Evaluation of a Pharmacist-Led Implementation of Standardized Medication Administration Times for Inpatients Receiving Hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Missed medication doses are a common and often preventable medication-related error that have been associated with an increased length of stay and mortality. Hemodialysis is a common, relatively predictable reason that patients are unavailable, resulting in missed doses. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the implications of a pharmacist-led intervention to standardize the medication administration times for patients requiring hemodialysis who were prescribed antihypertensives, antiepileptics, apixaban, and/or antimicrobials. METHODS: A retrospective preanalysis and postanalysis of a pharmacist-led intervention were performed at a single-center, safety net hospital. Patients receiving dialysis and prescribed one of the targeted medications were included. The primary endpoint was the composite of missed and delayed doses. RESULTS: A total of 25 patients receiving 126 dialysis sessions in the preintervention group and 29 patients receiving 80 dialysis sessions in the postintervention group were included for analysis. For the primary endpoint, 118 (18%) versus 57 (9.3%) doses were missed or delayed in the preintervention versus postintervention group, respectively (P < 0.001). The primary endpoint was driven by fewer delayed doses in the postgroup. The number of antimicrobials given on a correct schedule increased in the postintervention group (98.3% vs 99.1%, P = 0.044). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: A pharmacist-led intervention for standard medication administration times in patients requiring hemodialysis increased the number of prescribed medication doses given and given on time. The intervention also led to more antimicrobials administered at appropriate times relative to dialysis sessions.

Effect of Inpatient Pharmacist-Led Medication Reconciliations on Medication-Related Interventions in Intensive Care Unit Recovery Centers.

Background: Critical care pharmacists complete comprehensive medication reviews in Post Intensive Care Syndrome (PICS) patients at Intensive Care Unit Recovery Centers (ICU-RCs) to optimize medication therapies after hospital discharge. Inpatient pharmacists often complete medication reconciliations prior to hospital discharge, which could affect interventions at an ICU-RC. However, this association remains ill-described. Objective: The purpose of this study was to, in patients with PICS, describe the effect of an inpatient, pharmacist-led medication reconciliation on the number of clinical pharmacist interventions at the first ICU-RC visit. Methods: This was a post-hoc subgroup analysis of an international, multicenter cohort study of adults who had a pharmacist-led comprehensive medication reconciliation conducted in 12 ICU-RCs. Only patients' first ICU-RC visit was eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was the number of medication interventions made at initial ICU-RC visit in PICS patients who had an inpatient, pharmacist-led medication reconciliation compared to those who did not. Results: Of 323 patients included, 83 received inpatient medication reconciliations and 240 did not. No difference was observed in the median number of medication interventions between groups (2 vs 2, p = .06). However, a higher incidence of any intervention (86.3% vs 78.3%, p = .09) and dose adjustment (20.4% vs 9.6%; p = .03) was observed in the no medication reconciliation group. Only ICU Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was associated with an increased odds of medication intervention at ICU-RC visit (aOR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05-1.25, p < .01). Conclusion and Relevance: No difference in the total number of medication interventions made by ICU-RC clinical pharmacists was observed in patients who received an inpatient, pharmacist-led medication reconciliation before hospital discharge compared to those who did not. Still, clinical observations within this study highlight the continued importance and study of clinical pharmacist involvement during transitions of care, including ICU-RC visits.

An International, Multicenter Evaluation of Comprehensive Medication Management by Pharmacists in ICU Recovery Centers.

BACKGROUND: Post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) is defined as a new or worsening impairment in physical, cognitive, or mental health following critical illness. Intensive care unit recovery centers (ICU-RC) are one means to treat patients who have PICS. The purpose of this study is to describe the role of pharmacists in ICU-RCs. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the number and type of medication interventions made by a pharmacist at an ICU-RC at 12 different centers? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This prospective, observational study was conducted in 12 intensive care units (ICUs)/ICU-RCs between September 2019 and July 2021. A full medication review was conducted by a pharmacist on patients seen at the ICU-RC. RESULTS: 507 patients were referred to the ICU-RC. Of these patients, 474 attended the ICU-RC and 472 had a full medication review performed by a pharmacist. Baseline demographic and hospital course data were obtained from the electronic health record and at the ICU-RC appointment. Pharmacy interventions were made in 397 (84%) patients. The median number of pharmacy interventions per patient was 2 (interquartile range [IQR] = 1,3). Medications were stopped and started in 124 (26%) and 91 (19%) patients, respectively. The number of patients that had a dose decreased and a dose increased was 51 (11%) and 43 (9%), respectively. There was no difference in the median total number of medications that the patient was prescribed at the start and end of the patient visit (10, IQR = 5, 15). Adverse drug event (ADE) preventive measures were implemented in 115 (24%) patients. ADE events were identified in 69 (15%) patients. Medication interactions were identified in 30 (6%) patients. INTERPRETATION: A pharmacist plays an integral role in an ICU-RC resulting in the identification, prevention, and treatment of medication-related problems. This paper should serve as a call to action on the importance of the inclusion of a pharmacist in ICU-RC clinics.

