Implementation of pharmacy-led preoperative medication reconciliation in surgical oncology patients.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacy-led medication history collection and reconciliation have demonstrated decreased medication errors, increased patient safety, and improved cost-savings. However, literature lacks documented efforts to implement such services in the preoperative space, where having accurate medication lists following complex procedures with high postoperative admission rates is critical. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to describe the implementation of a telephonic pharmacy student and pharmacist-led preoperative medication reconciliation program. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION: The service was piloted using third- and fourth-year pharmacy students to conduct telephonic medication histories for urologic surgical oncology patients. Weekly reports identified eligible patients with scheduled procedures within 2 weeks' time. Using standardized methods for patient communication and documentation, students authored telephone encounter notes that were reviewed and signed by pharmacist preceptors. Pharmacist preceptors also reconciled home medication lists based on students' findings. PRACTICE INNOVATION: A standardized preoperative medication reconciliation process was developed and implemented utilizing third- and fourth-year pharmacy students. Resulting notes were available for surgical staff on the day of patients' procedures and upon potential postoperative admission. EVALUATION METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted to evaluate successfully documented medication histories collected by pharmacy students within the pharmacy-led preoperative medication reconciliation program. RESULTS: Forty-six medication reconciliation notes were identified between August 2021 and February 2022, and 39 met inclusion criteria. Amongst the 177 medication additions, deletions, and edits, deletions were the most common, and 95% of patients had at least 1 medication discrepancy identified. A total of 33 medication classes were represented by the identified discrepancies, and each encounter took an average of 33 minutes to complete. CONCLUSION: Preoperative medication reconciliation services can be successfully accomplished through a telephonic pharmacy student and pharmacist-led workflow. Accurate medication histories aid in minimizing medication errors and increasing patient safety.

Implementation and Evaluation of a Prior Authorization Workflow for New-Start Inpatient Medications in Preparation for Discharge.

Purpose: Medications that require prior authorization can complicate the discharge planning process. This study implemented and evaluated a process for identifying and completing prior authorizations during the inpatient setting prior to patient discharge. Methods: A patient identification tool was developed within the electronic health record to alert the patient care resource manager of inpatient orders for targeted medications that frequently require prior authorization with the potential to delay discharge. A workflow process using the identification tool and flowsheet documentation was developed to prompt the initiation of a prior authorization, if necessary. Following hospital-wide implementation, descriptive data for a 2-month period was collected. Results: The tool detected 1353 medications for 1096 patient encounters over the 2-month period. The most frequent medications identified included apixaban (28.1%), enoxaparin (14.4%), sacubitril/valsartan (6.4%), and darbepoetin (6.4%). For the medications identified, there were 93 medications documented in the flowsheet data for 91 unique patient encounters. Of the 93 medications documented, 30% did not require prior authorization, 29% had prior authorization started, 10% were for patients discharged to a facility, 3% were for home medications, 3% were medications discontinued at discharge, 1% had prior authorization denied, and 24% had missing data. The most frequent medications documented in the flowsheet included apixaban (12%), enoxaparin (10%), and rifaximin (20%). Of the 28 prior authorizations processed, 2 led to a referral to the Medication Assistance Program. Conclusion: The implementation of an identification tool and documentation process can help improve PA workflow and discharge care coordination.

Cost comparison of filgrastim versus pegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim biosimilars for inpatient prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia.

INTRODUCTION: The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center (The James) uses daily subcutaneous filgrastim as the inpatient granulocyte colony-stimulating factor of choice. The coordination of care associated with filgrastim can often be a barrier to patient discharge. The purpose of this study was to compare the inpatient cost of daily filgrastim to single dose pegfilgrastim and biosimilars. METHODS: Adult patients admitted to The James who received at least one dose of filgrastim between June 1, 2021 and August 31, 2021 were retrospectively identified. This study compared the inpatient cost of filgrastim and biosimilars associated with one chemotherapy cycle to the potential inpatient cost of pegfilgrastim and biosimilars based on average sales price (ASP). Additionally, the number and duration of discharge prescriptions for filgrastim was determined. RESULTS: Of the 44 unique patient encounters that met inclusion criteria, 19 received 300-mcg doses of filgrastim and 25 received 480-mcg doses. The median number of doses administered per admission was eight. If each of these patients were to instead receive the most inexpensive biosimilar, pegfilgrastim reference product, the cost would be 216% higher than with filgrastim-sndz. At discharge, 15 patients (34%) received a prescription for filgrastim to be continued for a median duration of 6 days. CONCLUSION: Based on ASP, pegfilgrastim was more costly than filgrastim. Potential rebates and negotiation power may alter the financial outlook of adding pegfilgrastim to inpatient formulary. Exploration of delays in discharge due to insurance coordination for filgrastim continuation in the outpatient setting may also impact formulary decisions.

The formulary process for biosimilar additions at a comprehensive cancer center.

Biological products may be used to diagnose, prevent, treat, and cure diseases and medical conditions, including cancer. Biosimilar agents, approved under an abbreviated 351(k) pathway, continue to increase in number and market share for biologic agents, especially for cancer care. Although biosimilars offer the potential for improved access to care, their introduction to the marketplace has created significant disruption. It is imperative that health systems providing care to patients with cancer develop a well-defined process to address the challenges associated with biosimilars. This descriptive article outlines pharmacy considerations for biosimilars and describes the current practices at The Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute at The Ohio State University. Biosimilars have and will continue to significantly impact oncology care. Organizations must understand the clinical, operational, and financial challenges associated with the use of these products.

