Ability and Use of Comparative Effectiveness Research by P&T Committee Members and Support Staff: A 1-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

In recent years, comparative effectiveness tools and methods have evolved to assist health care decision makers in identifying optimal therapies. In-person training programs on comparative effectiveness research may be helpful in understanding and applying this information.

OBJECTIVE

To provide a follow-up assessment of the use of comparative effectiveness research (CER) in the pharmacy and therapeutics (P&T) committee decision-making process, using information collected from participants 1 year after attending a live continuing education program, in which participants were taught about CER designs and how to access available CER resources through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Effective Health Care (EHC) Program.

METHODS

A retrospective, cross-sectional questionnaire was developed and mailed to 2 groups of individuals: CER workshop attendees and interested nonattendees (expressing an interest in attending a workshop but did not attend for unknown reasons). The questionnaire asked respondents to indicate personal and organizational use of CER in the decision-making process. Participants were asked to indicate whether their knowledge, ability, and use of CER studies increased since participating in the program. Data were analyzed using nonparametric tests to compare the responses of attendees and nonattendees, as well as overall reliability of the instrument.

RESULTS

A total of 164 respondents completed the questionnaire (63 attendees and 101 nonattendees; overall response rate = 44%). The majority of respondents were pharmacists (n = 157, 95.7%) and were affiliated with a hospital (n = 106, 64.6%). Proportions of attendees and nonattendees differed significantly in the use of EHC research reviews/reports (45% and 28%, respectively; P = 0.02) and EHC executive summaries of research reviews/reports (48% and 29%, respectively; P = 0.01). At 1-year follow-up, the majority of attendees reported an increase ("somewhat" or "very much") in knowledge of CER (91.5%), ability to use CER (83.0%), and use of CER studies (58.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Health professionals attending a continuing education CER program reported higher use of EHC CER materials compared with nonattendees. Additionally, attendees reported increased use of CER in clinical decision making. A continuing education program such as this may provide an effective avenue for introducing CER methods and resources to the P&T committee and clinical decision-making processes.

DISCLOSURES

This project was supported by grant number R18HS019220 from the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality. Augustine has stock in Pfizer. The authors declared no other potential conflicts of interest associated with this study. Study concept and design were primarily contributed by Malone, along with Warholak, Hines, Brown, Hurwitz, and Taylor. Warholak, Hines, Brown, Hurwitz, and Taylor collected the data, assisted by Malone, Brixner, Cobaugh, and Schlaifer. Data interpretation was performed by Malone and Augustine, with assistance from the other authors. The manuscript was written primarily by Augustine, with assistance from Malone, Sun, Warholak, Hines, Brown, Hurwitz, and Taylor. Malone revised the manuscript, assisted by Warholak, Hines, Brown, Hurwitz, Taylor, Brixner, Cobaugh, and Schlaifer.

The opioid abuse and misuse epidemic: implications for pharmacists in hospitals and health systems

PURPOSE

The current epidemic of prescription opioid abuse and misuse in the United States is discussed, with an emphasis on the pharmacist's role in ensuring safe and effective opioid use.

SUMMARY

U.S. sales of prescription opioids increased fourfold from 1999 to 2010, with an alarming rise in deaths and emergency department visits associated with the use of fentanyl, hydrocodone, oxycodone, and other opioid medications. Signs and symptoms of opioid toxicity may include altered mental status, hypoventilation, decreased bowel motility, central nervous system and respiratory depression, peripheral vasodilation, pulmonary edema, hypotension, bradycardia, and seizures. In patients receiving long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain, urine drug testing is an important tool for monitoring and assessment of therapy; knowledge of opioid metabolic pathways and assay limitations is essential for appropriate use and interpretation of screening and confirmatory tests. In recent years, there has been an increase in federal enforcement actions against pharmacies and prescription drug wholesalers involved in improper opioid distribution, as well as increased reliance on state-level prescription drug monitoring programs to track patterns of opioid use and improper sales. Pharmacies are urged to implement or promote appropriate guidelines on opioid therapy, including the use of pain management agreement plans; policies to ensure adequate oversight of opioid prescribing, dispensing, and waste disposal; and educational initiatives targeting patients as well as hospital and pharmacy staff.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacists in hospitals and health systems can play a key role in recognizing the various forms of opioid toxicity and in preventing inappropriate prescribing and diversion of opioids.

Risk of major morbidity and death in older adults with suicidal intent: a cross-sectional analysis from the National Poison Data System, 2000-2009

OBJECTIVES

To describe suicide-related exposures in older persons according to sex, age, and substance category reported to U.S. poison control centers (PCCs) and report the crude relative risk (RR) of major effects and death from pharmaceuticals and nonpharmaceutical substances after single- and multiple-substance exposures.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of American Association of Poison Control Centers National Poison Data System (NPDS) data.

SETTING

Calls to U.S. PCCs.

PARTICIPANTS

NPDS cases involving individuals aged 60 and older with an exposure to a pharmaceutical or nonpharmaceutical substance and suicide as the reason (n=46,494).