Pharmacists' Perceptions on Their Role, Activities, Facilitators, and Barriers to Practicing in a Post-Intensive Care Recovery Clinic.

Background: Complex medication regimen changes burden intensive care unit (ICU) survivors and their caregivers during the transition to home. Intensive care unit recovery clinics are a prime setting for pharmacists to address patients' and their caregivers' medication-related needs. The purpose of this study was to describe ICU recovery clinic pharmacists' activities, roles, and perceived barriers and facilitators to practicing in ICU recovery clinics across different institutions. Methods: An expert panel of ICU recovery clinic pharmacists completed a 15-item survey. Survey items addressed the pharmacists' years in practice, education and training, activities performed, their perceptions of facilitators and barriers to practicing in an ICU recovery clinic setting, and general ICU recovery clinic characteristics. Descriptive statistics were used. Results: Nine ICU recovery clinic pharmacists participated. The average number of years in practice was 16.5 years (SD = 13.5, range = 2-38). All pharmacists practiced in an interprofessional ICU recovery clinic affiliated with an academic medical center. Seven (78%) pharmacists always performed medication reconciliation and a comprehensive medication review in each patient visit. Need for medication education was the most prevalent item found in patient comprehensive medication reviews. The main facilitators for pharmacists' successful participation in an ICU recovery clinic were incorporation into clinic workflow, support from other health care providers, and adequate space to see patients. The ICU recovery clinic pharmacists perceived the top barriers to be lack of dedicated time and inadequate billing for services. Conclusions: The ICU recovery clinic pharmacists address ICU survivors' medication needs by providing direct patient care in the clinic. Strategies to mitigate pharmacists' barriers to practicing in ICU recovery clinics, such as lack of dedicated time and adequate billing for pharmacist services, warrant a multifaceted solution, potentially including advocacy and policy work by national pharmacy professional organizations.

Monitoring and Treating Metabolic Abnormalities in Patients with Early Psychosis Initiated on Antipsychotic Medications.

Antipsychotic medications carry an established lifetime risk of metabolic syndrome. This retrospective chart review evaluated feasibility of a metabolic monitoring clinical decision support tool (CDST) for weight, lipid, blood glucose, and blood pressure management of 163 clients in an early psychosis outpatient clinic over 2 years. Each parameter had at least 98 (60.1%) clients with a recorded value, the most being documented for weight with 112 (68.7%) clients. CDST adherence ranged from at least 54.3-100% for non-pharmacologic interventions (e.g. clinic counseling, referral to health program or primary care) and at least 33.3-100% for pharmacologic interventions (e.g. metformin). Though no baseline cardiometabolic abnormalities were identified, dyslipidemia and obesity were later found in 37 (22.7%) and 35 (21.5%) clients, respectively. Only 14 (8.6%) clients were prescribed medications for cardiometabolic abnormalities by psychiatrists in the clinic. Increasing focus on physical health is needed to better this population's long-term prognosis.

An international, multicenter post hoc analysis comparing in-person and virtual medication management strategies in post-ICU recovery clinics.

DISCLAIMER: In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. PURPOSE: To compare the incidence of ICU pharmacist interventions in intensive care unit recovery center (ICU-RC) in-person and virtual clinic visits. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of interventions implemented by ICU pharmacists among adult patients who were referred to 12 ICU-RCs across the United States and the United Kingdom between September 2019 and July 2021, as reported in a previously published study "An International, Multicenter Evaluation of Comprehensive Medication Management by Pharmacists in ICU Recovery Centers." That study included patients who received a comprehensive medication review by an ICU pharmacist. Medication-related interventions performed by an ICU pharmacist during ICU-RC in-person clinic visits were compared to those performed during virtual clinic visits. RESULTS: There were 507 patients referred to an ICU-RC, of whom 474 patients attended a clinic visit. Of those, 472 received a comprehensive medication review, with 313 patients attending in-person visits and 159 patients attending virtual visits. The incidence of medication-related interventions implemented was higher in the ICU-RC in-person clinic group compared to the virtual clinic group (86.5% vs 79.2%, P = 0.04). There was no difference in the median number of ICU pharmacist interventions per patient between the in-person and virtual clinic groups (2 vs 2, P = 0.13). An ICU admission diagnosis was an independent predictor of medication-related interventions among all patients. CONCLUSION: The incidence of ICU pharmacist interventions was higher at ICU-RC in-person clinic visits compared to virtual clinic visits. Pharmacists aid in meeting the complex pharmacologic challenges of post-intensive care syndrome in both settings.

A Multicenter Evaluation of Outcomes Following the Use of Nebulized Heparin for Inhalation Injury (HIHI2 Study).

