Economic Impact of Converting from Pen and 10-mL Vial to 3-mL Vial for Insulin Delivery in a Hospital Setting.

PURPOSE: To compare the impact on acquisition cost and purchased volume of rapid- and short-acting insulins following conversion from 3-mL disposable pens and 10-mL vials to 3-mL vials for individual patient supply (IPS) in a hospital setting. METHODS: On February 1, 2010, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center of Dignity Health in Phoenix, Arizona, converted from pens to 3-mL vials for IPS subcutaneous (SC) injection and from 10-mL short-acting insulin vials to 3-mL vials for intravenous (IV) preparation. Pharmacy purchasing data were analyzed over 6-month periods before and after conversion (March 1 through August 31, 2009, and March 1 through August 31, 2010). RESULTS: Before conversion, acquisition costs were $27,866 for 5,335 mL of rapid-acting insulins and $53,336 for 26,310 mL of short-acting insulins. After conversion, insulin acquisition costs were $24,211 for 5,850 mL of rapid-acting insulins (13.1% decrease in costs, 9.7% rise in volume), with cost reduction attributable to the lower cost of 3-mL vials. Acquisition costs were $17,395 for 14,700 mL of short-acting insulins after conversion (67.4% decrease in costs, 44.1% reduction in volume), with cost reduction attributable to lower cost of 3-mL vials versus pens for IPS SC injections and 10-mL vials for IV preparation. The reduction in purchased volumes of short-acting insulins may be partly due to decreased insulin use in IV preparation. CONCLUSION: Conversion from pens and 10-mL vials to 3-mL vials for rapid-and short-acting insulins resulted in reduced acquisition costs and decreased use of short-acting insulin in IV preparations.

Patient-Controlled Analgesia Following Lumbar Spinal Fusion Surgery Is Associated With Increased Opioid Consumption and Opioid-Related Adverse Events.

BACKGROUND: Optimal postoperative pain control is critical after spinal fusion surgery. There remains significant variability in the use of postoperative intravenous opioid patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) and few data evaluating its utility compared with nurse-controlled analgesia (NCA) among patients with lumbar fusion. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of postoperative PCA compared with NCA to improve opiate prescription practices. METHODS: A retrospective review from a single institution was conducted in consecutive patients treated with posterior lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative pathology. Patients were divided into cohorts on the basis of postoperative treatment with PCA or NCA. Postoperative pain scores, length of stay, and total opioid consumption data were collected. Patients were stratified according to preoperative opioid consumption as opioid naive (0 morphine milligram equivalents [MME] daily), low consumption (1-60 MME), high consumption (61-90 MME), or very high consumption (>90 MME). RESULTS: A total of 240 patients were identified, including 62 in the PCA group and 178 in the NCA group. PCA patients had higher mean preoperative opioid consumption than NCA patients (49.2 vs 24.3 MME, P = .009). PCA patients had higher mean opioid consumption in the first 72 h in all 4 of the preoperative opioid consumption subcategories. Pain control and adverse event rates were similar between PCA and NCA in the low to high preoperative opioid consumption groups. CONCLUSION: Postoperative PCA is associated with significantly more opioid consumption in the first 72 h after surgery and equal or worse postoperative pain scores compared with NCA after lumbar spinal fusion surgery.

Implementation of a Standardized Multimodal Postoperative Analgesia Protocol Improves Pain Control, Reduces Opioid Consumption, and Shortens Length of Hospital Stay After Posterior Lumbar Spinal Fusion.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal analgesia regimens have been suggested to improve pain control and reduce opioid consumption after surgery. OBJECTIVE: To institutionally implement an evidence-based quality improvement initiative to standardize and optimize pain treatment following neurosurgical procedures. Our goal was to objectively evaluate efficacy of this multimodal protocol. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of pain-related outcomes after posterior lumbar fusion procedures was performed. We compared patients treated in the 6 mo preceding (PRE) and 6 mo following (POST) protocol execution. RESULTS: A total of 102 PRE and 118 POST patients were included. The cohorts were well-matched regarding sex, age, surgical duration, number of segments fused, preoperative opioid consumption, and baseline physical status (all P > .05). Average patient-reported numerical rating scale pain scores significantly improved in the first 24 hr postoperatively (5.6 vs 4.5, P < .001) and 24 to 72 hr postoperatively (4.7 vs 3.4, P < .001), PRE vs POST, respectively. Maximum pain scores and time to achieving appropriate pain control also significantly improved during these same intervals (all P < .05). A concomitant decrease in opioid consumption during the first 72 hr was seen (110 vs 71 morphine milligram equivalents, P = .02). There was an observed reduction in opioid-related adverse events per patient (1.31 vs 0.83, P < .001) and hospital length of stay (4.6 vs 3.9 days, P = .03) after implementation of the protocol. CONCLUSION: Implementation of an evidence-based, multimodal analgesia protocol improved postoperative outcomes, including pain scores, opioid consumption, and length of hospital stay, after posterior lumbar spinal fusion.