Pharmacist proactive medication recommendations using electronic documentation in a UK general critical care unit

Clinical pharmacy services in critical care: results of an observational study comparing ward-based with remote pharmacy services

BACKGROUND

Pharmacists are essential team members in critical care and contribute to the safety of pharmacotherapy for this vulnerable group of patients, but little is known about remote pharmacy services in intensive care units (ICU).

AIM

We compared the acceptance of pharmacist interventions (PI) in ICU patients working remotely with ward-based service. We evaluated both pharmacy services, including further information on PI, including reasons, actions and impact.

METHOD

Over 5 months, a prospective single-centre observational study divided into two sequential phases (remote and ward-based) was performed on two ICU wards at a university hospital. After a structured medication review, PI identified were addressed to healthcare professionals. For documentation, the national database (ADKA-DokuPIK) was used. Acceptance was used as the primary endpoint. All data were analysed using descriptive methods.

RESULTS

In total, 605 PI resulted from 1023 medication reviews. Acceptance was 75% (228/304) for remote and 88% (265/301; p < 0.001) for ward-based services. Non-inferiority was not demonstrated. Most commonly, drug- (44% and 36%) and dose-related (36% and 35%) reasons were documented. Frequently, drugs were stopped/paused (31% and 29%) and dosage changed (31% and 30%). PI were classified as "error, no harm" (National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention [NCC MERP] categories B to D; 83% and 81%). The severity and clinical relevance were at least ranked as "significant" (68% and 66%) and at least as "important" for patients (77% and 83%).

CONCLUSION

The way pharmacy services are provided influences the acceptance of PI. Remote pharmacy services may be seen as an addition, but acceptance rates in remote services failed to show non-inferiority.

Evaluation of Pharmacist Intervention on Discharge Medication Reconciliation

BACKGROUND

Discharge medication reconciliation (Discharge MedRec) was implemented on one unit at a large urban teaching hospital, and was to be expanded across the rest of the hospital and the health authority's various sites by the end of 2018. Clinical pharmacists on the Acute Care for the Elderly unit carried out discharge planning and led Discharge MedRec during a pilot period, to inform the future implementation.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to examine the number and type of medication discrepancies before and after implementation of Discharge MedRec. The secondary objectives were to compare documented medication changes, pharmacist recommendations, discharge counselling, communication with community pharmacists, polypharmacy, and 30-day readmission rates.

METHODS

Patients seen in December 2015 constituted the control (pre-implementation) group, who received usual care. Patients seen from January to April 2016 constituted the intervention group, for whom pharmacists performed Discharge MedRec and other discharge activities as per the hospital-to-home checklist of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices Canada.

RESULTS

There were 66 patients in the control group and 306 in the intervention group. Median discrepancies per patient decreased from 6.5 to 3 (p = 0.007), median number of documented changes without rationale increased from 2 to 3 (p = 0.01), and median number of documented changes with rationale increased from 1 to 2 (p < 0.001). Pharmacists made a per-patient median of 1 progress note recommendation in the control group and 2 progress note recommendations in the intervention group (p = 0.007), and a per-patient median of 2 orders in both the control and intervention groups (p = 0.62). Median recommendation acceptance was 100% for both groups, but twice as many recommendations were made per patient for the intervention group. Discharge counselling increased from 22.7% to 65%. Communication with community pharmacists increased from 10.6% to 60.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical pharmacist involvement improved Discharge MedRec planning and documentation. Decreases in medication discrepancies, combined with an increase in discharge counselling, should improve continuity of care across the health care team and increase patient adherence with medication therapy. This study further demonstrates the leadership role that pharmacists play in the assessment and clear documentation of medication changes at all transitions of care.

Pharmacist Adscription To Intensive Care: Generating Synergies

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate incorporation of the hospital pharmacist to the routine activity of an Intensive Care Unit (ICU).