Inhalation injury causes significant morbidity and mortality secondary to compromise of the respiratory system as well as systemic effects limiting perfusion and oxygenation. Nebulized heparin reduces fibrin cast formation and duration of mechanical ventilation in patients with inhalation injury. To date, no study has compared both dosing strategies of 5000 and 10,000 units to a matched control group. This multicenter, retrospective, case-control study included adult patients with bronchoscopy-confirmed inhalation injury. Each control patient, matched according to age and percent of total body surface area, was matched to a patient who received 5000 units and a patient who received 10,000 units of nebulized heparin. The primary endpoint of the study was duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary endpoints included 28-day mortality, ventilator-free days in the first 28 days, difference in lung injury scores, length of hospitalization, incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia, and rate of major bleeding. Thirty-five matched patient trios met inclusion criteria. Groups were well-matched for age (P = .975) and total body surface area (P = .855). Patients who received nebulized heparin, either 5000 or 10,000 units, had 8 to 11 less days on the ventilator compared to controls (P = .001). Mortality ranged from 3 to 14% overall and was not statistically significant between groups. No major bleeding events related to nebulized heparin were reported. Mechanical ventilation days were significantly decreased in patients who received 5000 or 10,000 units of nebulized heparin. Nebulized heparin, either 5000 units or 10,000 units, is a safe and effective treatment for inhalation injury.

Outcomes Following the Use of Nebulized Heparin for Inhalation Injury (HIHI Study).

Inhalation injury (IHI) causes significant morbidity and mortality in burn victims due to both local and systemic effects. Nebulized heparin promotes improvement in lung function and decreased mortality in IHI by reducing the inflammatory response and fibrin cast formation. The study objective was to determine if nebulized heparin 10,000 units improves lung function and decreases mechanical ventilation duration, mortality, and hospitalization length in IHI with minimal systemic adverse events. This retrospective, case-control study evaluated efficacy and safety of nebulized heparin administered to mechanically ventilated adults admitted within 48 hr of confirmed IHI. Nebulized heparin 10,000 units was administered Q4H for 7 days, or until extubation if sooner, alternating with albuterol and a mucolytic. Patients were matched on a case-by-case basis based on percent TBSA burn and age to patients from a historical group with IHI before heparin protocol implementation. The primary outcome was duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes included lung injury score, ventilator-free days during the first 28 days, 28-day mortality, hospitalization length, ventilator-associated pneumonia incidence, bronchoscopy incidence, and bleeding events. Data were collected in 72 patients, 36 of which received nebulized heparin and 36 historical controls. Two patients from the heparin group and three patients from the control group died/were discharged while on the ventilator. Data were analyzed separately with 1) all subjects included and 2) with subjects who died/were discharged on the ventilator excluded. In the latter comparison, patients receiving nebulized heparin demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in median (interquartile range) duration of initial mechanical ventilation compared with controls [7.0 (4.0, 13.5) vs. 14.5 (5.3, 22.3) days; P = .044]. Patients in the heparin group had a significantly increased number of median (interquartile range) ventilator-free days in the first 28 days [21.0 (14.5-24.0) vs 13.5 (4.3-22.8) days; P = .031]. There were no differences in hospitalization length, lung injury score during the first 7 days post injury, 28-day mortality, ventilator-associated pneumonia rate, or bleeding events. Nebulized heparin 10,000 units in conjunction with a beta-agonist and mucolytic produced a significant decrease in duration of mechanical ventilation and increase in ventilator-free days in adult patients with IHI. Nebulized heparin was safe and did not result in an increase in bleeding events. To our knowledge, this is the first case-control study with matched cohorts based on age and %TBSA which are significant factors contributing to morbidity and mortality in IHI.

Transition From Intravenous to Subcutaneous Insulin in Critically Ill Adults.

BACKGROUND: Glycemic control decreases morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. However, limited guidance exists regarding the transition from intravenous (IV) to subcutaneous insulin therapy. A validated protocol for transition is necessary since glycemic variability, hyperglycemia, and hypoglycemia adversely impact patient outcomes. METHOD: The objective was to determine the safest and most effective method to transition critically ill adults from IV to subcutaneous insulin. This single-center, retrospective, observational study included adults admitted to the burn, medical, or surgical/trauma intensive care units from January 1, 2011, to September 30, 2014. A computer-based program provided a reflection of the patient's total daily IV insulin requirements. This information was then utilized to stratify patients into groups according to their initial dose of subcutaneous insulin as a percentage of the prior 24-hour IV requirements (group stratification: 0-49%, 50-59%, 60-69%, 70-79%, ≥80%). The primary endpoint was the percentage of blood glucose (BG) concentrations within target range (70-150 mg/dL) 48 hours following transition. RESULTS: One hundred patients with 1394 BG concentrations were included. The 50-59% group achieved the highest rate of BG concentrations in goal range (68%) (P < .001). The 0-49% group, which was the transition method utilized most often, resulted in the lowest rate of goal achievement (46%). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study suggests critically ill adults may be safely transitioned to 50-59% of their 24-hour IV insulin requirements. A dosing protocol will be implemented to transition to 50-70% subcutaneous insulin. Follow-up data will be reviewed to assess the protocol's safety and efficacy.