Contemporary adequacy of thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients in Switzerland: a bi-centric prospective cohort.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism is a dreaded complication of hospitalised patients, with associated morbidity, mortality and increased healthcare costs. Previous studies have shown that pharmacological thromboprophylaxis, though effective, is inadequately administered in a large proportion of medical inpatients. STUDY AIMS: Our primary aim was to evaluate the contemporary adequacy of thromboprophylaxis in medical inpatients admitted to two Swiss hospitals (a university hospital and a regional hospital). The secondary aim was to estimate the 90-day incidence of relevant thrombotic and bleeding events. METHODS: In this prospective cohort, patients were recruited at the University Hospital of Geneva and the Regional Hospital of Lugano between September 2020 and February 2021 and followed for 90 days for venous thromboembolism and bleeding events. The adequacy of thromboprophylaxis (pharmacological and/or mechanical) at 24h after hospital admission was evaluated according to the simplified Geneva risk score for hospital-associated venous thromboembolism. RESULTS: Among 200 participants (100 at each site, mean age of 65 years), 57.5% were deemed at high risk of venous thromboembolism at admission. Thromboprophylaxis was adequate in 59.5% (95% CI 52.3-66.4%). Among high-risk and low-risk inpatients, thromboprophylaxis was adequate in 71.3% and 43.5%, respectively, with differences between sites. At 90 days, risks of adjudicated venous thromboembolism, major bleeding and mortality were 1.5%, 1.5% and 6.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite the extensive literature on thromboprophylaxis, the adequacy of thromboprophylaxis has not improved and remains insufficient among medical inpatients. Implementation and evaluation of clinical decision support systems are critically needed in this field. CLINICALTRIALS: gov number: NCT05306821.

Electronic monitoring of potential adverse drug events related to lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine during the first wave of COVID-19.

During Switzerland's first wave of COVID-19, clinical pharmacy activities during medical rounds in Geneva University Hospitals were replaced by targeted remote interventions. We describe using the electronic PharmaCheck system to screen high-risk situations of adverse drug events (ADEs), particularly targeting prescriptions of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPVr) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the presence of contraindications or prescriptions outside institutional guidelines. Of 416 patients receiving LPVr and/or HCQ, 182 alerts were triggered for 164 (39.4%) patients. The main associated risk factors of ADEs were drug-drug interactions, QTc interval prolongation, electrolyte disorder and inadequate LPVr dosage. Therapeutic optimisation recommended by a pharmacist or proposals for additional monitoring were accepted in 80% (n=36) of cases. Combined with pharmacist contextualisation to the clinical context, PharmaCheck made it possible to successfully adapt clinical pharmacist activities by switching from a global to a targeted analysis mode in an emergency context.

Development and assessment of PharmaCheck: an electronic screening tool for the prevention of twenty major adverse drug events.

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug events (ADEs) can be prevented by deploying clinical decision support systems (CDSS) that directly assist physicians, via computerized order entry systems, and clinical pharmacists performing medication reviews as part of medical rounds. However, physicians using CDSS are known to be exposed to the alert-fatigue phenomenon. Our study aimed to assess the performance of PharmaCheck-a CDSS to help clinical pharmacists detect high-risk situations with the potential to lead to ADEs-and its impact on clinical pharmacists' activities. METHODS: Twenty clinical rules, divided into four risk classes, were set for the daily screening of high-risk situations in the electronic health records of patients admitted to our General Internal Medicine Department. Alerts to clinical pharmacists encouraged them to telephone prescribers and suggest any necessary treatment adjustments. PharmaCheck's performance was assessed using the intervention's positive predictive value (PPV), which characterizes the proportion of interventions for each alert triggered. PharmaCheck's impact was assessed by considering clinical pharmacists as a filter for ruling out futile alerts and by comparing the final clinical PPV with a pharmacist (the proportion of interventions that led to a change in the medical regimen) to the final clinical PPV without a pharmacist. RESULTS: Over 132 days, 447 alerts were triggered for 383 patients, leading to 90 interventions (overall intervention PPV = 20.1%). By risk class, intervention PPVs made up 26.9% (n = 65/242) of abnormal laboratory value alerts, 3.1% (4/127) of alerts for contraindicated medications or medications to be used with caution, 28.2% (20/71) of drug-drug interaction alerts, and 14.3% (1/7) of inadequate mode of administration alerts. Clinical PPVs reached 71.0% (64/90) when pharmacists filtered alerts and 14% (64/242) if they were not doing it. CONCLUSION: PharmaCheck enabled clinical pharmacists to improve their traditional processes and broaden their coverage by focusing on 20 high-risk situations. Alert management by pharmacists seemed to be a more effective way of preventing risky situations and alert-fatigue than a model addressing alerts to physicians exclusively. Some fine-tuning could enhance PharmaCheck's performance by considering the information quality of triggers, the variability of clinical settings, and the fact that some prescription processes are already highly secured.