DESIGN

A prospective observational study was carried out to evaluate the impact of pharmacist interventions, made by a pharmacist temporarily assigned to the ICU, upon medical prescriptions.

SETTING

A medical and surgical ICU with 21 beds.

PATIENTS

Patients with at least one ICU stay were included, while patients with admission and discharge in periods when the pharmacist was not present were excluded.

INTERVENTIONS

The interventions were made after daily review of the prescriptions, and were communicated verbally or in writing to the supervising physician.

MAIN VARIABLES

Number of interventions, therapeutic group of the drugs involved, type of intervention and degree of acceptance.

RESULTS

A total of 194 interventions were made in 62 patients. The majority were related to safety aspects (33%) and the optimization of therapy (32%). The most frequent interventions were the administration of drugs via the nasogastric tube (19%) and pharmacokinetic monitoring (14.4%). The most frequently involved groups of drugs were anti-infectious agents (33%) and digestive system medications (27%). A total of 56.2% of the interventions were made verbally, and 80% were accepted.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacist adscription to an ICU and the implementation of interventions on prescriptions have allowed improvement of safety and the optimization of pharmacotherapy in more than 50% of the patients. The high rate of acceptance of these interventions would support the implementation of such programs in critical care units.

Implementing the Use of Pharmacist Progress Notes in a Surgical ICU

BACKGROUND

Critical care pharmacists are established and valuable members of the critical care team, however there is rarely written evidence of their daily involvement in the patient's electronic medical record (EMR). Documentation in the EMR has the advantage of ensuring a seamless pass-off and provides an opportunity to capture the pharmacist's cognitive and clinical impact in a way that traditional systems of tracking "interventions" fail to do. We investigated implementation of pharmacist progress notes in a surgical intensive care unit (ICU) and their utility in measuring pharmacist activity.

METHODS

Daily pharmacist progress notes written in a surgical ICU over a period of 2 months were reviewed. Each pharmacist action identified through progress note review was quantified and scored by an independent reviewer using a newly developed scoring system, the clinical impact score (CIS). This was developed as a way to quantify pharmacist actions and to classify those actions by clinical impact.

RESULTS

Four hundred sixty-two daily pharmacist progress notes were reviewed over a 2-month period. There were 1,055 actions identified that resulted in a therapy change. Four of these actions resulted in the potential avoidance of a sentinel event. Of patients with at least 5 progress notes (n = 44), the majority of pharmacist actions occurred on ICU day 1.

CONCLUSION

The results of this descriptive study demonstrate that the implementation of daily pharmacist progress notes is feasible in an advanced practice setting, and the pharmacist's contribution to patient care may be obtained through review of this documentation in the patient's medical record. The critical care pharmacist's daily involvement in patient care most commonly results in optimization of pharmacotherapy and avoidance of drug misadventure.

Pharmacist-Physician Communications in a Highly Computerised Hospital: Sign-Off and Action of Electronic Review Messages

BACKGROUND

Some hospital Computerized Physician Order Entry (CPOE) systems support interprofessional communication. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of pharmacist-physician messages sent via a CPOE system.

METHOD

Data from the year 2012 were captured from a large university teaching hospital CPOE database on: 1) review messages assigned by pharmacists; 2) details of the prescription on which the messages were assigned; and 3) details of any changes made to the prescription following a review message being assigned. Data were coded for temporal, message and prescription factors. Messages were analysed to investigate: 1) whether they were signed-off; and 2) the time taken. Messages that requested a measurable action were further analysed to investigate: 1) whether they were actioned as requested; and 2) the time taken. We conducted a multivariable analysis using Generalised Estimating Equations (GEE) to account for the effects of multiple factors simultaneously, and to adjust for any potential correlation between outcomes for repeated review messages on the same prescription. All analyses were performed using SPSS 22 (IBM SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), with p<0.05 considered significant.

