scholarly journals Evaluation of medication changes following severe COVID-19 infection: a multicentre evaluation

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. e001037
Author(s):  
Pamela MacTavish ◽  
Joanne McPeake ◽  
Antoin Breslin ◽  
Ruth Forrest ◽  
Rakesh Kishore ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Medication Review ◽  
Medication Management ◽  
Transitions Of Care ◽  
National Formulary ◽  
Optimal Outcomes ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Medicines Reconciliation ◽  
Critical Care Admission ◽  
Medication Changes

BackgroundCritically ill patients often experience several transitions of care following critical illness. Research has explored the challenges which patients have with medication management across these transitions. It is unclear whether patients admitted to critical care due to COVID-19 will have similar challenges. The aim of this study was to explore medication management in critical care survivors following severe COVID-19.MethodsBetween 3 and 7 months post hospital discharge, patients who had been admitted to critical care due to severe COVID-19 were invited to an established recovery service. During the clinic consultation a medication review was performed by a pharmacist. This included medicines reconciliation, assessing the appropriateness of each of the prescribed medications and identification of medication changes. We also assessed changes to pain management in the discharge period.ResultsIn total, 78 patients had a full medication review available. Over 70% of patients were taking an increased dose of medicine or a new medicine at clinic. There was a significant overall increase in new medication during the clinic consultation, across different British National Formulary classifications (OR: 1.73 (95% CI: 1.28 to 2.34), p<0.001). Compared with pre critical care admission, there was a significant increase in the number of patients taking regular analgesia following severe COVID-19 infection (23 (29.5%) vs 39 (50%), p<0.001).ConclusionFollowing severe COVID-19, patients may require new or increasing doses of medicines. Ongoing review of these patients is crucial to ensure optimal outcomes.

scholarly journals The Impact of Changes to an Electronic Admission Order Set on Prescribing and Clinical Outcomes in the Intensive Care Unit

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (01) ◽  
pp. 182-189
Author(s):  
Ellen T. Muniga ◽  
Todd A. Walroth ◽  
Natalie C. Washburn
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Critical Care ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Prescribing Patterns ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Order Sets ◽  
Critical Care Admission ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Order Set

Abstract Background Implementation of disease-specific order sets has improved compliance with standards of care for a variety of diseases. Evidence of the impact admission order sets can have on care is limited. Objective The main purpose of this article is to evaluate the impact of changes made to an electronic critical care admission order set on provider prescribing patterns and clinical outcomes. Methods A retrospective, observational before-and-after exploratory study was performed on adult patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit using the Inpatient Critical Care Admission Order Set. The primary outcome measure was the percentage change in the number of orders for scheduled acetaminophen, a histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA), and lactated ringers at admission before implementation of the revised order set compared with after implementation. Secondary outcomes assessed clinical impact of changes made to the order set. Results The addition of a different dosing strategy for a medication already available on the order set (scheduled acetaminophen vs. as needed acetaminophen) had no impact on physician prescribing (0 vs. 0%, p = 1.000). The addition of a new medication class (an H2RA) to the order set significantly increased the number of patients prescribed an H2RA for stress ulcer prophylaxis (0 vs. 20%, p < 0.001). Rearranging the list of maintenance intravenous fluids to make lactated ringers the first fluid option in place of normal saline significantly decreased the number of orders for lactated ringers (17 vs. 4%, p = 0.005). The order set changes had no significant impact on clinical outcomes such as incidence of transaminitis, gastrointestinal bleed, and acute kidney injury. Conclusion Making changes to an admission order set can impact provider prescribing patterns. The type of change made to the order set, in addition to the specific medication changed, may have an effect on how influential the changes are on prescribing patterns.

Diabetes Discharge Planning and Transitions of Care: A Focused Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin L. Black ◽  
Courtney Duval
Keyword(s):  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Hospital Admissions ◽  
Discharge Planning ◽  
Medication Management ◽  
Hospital Readmissions ◽  
The United States ◽  
Transitions Of Care ◽  
Discharge Process ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Diabetes Patients