MEASUREMENTS

Major effect and death probabilities for single- and multiple-substance exposures to pharmaceuticals and nonpharmaceuticals were determined. In the NPDS, a major effect is defined as symptoms or signs that are life-threatening or resulted in significant residual disability or disfigurement. Crude RRs of major effects or death were estimated for single and multiple pharmaceutical substances in comparison with nonpharmaceutical substances.

RESULTS

Single-substance exposures occurred in 53.3% of cases. Overall, 92.3% involved pharmaceuticals and 64.4% involved women. In the total sample, 12.7% (5,895/46,494) of exposures resulted in major effect, and 1.9% (884/46,494) resulted in death. The crude RR of major effects in single-substance pharmaceutical exposures was significantly lower than with nonpharmaceutical exposures (RR=0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.49-0.59), as was death (RR=0.25, 95% CI=0.20-0.30). For multiple-substance exposures, the crude RR of major effects from pharmaceuticals was similar to that for nonpharmaceuticals (RR=0.92, 95% CI=0.80-1.06), whereas the crude RR of death from pharmaceuticals was significantly lower (RR=0.55, 95% CI=0.40-0.77).

CONCLUSION

These findings can inform suicide prevention strategies that focus on decreasing at-risk older adults' access to dangerous medications and chemicals in the home.

A group-randomized trial of shared decision making for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug risk awareness: primary results and lessons learned

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Frequent use and serious adverse effects related to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) underscore the need to raise patient awareness about potential risks. Partial success of patient- or provider-based interventions has recently led to interest in combined approaches focusing on both patient and physician. This research tested a shared decision-making intervention for increasing patient-reported awareness of NSAID risk.

METHODS

A group randomized trial was performed in Alabama from 2005 to 2007. Intervention group doctor practices received continuing medical education (CME) about NSAIDs and patient activation tools promoting risk assessment and communication during visits. Comparison group doctor practices received only CME. Cross-sectional data were collected before and after the intervention. Generalized linear latent and mixed models with logistic link tested relationships among the intervention, study phase, intervention by study phase interaction and patient-reported awareness of risks with either prescription or over-the-counter (OTC) NSAIDs.

RESULTS

Three hundred and forty-seven patients at baseline and 355 patients at follow-up participated in this study. The intervention [adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=0.74, P=0.248], follow-up study phase (AOR=1.31, P=0.300) and intervention by study phase interaction (AOR=0.98, P=0.942) were not significantly associated with patient-reported awareness of any prescription NSAID risk. Follow-up study phase was associated with increased odds of reporting any OTC NSAID risk awareness (AOR=2.99, P<0.001), but the patient activation intervention and intervention by study phase interaction were not significantly associated with patient-reported awareness of any OTC NSAID risk (AOR=0.98, P=0.929; AOR=0.87, P=0.693, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Our point-of-care intervention encouraging shared decision making did not increase NSAID risk awareness.

Enhancing insulin-use safety in hospitals: Practical recommendations from an ASHP Foundation expert consensus panel

PURPOSE

Consensus recommendations to help ensure safe insulin use in hospitalized patients are presented.

SUMMARY

Insulin products are frequently involved in medication errors in hospitals, and insulin is classified as a high-alert medication when used in inpatient settings. In an initiative to promote safer insulin use, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) Research and Education Foundation convened a 21-member panel representing the fields of pharmacy, medicine, and nursing and consumer advocacy groups for a three-stage consensus-building initiative. The panel's consensus recommendations include the following: development of protocol-driven insulin order sets, elimination of the routine use of correction/sliding-scale insulin doses for management of hyperglycemia, restrictions on the types of insulin products stored in patient care areas, and policies to restrict the preparation of insulin bolus doses and i.v. infusions to the pharmacy department. In addition, the panelists recommended that hospitals better coordinate insulin use with meal intake and glucose testing, prospectively monitor the coordination of insulin delivery and rates of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, and provide standardized education and competency assessment for all hospital-based health care professionals responsible for insulin use.

CONCLUSION

A 21-member expert panel convened by the ASHP Foundation identified 10 recommendations for enhancing insulin-use safety across the medication-use process in hospitals. Professional organizations, accrediting bodies, and consumer groups can play a critical role in the translation of these recommendations into practice. Rigorous research studies and program evaluations are needed to study the impact of implementation of these recommendations.

Rationale and design of the Multicenter Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study (MARQUIS)

Background

Unresolved medication discrepancies during hospitalization can contribute to adverse drug events, resulting in patient harm. Discrepancies can be reduced by performing medication reconciliation; however, effective implementation of medication reconciliation has proven to be challenging. The goals of the Multi-Center Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study (MARQUIS) are to operationalize best practices for inpatient medication reconciliation, test their effect on potentially harmful unintentional medication discrepancies, and understand barriers and facilitators of successful implementation.

