Methods: An electronic survey questionnaire was sent to Vizient pharmacy directors and their affiliates to assess institutional privileging practices and identify perceived or actual barriers. The survey was divided into 2 pathways based on the current status of privileging at the institution. Results: In total, 46 directors of pharmacy completed the survey. Only 33% (15/46) of pharmacy directors indicated they had a current privileging process in place. About 70% (21/30) of institutions without an established privileging process indicated they were considering establishing a process. For institutions without an established privileging process, most pharmacy directors identified a lack of organizational support and resources as barriers to implementation. Conclusion: Although credentialing and privileging is considered a national priority to aid in expanding and enhancing pharmacists' scope of practice, our survey demonstrated that few respondents currently have a privileging process in place. The results from this study may highlight important barriers and keys to success to be considered when implementing a privileging process.

Effectiveness of a clinical decision support system for reducing the risk of QT interval prolongation in hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the effectiveness of a computer clinical decision support system (CDSS) for reducing the risk of QT interval prolongation in hospitalized patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated 2400 patients admitted to cardiac care units at an urban academic medical center. A CDSS incorporating a validated risk score for QTc prolongation was developed and implemented using information extracted from patients' electronic medical records. When a drug associated with torsades de pointes was prescribed to a patient at moderate or high risk for QTc interval prolongation, a computer alert appeared on the screen to the pharmacist entering the order, who could then consult the prescriber on alternative therapies and implement more intensive monitoring. QTc interval prolongation was defined as QTc interval >500 ms or increase in QTc of ≥60 ms from baseline; for patients who presented with QTc >500 ms, QTc prolongation was defined solely as increase in QTc ≥60 ms from baseline. End points were assessed before (n=1200) and after (n=1200) implementation of the CDSS. CDSS implementation was independently associated with a reduced risk of QTc prolongation (adjusted odds ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.89; P<0.0001). Furthermore, CDSS implementation reduced the prescribing of noncardiac medications known to cause torsades de pointes, including fluoroquinolones and intravenous haloperidol (adjusted odds ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.91; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: A computer CDSS incorporating a validated risk score for QTc prolongation influences the prescribing of QT-prolonging drugs and reduces the risk of QTc interval prolongation in hospitalized patients with torsades de pointes risk factors.

Development and validation of a risk score to predict QT interval prolongation in hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Identifying hospitalized patients at risk for QT interval prolongation could lead to interventions to reduce the risk of torsades de pointes. Our objective was to develop and validate a risk score for QT prolongation in hospitalized patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this study, in a single tertiary care institution, consecutive patients (n=900) admitted to cardiac care units comprised the risk score development group. The score was then applied to 300 additional patients in a validation group. Corrected QT (QTc) interval prolongation (defined as QTc>500 ms or an increase of >60 ms from baseline) occurred in 274 (30.4%) and 90 (30.0%) patients in the development group and validation group, respectively. Independent predictors of QTc prolongation included the following: female (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.0), diagnosis of myocardial infarction (2.4 [1.6-3.9]), septic shock (2.7 [1.5-4.8]), left ventricular dysfunction (2.7 [1.6-5.0]), administration of a QT-prolonging drug (2.8 [2.0-4.0]), ≥2 QT-prolonging drugs (2.6 [1.9-5.6]), or loop diuretic (1.4 [1.0-2.0]), age >68 years (1.3 [1.0-1.9]), serum K⁺ <3.5 mEq/L (2.1 [1.5-2.9]), and admitting QTc >450 ms (2.3; confidence interval [1.6-3.2]). Risk scores were developed by assigning points based on log odds ratios. Low-, moderate-, and high-risk ranges of 0 to 6, 7 to 10, and 11 to 21 points, respectively, best predicted QTc prolongation (C statistic=0.823). A high-risk score ≥11 was associated with sensitivity=0.74, specificity=0.77, positive predictive value=0.79, and negative predictive value=0.76. In the validation group, the incidences of QTc prolongation were 15% (low risk); 37% (moderate risk); and 73% (high risk). CONCLUSIONS: A risk score using easily obtainable clinical variables predicts patients at highest risk for QTc interval prolongation and may be useful in guiding monitoring and treatment decisions.

Prevalence of QT interval prolongation in patients admitted to cardiac care units and frequency of subsequent administration of QT interval-prolonging drugs: a prospective, observational study in a large urban academic medical center in the US.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrest due to torsades de pointes (TdP) is a rare but catastrophic event in hospitals. Patients admitted to cardiac units are at higher risk of drug-induced QT interval prolongation and TdP, due to a preponderance of risk factors. Few data exist regarding the prevalence of QT interval prolongation in patients admitted to cardiac units or the frequency of administering QT interval-prolonging drugs to patients presenting with QT interval prolongation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of Bazett's-corrected QT (QT(c)) interval prolongation upon admission to cardiac units and the proportion of patients presenting with QT(c) interval prolongation who are subsequently administered QT interval-prolonging drugs during hospitalization. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study conducted over a 1-year period (October 2008-October 2009) in 1159 consecutive patients admitted to two cardiac units in a large urban academic medical centre located in Indianapolis, IN, USA. Patients were enrolled into the study at the time of admission to the hospital and were followed daily during hospitalization. Exclusion criteria were age <18 years, ECG rhythm of complete ventricular pacing, and patient designation as 'outpatient' in a bed and/or duration of stay <24 hours. Data collected included demographic information, past medical history, daily progress notes, medication administration records, laboratory data, ECGs, telemetry monitoring strips and diagnostic reports. All patients underwent continuous cardiac telemetry monitoring and/or had a baseline 12-lead ECG obtained within 4 hours of admission. QT intervals were determined manually from lead II of 12-lead ECGs or from continuous lead II telemetry monitoring strips. QT(c) interval prolongation was defined as ≥470 ms for males and ≥480 ms for females. In both males and females, QT(c) interval >500 ms was considered abnormally high. A medication was classified as QT interval-prolonging if there were published data indicating that the drug causes QT interval prolongation and/or TdP. Study endpoints were (i) prevalence of QT(c) interval prolongation upon admission to the Cardiac Medical Critical Care Unit (CMCCU) or an Advanced Heart Care Unit (AHCU); (ii) proportion of patients admitted to the CMCCU/AHCU with QT(c) interval prolongation who subsequently were administered QT interval-prolonging drugs during hospitalization; (iii) the proportion of these higher-risk patients in whom TdP risk factor monitoring was performed; (iv) proportion of patients with QT(c) interval prolongation who subsequently received QT-prolonging drugs and who experienced further QT(c) interval prolongation. RESULTS: Of 1159 patients enrolled, 259 patients met exclusion criteria, resulting in a final sample size of 900 patients. PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS: mean (± SD) age, 65 ± 15 years; female, 47%; Caucasian, 70%. Admitting diagnoses: heart failure (22%), myocardial infarction (16%), atrial fibrillation (9%), sudden cardiac arrest (3%). QT(c) interval prolongation was present in 27.9% of patients on admission; 18.2% had QT(c) interval >500 ms. Of 251 patients admitted with QT(c) interval prolongation, 87 (34.7%) were subsequently administered QT interval-prolonging drugs. Of 166 patients admitted with QT(c) interval >500 ms, 70 (42.2%) were subsequently administered QT interval-prolonging drugs; additional QT(c) interval prolongation ≥60 ms occurred in 57.1% of these patients. CONCLUSIONS: QT(c) interval prolongation is common among patients admitted to cardiac units. QT interval-prolonging drugs are commonly prescribed to patients presenting with QT(c) interval prolongation.