How to improve hospital admission screening for patients at risk of multidrug-resistant organism carriage: a before-and-after interventional study and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Infection prevention and control (IPC) is a prioritised task for healthcare workers in emergency department (ED). Here, we examined compliance with admission screening (AS) and additional precautions (AP) measures for patients at risk of infection with multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) by using a two-stage, multifaceted educational intervention, also comparing the cost of a developed automated indicator for AS and AP compliance and clinical audits to sustain observed findings. METHODS: In the first stage, staff in the ED of the University Hospitals of Geneva, Switzerland, were briefed on IPC measures (AS and AP). A cross-sectional survey was then conducted to assess barriers to IPC measures. In the second stage, healthcare workers underwent training sessions, and an electronic patient record 'order-set' including AS and AP compliance indicators was designed. We compared the cost-benefit of the audits and the automated indicators for AS and AP compliance. RESULTS: Compliance significantly improved after training, from 36.2% (95% CI 23.6% to 48.8%) to 78.8% (95% CI 67.1% to 90.3%) for AS (n=100, p=0.0050) and from 50.2% (95% CI 45.3% to 55.1%) to 68.5% (95% CI 60.1% to 76.9%) for AP (n=125, p=0.0092). Healthcare workers recognised MDRO screening as an ED task (70.2%), with greater acknowledgment of risk factors at AS considered an ED duty. The monthly cost was higher for clinical audits than the automated indicator, with a reported yearly cost of US$120 203. The initial cost of developing the automated indicator was US$18 290 and its return on investment US$3.44 per US$1 invested. CONCLUSION: Training ED staff increased compliance with IPC measures when accompanied by team discussions for optimal effectiveness. An automated indicator of compliance is cheaper and closer to real-time than a clinical audit.

Computer-based physician order entry: implementation of clinical pathways.

Computer-based physician order entry (CPOE) is a key feature of electronic health record systems. A fully-featured CPOE system, capable of dealing with drug prescription, but also with all the other aspects of patients care, can be used to implement standardized clinical pathways. This classic design can be improved upon by using a workflow engine to drive and bring together the different tasks incorporated in a pathway, including clinical documentation.

A risk analysis method to evaluate the impact of a computerized provider order entry system on patient safety.

OBJECTIVES: Quantitative evaluation of safety after the implementation of a computerized provider order entry (CPOE) system, stratification of residual risks to drive future developments. DESIGN: Comparative risk analysis of the drug prescription process before and after the implementation of CPOE system, according to the Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) method. MEASUREMENTS: The failure modes were defined and their criticality indices calculated on the basis of the likelihood of occurrence, potential severity for patients, and detection probability. Criticality indices of handwritten and electronic prescriptions were compared, the acceptability of residual risks was discussed. Further developments were proposed and their potential impact on the safety was estimated. RESULTS: The sum of criticality indices of 27 identified failure modes was 3813 for the handwritten prescription, 2930 (-23%) for CPOE system, and 1658 (-57%) with 14 enhancements. The major safety improvements were observed for errors due to ambiguous, incomplete or illegible orders (-245 points), wrong dose determination (-217) and interactions (-196). Implementation of targeted pop-ups to remind treatment adaptation (-189), vital signs (-140), and automatic edition of documents needed for the dispensation (-126) were the most promising proposed improvements. CONCLUSION: The impact of a CPOE system on patient safety strongly depends on the implemented functions and their ergonomics. The use of risk analysis helps to quantitatively evaluate the relationship between a system and patient safety and to build a strategy for continuous quality improvement, by selecting the most appropriate improvements to the system.