The Safety and Efficacy of Verapamil Versus Diltiazem Continuous Infusion for Acute Rate Control of Atrial Fibrillation at an Academic Medical Center.

PURPOSE: Due to critical shortages of intravenous diltiazem in 2018, the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center (OSUWMC) adopted intravenous verapamil as an alternative. However, there is a paucity of data supporting the use of intravenous verapamil infusions for rate control in the acute treatment of atrial arrhythmias. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of intravenous verapamil as compared with diltiazem for the acute treatment of atrial arrhythmias. METHODS: This retrospective, case-control study compared patients who received verapamil infusions between June 1 and September 30, 2018, with patients who received diltiazem infusions between June 1 and September 30, 2017, at OSUWMC. Patients were matched 1:1 based on age, sex, and the presence of comorbid heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (≤40%). RESULTS: A total of 73 patients who received at least 1 verapamil infusion and 73 patients who received at least 1 diltiazem infusion met inclusion criteria. The composite need for inotrope or vasopressor was similar for both groups (5% with verapamil versus 4% with diltiazem, P = .999). The rate of hypotension was similar between groups (37% versus 33% experiencing a systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg, P = .603, and 27% versus 23% experiencing a mean arterial pressure <65 mm Hg, P = .704), as was the rate of bradycardia (19% versus 18%, P = .831). The efficacy outcomes of this study were similar for both groups, with 89% of patients in the verapamil group and 90% of patients in the diltiazem group achieving a heart rate less than 110 beats per minute (P = .785). CONCLUSION: Intravenous verapamil and diltiazem infusions had similar safety and efficacy outcomes when used for acute treatment of atrial arrhythmias in the institutional setting.

Using intravenous pump infusion data to optimize continuous infusion concentrations and reduce drug and fluid waste.

PURPOSE: To outline a data-driven analysis involving use of intravenous (i.v.) pump data to identify optimal drug and fluid amounts for various continuous infusions, with the primary goal of minimizing medication waste. This methodology incorporates analysis of vial sizes, infusion rates, number of bag exchanges, and bag volumes to determine optimal concentrations that improve operational efficiencies and decrease drug and fluid waste. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of i.v. infusion pump utilization data for continuous infusions of norepinephrine, phenylephrine, vasopressin, and cisatracurium was performed using data provided by 9 hospitals in North Carolina during January, April, and June of 2015. RESULTS: The recommended medication concentrations and fluid volumes were determined using a novel 4-step analysis, the VERB (Vial, Exchange, Rate, and Bag) analysis, which applied optimal practices for cost reduction, operational efficiency, and patient safety. The application of the VERB analysis to the i.v. infusion pump utilization data resulted in the following recommended medication concentrations: norepinephrine, 4 mg/100 mL (final concentration, 40 µg/mL) and 16 mg/250 mL (final concentration, 64 µg/mL); phenylephrine, 10 mg/100 mL (final concentration, 100 µg/mL); vasopressin, 20 units/100 mL (final concentration, 0.2 unit/mL); and cisatracurium, 200 mg/100 mL (final concentration, 2 mg/mL). It was determined that implementation of the recommended concentrations by the 9 study hospitals would result in significant medication cost savings and fluid volume savings. CONCLUSION: Analysis of i.v. infusion pump data from multiple hospitals using VERB analysis resulted in standardized medication concentrations and bag sizes for continuous infusions that reduce drug and fluid waste and improve operational efficiencies.

Application of the 2015 proposed NIOSH vapor containment performance protocol for closed system transfer devices used during pharmacy compounding and administration of hazardous drugs.

PURPOSE: The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) released a proposed protocol in 2015 to evaluate the vapor containment abilities of closed system transfer device technologies in order to provide meaningful comparisons between products. This study assessed the vapor containment ability of closed system transfer devices when following the methodology as outlined by the 2015 NIOSH proposed protocol. METHODS: This study evaluated six closed system transfer device brands following the draft NIOSH vapor containment protocol. The testing evaluated each closed system transfer device brand during both compounding (Task 1) and administration (Task 2). Five pre-specified steps for each task were repeated for a total of four manipulations per device. The Thermo Scientific™ MIRAN SapphIRe XL Infrared Analyzer was used to detect isopropyl alcohol vapor levels after each step. RESULTS: For Task 1, two closed system transfer device products (PhaSeal™ and Equashield®) adequately contained the isopropyl alcohol vapor and passed the predefined testing criteria. The same two products, plus one additional product (ChemoLock™), contained the vapor for Task 2 manipulations. Based on the results of this study, only two out of the six closed system transfer device brands passed testing criteria for both tasks, functioning as truly closed systems. CONCLUSION: To improve employee safety in chemotherapy preparation, closed system transfer devices that demonstrate no leakage should be the preferred choices of healthcare systems. In this study, PhaSeal™ and Equashield® proved to be adequately closed in both Task 1 and Task 2, while ChemoLock™ proved to be closed in Task 2 but not in Task 1. All other products failed both tasks when measuring for isopropyl alcohol vapor release.