RESUMO
Background: Pharmacist order verification is a critical step in ensuring medication safety for patients. While the second pharmacist verification (SPV) before dispensing anticancer therapies has been a longstanding practice, its continued necessity in the context of modern electronic health systems lacks robust evidence. Objective: This study aimed to assess the frequency of interventions performed by a second pharmacist to determine the ongoing effectiveness of the SPV process. Methods: This retrospective chart review was conducted at the Mayo Clinic, encompassing all anticancer therapy orders that necessitated an SPV. The study period extended from January 1, 2019, to June 30, 2021, and included inpatient and outpatient anticancer orders. The quantification and reporting of alterations made to discrete order fields subsequent to initial pharmacist verification of clinical significance were performed, utilizing the total number of anticancer therapy orders as the denominator. Results: Approximately 300 000 anticancer therapy orders were screened for inclusion criteria and 2.6% (N = 7634) of orders were modified on the SPV. Most changes were in the categories of rate (N = 1962), order start time (N = 1219), and pharmacy communication note (N = 777). Dosing changes greater than 10% accounted for 0.03% (N = 99) of the orders, with 10 anticancer therapies responsible for more than 50% of these changes. Conclusion and relevance: This study represents the largest report on the impact of SPV in a modern era. Our results suggest the SPV may be valuable for a small proportion of chemotherapy orders but raises questions about the necessity for broad application of this practice.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Surgical patients with a penicillin allergy label (PAL) are less likely to receive ß-lactams for surgical site infection (SSI) prophylaxis and more likely to receive second-line antibiotics, which may increase the risk of SSI, drug toxicities, and associated costs. We assessed the impact of implementing a pharmacist-led quality improvement project to increase the use of cefazolin as a first-line agent in this population. SUMMARY: After implementation of a pilot project in December 2021, all patients with a PAL and orders for preoperative antibiotics were risk stratified into high- or low-risk categories by a pharmacist. For the low-risk group, cefazolin was recommended. For the high-risk group, cefazolin was avoided and a second-line agent was administered. Our analysis compared 422 preintervention patients (August 15 to November 15, 2021) to 492 postintervention patients (December 15 to March 15, 2022). During the postintervention period, ß-lactam usage increased (from 12.6% to 37.8%, P < 0.001), while usage of vancomycin (45.5% vs 29.5%, P < 0.001) and other second-line antibiotics (87.4% vs 62.2%, P < 0.001) declined. There were no adverse reactions reported in the preintervention cohort, with 2 potential adverse reactions reported after the intervention (0% vs 0.4%, P = 0.190). Medication costs based on claims data were 50% to 80% lower for patients receiving cefazolin. CONCLUSION: In our cohort, a pharmacy-led antibiotic selection algorithm for patients with a PAL receiving perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis resulted in increased use of ß-lactam antibiotics, decreased use of second-line antibiotics, and decreased costs without a significant change in the incidence of adverse reactions.
