Impact of Pharmacists to Improve Patient Care in the Critically Ill: A Large Multicenter Analysis Using Meaningful Metrics With the Medication Regimen Complexity-ICU (MRC-ICU) Score.

OBJECTIVES: Despite the established role of the critical care pharmacist on the ICU multiprofessional team, critical care pharmacist workloads are likely not optimized in the ICU. Medication regimen complexity (as measured by the Medication Regimen Complexity-ICU [MRC-ICU] scoring tool) has been proposed as a potential metric to optimize critical care pharmacist workload but has lacked robust external validation. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that MRC-ICU is related to both patient outcomes and pharmacist interventions in a diverse ICU population. DESIGN: This was a multicenter, observational cohort study. SETTING: Twenty-eight ICUs in the United States. PATIENTS: Adult ICU patients. INTERVENTIONS: Critical care pharmacist interventions (quantity and type) on the medication regimens of critically ill patients over a 4-week period were prospectively captured. MRC-ICU and patient outcomes (i.e., mortality and length of stay [LOS]) were recorded retrospectively. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 3,908 patients at 28 centers were included. Following analysis of variance, MRC-ICU was significantly associated with mortality (odds ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.08-1.11; p < 0.01), ICU LOS (ß coefficient, 0.41; 95% CI, 00.37-0.45; p < 0.01), total pharmacist interventions (ß coefficient, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.04-0.09; p < 0.01), and a composite intensity score of pharmacist interventions (ß coefficient, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.11-0.28; p < 0.01). In multivariable regression analysis, increased patient: pharmacist ratio (indicating more patients per clinician) was significantly associated with increased ICU LOS (ß coefficient, 0.02; 0.00-0.04; p = 0.02) and reduced quantity (ß coefficient, -0.03; 95% CI, -0.04 to -0.02; p < 0.01) and intensity of interventions (ß coefficient, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.09 to -0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Increased medication regimen complexity, defined by the MRC-ICU, is associated with increased mortality, LOS, intervention quantity, and intervention intensity. Further, these results suggest that increased pharmacist workload is associated with decreased care provided and worsened patient outcomes, which warrants further exploration into staffing models and patient outcomes.

Intravenous Lidocaine for Acute Pain: A Systematic Review.

This systematic review evaluates the safety and efficacy of intravenous (IV) lidocaine for the treatment of acute pain in adult patients. The PubMed database was searched for randomized controlled trials, retrospective cohort studies, case series, and case reports evaluating the use of IV lidocaine for the treatment of acute pain in adult patients, published between January 1970 and January 2018. The primary outcome was pain reduction via the Visual Analog Scale, Verbal Rating Scale, or Numeric Rating Scale among patients treated with IV lidocaine and placebo or active controls. Safety outcomes included both nonserious and serious adverse events. A total of 347 titles and abstracts were screened, and after full-text review, 13 studies met the inclusion criteria involving 512 patients. The four active controls studied were IV morphine, IV ketorolac, IV dihydroergotamine (DHE), and IV chlorpromazine (CPZ). The dosing of IV lidocaine varied among studies between a weight-based dose of a 1- to 2-mg/kg bolus, a fixed-bolus dose of 50-100 mg, and a 1-mg/kg/hour continuous infusion. Monitoring of serum lidocaine concentrations was not done routinely. Intravenous lidocaine had superior efficacy to morphine for renal colic and critical limb ischemia, superior efficacy to DHE for acute migraine, and equivalent efficacy to ketorolac for acute radicular lower back pain. However, lidocaine was less effective than CPZ for the treatment of acute migraine. The most common adverse event reported among all studies were neurologic effects such as altered mental status and slurred speech. Due to the inconsistency in dosing, length of administration, and lack of serum monitoring, the absolute safety of IV lidocaine for acute pain is unknown. Larger, prospective studies are needed before the routine use of IV lidocaine can be recommended for all types of acute pain.