Background: Diabetes is a growing problem in the United States. Increasing hospital admissions for diabetes patients demonstrate the need for evidence-based care of diabetes patients by inpatient providers, as well as the importance of continuity of care when transitioning patients from inpatient to outpatient providers. Methods: A focused literature review of discharge planning and transitions of care in diabetes, conducted in PubMed is presented. Studies were selected for inclusion based on content focusing on transitions of care in diabetes, risk factors for readmission, the impact of inpatient diabetes education on patient outcomes, and optimal medication management of diabetes during care transitions. American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines for care of patients during the discharge process are presented, as well as considerations for designing treatment regimens for a hospitalized patient transitioning to various care settings. Results: Multiple factors may make transitions of care difficult, including poor communication, poor patient education, inappropriate follow-up, and clinically complex patients. ADA recommendations provide guidance, but an individualized approach for medication management is needed. Use of scoring systems may help identify patients at higher risk for readmission. Good communication with patients and outpatient providers is needed to prevent patient harm. A team-based approach is needed, utilizing the skills of inpatient and outpatient providers, diabetes educators, nurses, and pharmacists. Conclusion: Structured discharge planning per guideline recommendations can help improve transitions in care for patients with diabetes. A team based, patient-centered approach can help improve patient outcomes by reducing medication errors, delay of care, and hospital readmissions.

scholarly journals The Impact of Changing to an Algorithm-Based Clostridioides difficile Test on the Decision to Treat Clostridioides difficile

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s407-s407
Author(s):  
Lana Dbeibo ◽  
Joy Williams ◽  
Josh Sadowski ◽  
William Fadel ◽  
Vera Winn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Toxic Megacolon ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Clinical Criteria ◽  
Testing Method ◽  
Clostridioides Difficile ◽  
Critical Care Admission ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Test Result ◽  
Pcr Test

Background: Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for the diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) detects the presence of the organism; a positive result therefore cannot differentiate between colonization and the pathogenic presence of the bacterium. This may result in overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and risking disruption of microbial flora, which may perpetuate the CDI cycle. Algorithm-based testing offers an advantage over PCR testing as it detects toxin, which allows differentiation between colonization and infection. Although previous studies have demonstrated the clinical utility of this testing algorithm in differentiating infection from colonization, it is unknown whether the test changes CDI treatment decisions. Our facility switched from PCR to an algorithm-based testing method for CDI in June 2018. Objective: In this study, we evaluated whether clinicians’ decisions to treat patients are impacted by a test result that implies colonization (GDH+/Tox−/PCR+ test), and we examined the impact of this decision on patient outcomes. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of inpatients with a positive C. diff test between June 2017 and June 2019. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients treated for CDI. We compared this outcome in 3 groups of patients: those with a positive PCR test (June 2017–June 2018), those who had a GDH+/Tox−/PCR+ or a GDH+/Tox+ test result (June 2018–June 2019). Secondary outcomes included toxic megacolon, critical care admission, and mortality in patients with GDH+/Tox−/PCR+ who were treated versus those who were untreated. Results: Of patients with a positive PCR test, 86% were treated with CDI-specific antibiotics, whereas 70.4% with GDH+/Tox+ and 29.25% with GDH+/Tox−/PCR+ result were treated (P < .0001). Mortality was not different between patients with GDH+/Tox−/PCR+ who were treated versus those who were untreated (2.7% vs 3.4%; P = .12), neither was critical care admission within 2 or 7 days of test result (2% vs 1.4%; P = .15) and (4.1% vs 5.4%, P = .39), respectively. There were no cases of toxic megacolon during the study period. Conclusions: The change to an algorithm-based C. difficile testing method had a significant impact on the clinicians’ decisions to treat patients with a positive test, as most patients with a GDH+/Tox−/PCR+ result did not receive treatment. These patients did not suffer more adverse outcomes compared to those who were treated, which has implications for testing practices. It remains to be explored whether clinicians are using clinical criteria to decide whether or not to treat patients with a positive algorithm-based test, as opposed to the more reflexive treatment of patients with a positive PCR test.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

Medication Management System Design for Isolated Patient Care

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samhith Kethireddy Abigail Swamidoss ◽  
Bushra Alghamdi ◽  
Ronald L. Hickman ◽  
Shanina Knighton ◽  
Miriam Pekarek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
System Design ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Management System ◽  
Classification Tree ◽  
Medication Management ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Medication Regimen ◽  
Dynamic Framework ◽  
Medication Schedule ◽  
Number Of Patients

Abstract Independent living care for polypharmacy patients can be complicated in those situations with medications that are pro re nata (PRN, “as needed”). Such medication regimen may involve multiple dosing whereby specific drug contraindications might be easily overlooked by hospice and palliative care patients, or by those isolated and not in regular contact with care providers. The goal of this paper is to describe the development steps and current design of a system providing medication decision support for isolated patients. With an increased number of patients living alone or isolated - a situation exacerbated during the COVID19 pandemic – polypharmacy patients may be challenged when PRN (as needed) medications confound what might ordinarily be a routine medication schedule. Central to our medication management system design is the so-called “conversational agent” that when integrated with a natural language processing front- end and classification tree algorithm provide a dynamic framework for patient self-management of medications. Research on “patient need” revealed patients were more likely to embrace the system if the system were autonomous, secure, and not cloud-based.

