Development and Validation of a QTc-Prolongation Risk Score to Optimize Interruptive Medication Alerts

Introduction: Drug-drug interaction (DDI) warnings are employed in many institutions when more than one QTc-prolonging medication is prescribed; however, this leads to alert fatigue where alerts are frequently overridden by clinicians due to patient non-specificity or low risk. This study aimed at reducing alert fatigue through developing a custom alert triggered by a patient-specific QTc-prolongation risk score, and validating it against database-driven DDI warnings for QTc prolongation. Methods and Results: Between November 23, 2019 and January 31, 2020, inpatients with a baseline and a follow-up 12-lead ECG reading within 14 days were identified. Each time a QTc-prolonging medication order was signed or verified, the QTc-prolongation risk score was calculated in the electronic health record (EHR), triggering a custom alert in the background. Follow-up 12-lead ECG readings were used to calculate sensitivity and specificity for both the custom alert and the DDI warning. A total of 100 patients had a risk score calculation and were included in our analysis, representing 521 custom alerts and 449 DDI warnings. The preliminary QTc-prolongation risk score did not achieve a reduction in false positive alerts with a cutoff of 10 points. A multiple logistic regression was performed to re-arrange the components and optimize the risk score. Conclusion: Our adjusted QTc-prolongation risk score, with a cutoff of 5 points, achieved a specificity of 66% and a negative predictive value of 83%. These results will allow us to integrate the risk score into the EHR as a guidance tool to predict QTc-prolongation.

The Impact of Telepharmacy Services on the Identification of Medication Discrepancies, High-Alert Medications, and Cost Avoidance at Rural Healthcare Institutions

Telepharmacy, remote reviewing and profiling of medication orders by an offsite pharmacist, has been shown to be an effective method for reducing medication order inaccuracy rates, but there is a lack in studies examining harm reduction and potential cost avoidance by such services. Methods: Retrospective data, collected over a one-year period, were examined for medication order deficiencies; a deficiency was defined as the telepharmacist being required to advocate for clinical action. Based on published rates of adverse drug reactions and expenses related to their treatment, a potential cost avoidance was calculated. Results: Over the course of the one-year study period over 218,000 orders were reviewed by a telepharmacist with 2,292 orders flagged as deficient which included 16,224 individual medication deficiencies. The most common deficiencies included patient allergy to medication, or class of medications, (31.2% of deficiencies) and medication dose adjustment via renal and/or hepatic guidelines (24.1% of deficiencies). There were also a number of deficiencies for specific medications found on the Institute for Safe Medication Practices’ high-alert medication list for ambulatory/community healthcare settings such as insulins and heparinoids. Based on adverse drug reaction incidence rates and treatment expenses, potential cost avoidance was calculated to be as high as over $1.4 million US dollars. Telepharmacists aided in enhancement of pharmacy services by continuing to review medication orders and provide clinical interventions even when an onsite pharmacist was unavailable. Conclusions: Use of the telepharmacist service provided a large cost avoidance by the prevention of potential adverse drug reactions.

Optimizing infusion wait time: Redesigning medication order verification/approval at a comprehensive cancer center.

e14042 Background: Nationwide, many cancer centers experience challenges with infusion center efficiency while maintaining high safety standards. Many factors contribute to long wait times for patients on the day of their infusion appointments. At University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center (UNMCCC), a contributing factor is the delays in verification or approval of medications. We conducted a project to improve order verification/approval workflow within a Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) framework with the objective to decrease the infusion wait time. Methods: A multidisciplinary working group was formed consisting of the infusion floor physician lead, nurse lead, pharmacy lead, and analytics and process improvement leads. Upon exploring the infusion workflow database, disruptions in verification or approval of orders had a large impact on wait times. Order verification workflow was broken down into 3 steps: 1) physician assessment of patient and approval of orders, 2) infusion nurse assessment of patient, 3) pharmacist verification of order. Beginning Feb 2019, the following interventions were implemented in each section: 1) once patient was assessed by physician and orders approved, the patient was marked as “ready-to-treat”. 2) Pharmacist verified the order once “ready-to-treat” was communicated and initiated preparation of medications prior to arrival of patient to the infusion suit. 3) Infusion nurse assessment occurred once patient was seated on infusion chair. 4) Physicians were encouraged to pre-approve selected injections by the morning of patient appointment. Results: Prospective wait time was gathered for May 2019 using the real-time data available in the electronic medical record. Wait times were analyzed for patients receiving chemotherapy or flat dose injections. By marking appropriate patients “ready-to-treat” and moving pharmacist verification prior to infusion nurse assessment, there was an immediate decrease in wait time from 79 to 60 min. Selected injections which did not require mixing were pre-approved by the physician and stored in the medication dispensing system (Pyxis). This resulted in decrease in the injection wait time by 8.5 minutes, without wasting of drugs. Conclusions: Redesigning the medication order verification/approval workflow resulted in reduced wait times for patients receiving infusions or injections. We aim to further refine our PDSA cycles and ensure sustainability of change.

Incidence, types and acceptability of pharmaceutical interventions about drug related problems in a general hospital: an open prospective cohort

ObjectivesTo evaluate the incidence and types of drug-related problems (DRP) in a general teaching hospital and to evaluate the acceptability of pharmaceutical interventions by the medical team.DesignProspective cohort study during 2 years.SettingConducted in a Brazilian University Hospital.ParticipantsThe patient cohort consisted of 9303 patients with a total of 12 286 hospitalisation episodes.Primary outcome measuresDRP detected by pharmacists’ review of 100% medication orders using Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe 6.2 classification.ResultsPatients with a mean age of 52.6±17.7 years and 50.9% females. A total of 3373 DRP in 1903 hospital episodes were identified, corresponding to a cumulative incidence of 15.5%. ‘Treatment ineffectiveness’ (11.5%) and ‘Treatment costs’ (5.90%) were the most common DRP and ‘Drug use process’ (18.4%) and ‘Treatment duration’ (31.0%) the main causes of DRP. The medicines involved most often involved in DRP were anti-infectives (36.0%), mainly cephalosporins (20.2%), antiulcer (38.6%), analgesics/antipyretics (61.2%), propulsives (51.2%), opioids (38.5%) and antiemetics (57.4%). From 1939 pharmaceutical interventions, at least, 21.4% were not approved by the medical team.ConclusionDRP detected by 100% medication order review by hospital pharmacists occur in a significant proportion of hospital episodes, the most frequent being related to treatment effectiveness and treatment costs. The medications mostly involved were cephalosporins, penicillins, antidyspeptics, analgesics, antipyretics, opioids and antiemetics. Pharmaceutical interventions had low acceptability by the medical staff.