Methods

Six U.S. hospitals are participating in this quality improvement mentored implementation study. Each hospital has collected baseline data on the primary outcome: the number of potentially harmful unintentional medication discrepancies per patient, as determined by a trained on-site pharmacist taking a “gold standard” medication history. With the guidance of their mentors, each site has also begun to implement one or more of 11 best practices to improve medication reconciliation. To understand the effect of the implemented interventions on hospital staff and culture, we are performing mixed methods program evaluation including surveys, interviews, and focus groups of front line staff and hospital leaders.

Discussion

At baseline the number of unintentional medication discrepancies in admission and discharge orders per patient varies by site from 2.35 to 4.67 (mean=3.35). Most discrepancies are due to history errors (mean 2.12 per patient) as opposed to reconciliation errors (mean 1.23 per patient). Potentially harmful medication discrepancies averages 0.45 per patient and varies by site from 0.13 to 0.82 per patient. We discuss several barriers to implementation encountered thus far. In the end, we anticipate that MARQUIS tools and lessons learned have the potential to decrease medication discrepancies and improve patient outcomes.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01337063

Communicating non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug risks: verbal counseling, written medicine information, and patients' risk awareness

OBJECTIVE

To assess potential associations among physician counseling, pharmacist counseling, written medicine information (WMI) and patient awareness of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) risks.

METHODS

Three-hundred and eighty-two older, white and African American patients prescribed NSAIDs were surveyed regarding their NSAID risk awareness defined as an index score ranging from zero to four correctly identified risks (i.e., gastrointestinal bleeding, heart attack, hypertension, and kidney disease). Associations among NSAID risk awareness and patient-reported physician counseling, pharmacist counseling, and reading of WMI were evaluated in multivariable ordered logistic regression models and confirmed using path analysis.

RESULTS

Physician counseling was positively associated with reading WMI (p<0.001) and NSAID risk awareness (p<0.001). Pharmacist counseling was not associated with reading WMI (p=0.622) and neither pharmacist counseling (p=0.366) nor reading WMI (p=0.916) was associated with NSAID risk awareness.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians play a prominent role in facilitating NSAID risk awareness whereas pharmacist counseling and WMI may have limited impact.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The lack of significant associations among pharmacist counseling and reading WMI with NSAID risk awareness suggests a missed opportunity to improve patient understanding. There is a need for coordinated and effective strategies to communicate risk information among physicians and pharmacists and to better integrate WMI into this process.

Using single-item health literacy screening questions to identify patients who read written nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medicine information provided at pharmacies

Our goal was to assess the relationships between single-item health literacy screening questions and reading prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) written medicine information (WMI) provided at pharmacies. The health literacy of 382 patients from primary care physician practices in Alabama was estimated using validated health literacy screening questions related to understanding written medical information (SQ1); confidence in completing medical forms alone (SQ2); and need for assistance in reading hospital materials (SQ3). Reading WMI was measured by a "Yes" response to the question, "Often the drug store gives you written information such as pamphlets or handouts along with your prescription. Have you read about the risks of NSAIDs in this written material provided by the drug store?" Relationships were assessed using generalized linear latent and mixed models. Two-thirds (67.6%) of patients read WMI. Higher estimated health literacy was associated with increased odds of reading WMI. Adjusted odds ratios (95% CI) were 2.08 (1.08-4.03); 2.09 (1.12-3.91); and 1.98 (1.04-3.77) using SQ1-SQ3. Current WMI may be unable to meet the needs of those with inadequate health literacy. Health literacy screening questions can be used to triage patients at risk for not reading WMI so they can be assisted with supplemental educational strategies.

The Role of Health Literacy and Written Medicine Information in Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drug Risk Awareness

Background:

Despite widespread use of prescription nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), patients are commonly unaware of their risks. Pharmacies regularly distribute written medicine information (WMI) describing the risks and benefits of NSAID therapy at the time of dispensing.

Objective:

To clarify the relationship among common sociodemographic factors, education, health literacy, reading of WMI routinefy distributed at pharmacies, and NSAID risk awareness.

Methods:

Generalized linear latent and mixed models (GLLAMM) ordered logistic regression and confirmatory path analysis were used to evaluate multivariable relationships in a cross-sectional dataset of 382 patients in the second phase of the Alabama NSAID Patient Safety Study.

Results:

The majority of the analytical sample was female (72.0%) with 38.7% African American, 38.1% age 65 years or older, and 43.3% reporting at least some college education. Health literacy was positively associated with reading of WMI (p = 0.001) and NSAID risk awareness (p = 0.025), while age was negatively associated with reading WMI (p = 0.001) and NSAID risk awareness (p = 0.005). Medicaid/uninsured status was negatively associated with risk awareness (p = 0.013). Reading of WMI was not associated with NSAID risk awareness (p = 0.659). The final path model demonstrated excellent fit.

Conclusions:

The lack of relationship between reading of WMI and NSAID risk awareness questions the current strategy of distribution of patient-targeted print education materials at pharmacies. To maximize limited resources, future research should identify more effective strategies to deliver risk information to patients and ensure its retention, especially in high-risk groups such as the elderly, the indigent, and those with inadequate health literacy.