Abstract 5: Management Of Intravenous tPA In Non-ICU Environments: Safety, Clinical Outcome, And Cost Savings

Stroke ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 44 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kisha C Coleman ◽  
Paola Palazzo ◽  
Reza B Shahripour ◽  
Amy L Brooks ◽  
Mary A Cronin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Stroke Unit ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Pressure Control ◽  
Cardiac Monitoring ◽  
Arterial Line ◽  
Systemic Hemodynamic ◽  
Stroke Units ◽  
Critical Care Admission ◽  
Iv Tpa

Background: Administration of IV tPA has traditionally necessitated admission to an ICU solely for monitoring, with relatively no need for extensive critical care services. Stroke Units that are capable of monitoring IV tPA patients have been proposed to reduce ICU use, but limited data exist that demonstrate safety. We report the largest series of non-ICU managed tPA cases in relation to safety and discharge outcomes. Methods: Consecutive cases admitted to our intermediate-level Stroke Unit spanning 2009-2011 were assembled. Unit capabilities include IV tPA management with nicardipine infusion for blood pressure control as needed, non-invasive or direct central/arterial line and cardiac monitoring, and BiPAP ventilation. Stroke Unit nurses underwent extensive orientation and participate in NET SMART Junior for continuing education. Overall sICH, and drip/ship sICH (parenchymal hemorrhage in combination with > 4 point increase on the NIHSS), systemic hemorrhage, and tPA related death rates were calculated, along with discharge mRS and total ICU cost savings per day. Results: A total of 302 Stroke Unit admissions for intravenous tPA occurred over the 3 year period, while another 31 (10%) were excluded due to critical care admission for systemic hemodynamic or pulmonary instability. Nicardipine infusions were used in 9 (10.5%) Stroke Unit tPA cases in 2009, 10 (9%) in 2010, and 14 (13%) in 2011. Overall sICH rate was 3.3% (n=10) and systemic hemorrhage rate was 2.9% (n=9) with 5 of these (56%) requiring transfusion. Estimated cost savings in total for this 3 year period was $362,400 for “avoided” ICU days. Conclusions: Intravenous tPA patients may be safely managed on non-ICU Stroke Units when nurses undergo extensive education to ensure clinical competence. Use of the ICU solely for management of tPA monitoring needs may constitute significant overuse of system resources at an expense that is not associated with additional safety benefit.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) intervention to optimise prescribing in Irish primary care: a non-randomised pilot study

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e035087
Author(s):  
Karen Cardwell ◽  
Susan M Smith ◽  
Barbara Clyne ◽  
Laura McCullagh ◽  
Emma Wallace ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Medication Review ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Practice Team ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
General Practices ◽  
Medication Changes

ObjectiveLimited evidence suggests integration of pharmacists into the general practice team could improve medicines management for patients, particularly those with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. This study aimed to develop and assess the feasibility of an intervention involving pharmacists, working within general practices, to optimise prescribing in Ireland.DesignNon-randomised pilot study.SettingPrimary care in Ireland.ParticipantsFour general practices, purposively sampled and recruited to reflect a range of practice sizes and demographic profiles.InterventionA pharmacist joined the practice team for 6 months (10 hours/week) and undertook medication reviews (face to face or chart based) for adult patients, provided prescribing advice, supported clinical audits and facilitated practice-based education.Outcome measuresAnonymised practice-level medication (eg, medication changes) and cost data were collected. Patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) data were collected on a subset of older adults (aged ≥65 years) with polypharmacy using patient questionnaires, before and 6 weeks after medication review by the pharmacist.ResultsAcross four practices, 786 patients were identified as having 1521 prescribing issues by the pharmacists. Issues relating to deprescribing medications were addressed most often by the prescriber (59.8%), compared with cost-related issues (5.8%). Medication changes made during the study equated to approximately €57 000 in cost savings assuming they persisted for 12 months. Ninety-six patients aged ≥65 years with polypharmacy were recruited from the four practices for PROM data collection and 64 (66.7%) were followed up. There were no changes in patients’ treatment burden or attitudes to deprescribing following medication review, and there were conflicting changes in patients’ self-reported quality of life.ConclusionsThis non-randomised pilot study demonstrated that an intervention involving pharmacists, working within general practices is feasible to implement and has potential to improve prescribing quality. This study provides rationale to conduct a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of this intervention.

