scholarly journals Determining Inappropriate Medication Alerts from “Inaccurate Warning” Overrides in the Intensive Care Unit

2018 ◽  
Vol 09 (02) ◽  
pp. 268-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Rehr ◽  
Adrian Wong ◽  
Diane Seger ◽  
David Bates
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Drug Allergy ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Inappropriate Medication ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Valuable Resource ◽  
Provider Behavior ◽  
Academic Medical

Objective This article aims to understand provider behavior around the use of the override reason “Inaccurate warning,” specifically whether it is an effective way of identifying unhelpful medication alerts. Materials and Methods We analyzed alert overrides that occurred in the intensive care units (ICUs) of a major academic medical center between June and November 2016, focused on the following high-significance alert types: dose, drug-allergy alerts, and drug–drug interactions (DDI). Override appropriateness was analyzed by two independent reviewers using predetermined criteria. Results A total of 268 of 26,501 ICU overrides (1.0%) used the reason “Inaccurate warning,” with 93 of these overrides associated with our included alert types. Sixty-one of these overrides (66%) were identified to be appropriate. Twenty-one of 30 (70%) dose alert overrides were appropriate. Forty of 48 drug-allergy alert overrides (83%) were appropriate, for reasons ranging from prior tolerance (n = 30) to inaccurate ingredient matches (n = 5). None of the 15 DDI overrides were appropriate. Conclusion The “Inaccurate warning” reason was selectively used by a small proportion of providers and overrides using this reason identified important opportunities to reduce excess alerts. Potential opportunities include improved evaluation of dosing mechanisms based on patient characteristics, inclusion of institutional dosing protocols to alert logic, and evaluation of a patient's prior tolerance to a medication that they have a documented allergy for. This resource is not yet routinely used for alert tailoring at our institution but may prove to be a valuable resource to evaluate available alerts.

Hemodynamic Effects of Ketamine Compared With Propofol or Dexmedetomidine as Continuous ICU Sedation

2021 ◽  
pp. 106002802110510
Author(s):  
Evan Atchley ◽  
Eljim Tesoro ◽  
Robert Meyer ◽  
Alexia Bauer ◽  
Mark Pulver ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Critically Ill Adults ◽  
Icu Sedation ◽  
Ill Adults ◽  
Positive Effect

Background Ketamine has seen increased use for sedation in the intensive care unit. In contrast to propofol or dexmedetomidine, ketamine may provide a positive effect on hemodynamics. Objective The objective of this study was to compare the development of clinically significant hypotension or bradycardia (ie, negative hemodynamic event) between critically ill adults receiving sedation with ketamine and either propofol or dexmedetomidine. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of adults admitted to an intensive care unit at an academic medical center between January 2016 and January 2021. Results Patients in the ketamine group (n = 78) had significantly less clinically significant hypotension or bradycardia compared with those receiving propofol or dexmedetomidine (n = 156) (34.6% vs 63.5%; P < 0.001). Patients receiving ketamine also experienced smaller degree of hypotension observed by percent decrease in mean arterial pressure (25.3% [17.4] vs 33.8% [14.5]; P < 0.001) and absolute reduction in systolic blood pressure (26.5 [23.8] vs 42.0 [37.8] mm Hg; P < 0.001) and bradycardia (15.5 [24.3] vs 32.0 [23.0] reduction in beats per minute; P < 0.001). In multivariate logistic regression modeling, receipt of propofol or dexmedetomidine was the only independent predictor of a negative hemodynamic event (odds ratio [OR]: 3.3, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7 to 6.1; P < 0.001). Conclusion and Relevance Ketamine was associated with less clinically relevant hypotension or bradycardia when compared with propofol or dexmedetomidine, in addition to a smaller absolute decrease in hemodynamic parameters. The clinical significance of these findings requires further investigation.

Double Trouble: Patients With Both True and False Arrhythmia Alarms

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 14-23
Author(s):  
Stella Chiu Nguyen ◽  
Sukardi Suba ◽  
Xiao Hu ◽  
Michele M. Pelter
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Altered Mental Status ◽  
False Alarms ◽  
Number Of False Alarms ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Using Data

Background Patients with both true and false arrhythmia alarms pose a challenge because true alarms might be buried among a large number of false alarms, leading to missed true events. Objective To determine (1) the frequency of patients with both true and false arrhythmia alarms; (2) patient, clinical, and electrocardiographic characteristics associated with both true and false alarms; and (3) the frequency and types of true and false arrhythmia alarms. Methods This was a secondary analysis using data from an alarm study conducted at a tertiary academic medical center. Results Of 461 intensive care unit patients, 211 (46%) had no arrhythmia alarms, 12 (3%) had only true alarms, 167 (36%) had only false alarms, and 71 (15%) had both true and false alarms. Ventricular pacemaker, altered mental status, mechanical ventilation, and cardiac intensive care unit admission were present more often in patients with both true and false alarms than among other patients (P &lt; .001). Intensive care unit stays were longer in patients with only false alarms (mean [SD], 106 [162] hours) and those with both true and false alarms (mean [SD], 208 [333] hours) than in other patients. Accelerated ventricular rhythm was the most common alarm type (37%). Conclusions An awareness of factors associated with arrhythmia alarms might aid in developing solutions to decrease alarm fatigue. To improve detection of true alarms, further research is needed to build and test electrocardiographic algorithms that adjust for clinical and electrocardiographic characteristics associated with false alarms.

scholarly journals Patient Predictors of Dexmedetomidine Effectiveness for Sedation in Intensive Care Units

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 160-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela L. Smithburger ◽  
Randall B. Smith ◽  
Sandra L. Kane-Gill ◽  
Philip E. Empey
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Multiple Logistic Regression Analysis ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Specific Patient ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Adequate Sedation ◽  
Effective Sedation ◽  
At Home

Background Dexmedetomidine, a selective α2-adrenergic receptor agonist, is increasingly used as a sedative in intensive care despite variations in patients’ responses. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine as a sedative and specific patient characteristics that play a role in adequate sedation with dexmedetomidine. Methods A 6-month, pilot, prospective observational study was performed in a medical intensive care unit at an academic medical center. Patients receiving dexmedetomidine were followed up until use of the drug was stopped and they were classified as nonresponders or responders. Effective sedation was defined as a score of 3 to 4 on the Sedation Agitation Scale after the administration of dexmedetomidine. Patient characteristics, laboratory values, home and inpatient medications, and dexmedetomidine dosing information were collected to identify predictors of clinical response. Results During the 6-month study period, 38 patients received dexmedetomidine. The drug was ineffective as a sedative in 19 patients (50%) and effective in 11 (29%). Effectiveness could not be assessed in 8 patients because of clinical confounders. According to standard multiple logistic regression analysis, successful sedation was more likely in patients with a lower score on the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.81; 95% CI, −0.39 to −0.03) and patients who took antidepressants at home (OR 10.27; 95% CI, 0.23 to 4.43) than in patients who had a higher score or did not take antidepressants at home. Conclusions Effective sedation with dexmedetomidine is variable.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document