A compounding compliance team at an academic medical center

2020 ◽  
Vol 77 (11) ◽  
pp. 882-891 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce W Chaffee ◽  
Jamie C Tharp ◽  
John S Clark ◽  
Stanley Kent

Abstract Purpose Highly publicized safety issues arising from poor sterile compounding practices in facilities around the United States have garnered substantial attention in recent years. This attention has led to increased scrutiny of health systems by regulatory bodies, new regulatory requirements, and changes to existing regulations or their interpretation. Health systems are often resource constrained, and the added work resulting from this scrutiny challenges pharmacy departments in meeting regulatory requirements and United States Pharmacopeia chapter 797 standards for sterile compounding. This article describes the creation of a dedicated compounding compliance team (CCT) and the team’s responsibilities in support of pharmacy operations in achieving compliance with those standards. Summary Visits to our organization by several regulatory bodies resulted in findings that required substantial work in order to achieve compliance with sterile compounding standards. Given the number and complexity of findings and the need for timely resolution, it was felt that specialized staff were needed to understand, evaluate, and correct identified deficiencies and help the already overburdened staff and leadership comply with existing standards. A CCT was formed, and work was simultaneously initiated on ensuring proper credentialing and training of all compounding staff, development of standard operating procedures, improvements in facilities, environmental monitoring, equipment certifications, practice auditing, and documentation. Key activities of the team included strategic planning, building relationships, communicating with stakeholders, self-education, and record keeping. Key partners included environmental services, facilities, and infection prevention and control personnel and departmental staff and leaders. Conclusion The formation and collaborative work of a CCT at an academic medical center was successful in changing the culture of the organization and achieving compliance during visits from several regulatory agencies.

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joesph R Wiencek ◽  
Carter L Head ◽  
Costi D Sifri ◽  
Andrew S Parsons

Abstract Background The novel severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) originated in December 2019 and has now infected almost 5 million people in the United States. In the spring of 2020, private laboratories and some hospitals began antibody testing despite limited evidence-based guidance. Methods We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who received SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing from May 14, 2020, to June 15, 2020, at a large academic medical center, 1 of the first in the United States to provide antibody testing capability to individual clinicians in order to identify clinician-described indications for antibody testing compared with current expert-based guidance from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Results Of 444 individual antibody test results, the 2 most commonly described testing indications, apart from public health epidemiology studies (n = 223), were for patients with a now resolved COVID-19-compatible illness (n = 105) with no previous molecular testing and for asymptomatic patients believed to have had a past exposure to a person with COVID-19-compatible illness (n = 60). The rate of positive SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing among those indications consistent with current IDSA and CDC guidance was 17% compared with 5% (P < .0001) among those indications inconsistent with such guidance. Testing inconsistent with current expert-based guidance accounted for almost half of testing costs. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate a dissociation between clinician-described indications for testing and expert-based guidance and a significantly different rate of positive testing between these 2 groups. Clinical curiosity and patient preference appear to have played a significant role in testing decisions and substantially contributed to testing costs.


Author(s):  
Kevin M. Ryan ◽  
Sina Mostaghimi ◽  
Julianne Dugas ◽  
Eric Goralnick

ABSTRACT Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the involvement of emergency medicine physicians at academic medical centers across the United States as well as their background training, roles in the hospital, and compensation if applicable for time dedicated to preparedness. Methods: A structured survey was delivered by means of email to 109 Chairs of Emergency Medicine across the United States at academic medical centers. Unique email links were provided to track response rate and entered into REDCap database. Descriptive statistics were obtained, including roles in emergency preparedness, training, and compensation. Results: Forty-four of the 109 participants responded, resulting in a response rate of 40.4%. The majority held an administrative role in emergency preparedness. Formal training for the position (participants could select more than 1) included various avenues of education such as emergency medical services fellowship or in-person or online courses. Of the participants, most (93.18%) strongly agreed that it was important to have a physician with expertise in disaster medicine assisting with preparedness. Conclusions: The majority of responding academic medical center participants have taken an active role in hospital emergency preparedness. Education for the roles varied though, often consisted of courses from emergency management agencies. Volunteering their time for compensation was noted by 27.5%.


2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan C Cho ◽  
Matthew P Crotty ◽  
Wesley D Kufel ◽  
Elias B Chahine ◽  
Amelia K Sofjan ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Pharmacists with residency training in infectious diseases (ID) optimize antimicrobial therapy outcomes in patients and support antimicrobial stewardship (AS) programs. Although most ID residencies are accredited and assessed by certain standards, the degree to which these programs are similar is not known. Methods A 19-item, cross-sectional, multicentered, electronic survey was distributed via e-mail to pharmacy residency program directors (RPDs) of all 101 second-year postgraduate (PGY-2) ID residency programs in the United States. Results Survey responses were collected from 71 RPDs (70.3%); 64.8% were associated with an academic medical center and 97.2% focused primarily in adult ID. Rotations in the microbiology laboratory, adult AS, and adult ID consult were required in 98.6% of residency programs. Only 28.2% of responding programs required pediatric AS and pediatric ID consult rotations. Programs at academic medical centers were more likely to offer immunocompromised host ID consult (P = .003), pediatric ID consult (P = .006), and hospital epidemiology (P = .047) rotations but less frequently offered outpatient AS (P = .003), viral hepatitis clinics (P = .001), and travel medicine clinics (P = .007) rotations compared to programs at nonacademic medical centers. Residents were frequently involved in AS committees (97.2%), pharmacokinetic dosing of antimicrobials (83.1%), precepting pharmacy trainees (80.3%), and performing research projects (91.5%). Conclusions The PGY-2 ID pharmacy residency programs demonstrated consistency in required adult ID consult, antimicrobial management activities, committee service, and teaching and research opportunities. Pediatric experiences were less common. The PGY-2 ID residency programs prepare pharmacists to become antimicrobial stewards for adult patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document