scholarly journals Regional Anaesthesia, The Seed of Opportunity In COVID-19 Crisis: The Balance Has Shifted

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
General Anaesthesia ◽  
Regional Anaesthesia ◽  
Albert Einstein ◽  
Multimodal Analgesia ◽  
Nerve Blocks ◽  
Great Opportunity ◽  
Aerosol Generation ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Alternative Drugs

Albert Einstein once said, “in the midst of every crisis, lies great opportunity.” There’s no question that we’re in the midst of a global crisis. There’s no doubt that a crisis creates problems, lots of them, but it also creates opportunities. Something that every anaesthetist does day in day out safely, intubation of trachea, is now become a risk factor for spread of the disease. So where is the opportunity in this crisis? In the west, regional anaesthesia is often used as an adjunct rather than as sole anaesthetic technique, as part of multimodal analgesia in patients who are being operated under general anaesthesia. Unfortunately, general anaesthesia requires airway manipulation that is associated with aerosol generation and risks transmission of corona virus. This is a risk that can be averted with use of regional anaesthesia techniques for procedures that can be done with patient awake rather than asleep. At the beginning of the pandemic with surge of patients requiring endotracheal intubation and ventilation, increased intensive care admissions affected anaesthesia services in many ways. The increased number of patients needing critical care increased the demand for drugs used in both anaesthesia and critical care and this demand led to shortage of anaesthesia drugs and led the Association of Anaesthetists (AOA) and the Royal College of Anaesthetists (RCoA), working closely with the Chief Pharmaceutical Officer at NHS England to produce a guidance which summarised potential mitigations to be used in the management of such demand. Direct alternative drugs and techniques were offered (1). The options identified in the guidelines were not exhaustive but give a way of thinking about this situation we all have landed up in. We were unsure of how long this demand would continue and how we would manage the situation. This is where the opportunity to use regional anaesthesia for procedures that could be done purely under neuraxial or peripheral nerve blocks became

scholarly journals Critical Care Pharmacists and Medication Management in an ICU Recovery Center

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (8) ◽  
pp. 713-723 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna L. Stollings ◽  
Sarah L. Bloom ◽  
Li Wang ◽  
E. Wesley Ely ◽  
James C. Jackson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Critical Illness ◽  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Medication Review ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Pneumococcal Vaccination ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Drug Event

Background: Many patients experience complications following critical illness; these are now widely referred to as post–intensive care syndrome (PICS). An interprofessional intensive care unit (ICU) recovery center (ICU-RC), also known as a PICS clinic, is one potential approach to promoting patient and family recovery following critical illness. Objectives: To describe the role of an ICU-RC critical care pharmacist in identifying and treating medication-related problems among ICU survivors. Methods: A prospective, observational cohort study was conducted of all outpatient appointments of a tertiary care hospital’s ICU-RC between July 2012 and December 2015. The pharmacist completed a full medication review, including medication reconciliation, interview, counseling, and resultant interventions, during the ICU-RC appointment. Results: Data from all completed ICU-RC visits were analyzed (n = 62). A full medication review was performed in 56 (90%) of these patients by the pharmacist. The median number of pharmacy interventions per patient was 4 (interquartile range = 2, 5). All 56 patients had at least 1 pharmacy intervention; 22 (39%) patients had medication(s) stopped at the clinic appointment, and 18 (32%) patients had new medication(s) started. The pharmacist identified 9 (16%) patients who had an adverse drug event (ADE); 18 (32%) patients had ADE preventive measures instituted. An influenza vaccination was administered to 13 (23%) patients despite an inpatient protocol to ensure influenza vaccination prior to discharge. A pneumococcal vaccination was administered to 2 (4%) patients. Conclusions: Use of a critical care pharmacist resulted in the identification and treatment of multiple medication-related problems in an ICU-RC as well as implementation of preventive measures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document