RESULTS

Pharmacists assigned 36,245 review messages to prescriptions over the 12 months, 34,506 of which were coded for analysis after exclusions. Nearly half of messages (46.6%) were signed-off and 65.5% of these were signed-off in ≤ 48 hours. Of the 9,991 further analysed for action, 35.8% led to an action as requested by the pharmacist and just over half of these (57.0%) were actioned in ≤ 24 hours. Factors predictive of an action were the time since the prescription was generated (p<0.001), pharmacist grade (p<0.001), presence of a high-risk medicine (p<0.001), messages relating to reconciliation (p = 0.004), theme of communication (p<0.001), speciality, (p<0.001), category of medicine (p<0.001), and regularity of the prescription (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

In this study we observed a lower rate of sign-off and action than we might have expected, suggesting uni-directional communication via the CPOE system may not be optimal. An established pharmacist-physician collaborative working relationship is likely to influence the prioritisation and response to messages, since a more desirable outcome was observed in settings and with grades of pharmacists where this was more likely. Designing systems that can facilitate collaborative communication may be more effective in practice.

Medication review using a Systematic Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing (STRIP) in adults with an intellectual disability: A pilot study

A Systematic Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing (STRIP), which includes the Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (START) and the Screening Tool of Older Peoples' Prescriptions (STOPP), has recently been developed in the Netherlands for older patients with polypharmacy in the general population. Active involvement of the patient is part of this systematic multidisciplinary medication review. Although annual review of pharmacotherapy is recommended for people with an intellectual disability (ID), a specific tool for this population is not yet available. Besides, active involvement can be compromised by ID. Therefore, the objective of this observational pilot study was to evaluate the process of medication review using STRIP in adults with an ID living in a centralized or dependent setting and the identification of drug-related problems using this tool. The study was performed in three residential care organizations for ID. In each organization nine clients with polypharmacy were selected by an investigator (a physician in training to become a specialized physician for individuals with an ID) for a review using STRIP. Clients as well as their legal representatives (usually a family member) and professional caregivers were invited to participate. Reviews were performed by an investigator together with a pharmacist. First, to evaluate the process time-investments of the investigator and the pharmacist were described. Besides, the proportion of reviews in which a client and/or his legal representative participated was calculated as well as the proportion of professional caregivers that participated. Second, to evaluate the identification of drug-related problems using STRIP, the proportion of clients with at least one drug-related problem was calculated. Mean time investment was 130minutes for the investigator and 90minutes for the pharmacist. The client and/or a legal representatives were present during 25 of 27 reviews (93%). All 27 professional caregivers (100%) were involved. For every client included at least one drug-related problem was identified. In total 127 drug-related problems were detected, mainly potentially inappropriate or unnecessary drugs. After six months, 15.7% of the interventions were actually implemented. Medication review using STRIP seems feasible in adults with an ID and identifies drug-related problems. However, in this pilot study the implementation rate of suggested interventions was low. To improve the implementation rate, the treating physician should be involved in the review process. Besides, specific adaptations to STRIP to address drug-related problems specific for this population are required.

Availability of information on renal function in Dutch community pharmacies

Background Early detection and monitoring of impaired renal function may prevent drug related problems. Objective To assess the availability of information on patient's renal function in Dutch community pharmacies, for patients using medication that might need monitoring in case of renal impairment. Methods Per pharmacy, 25 patients aged ≥65 years using at least one drug that requires monitoring, were randomly selected from the pharmacy information system. For these patients, information on renal function [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)], was obtained from the pharmacy information system. When absent, this information was obtained from the general practitioner (GP). Results Data were collected for 1632 patients. For 1201 patients (74 %) eGFR values were not directly available in the pharmacy, for another 194 patients (12 %) the eGFR value was not up-to-date. For 1082 patients information could be obtained from the GP, resulting in 942 additional recent eGFR values. Finally, recent information on renal function was available for 72 % (n = 1179) of selected patients. Conclusion In patients using drugs that require renal monitoring, information on renal function is often unknown in the pharmacy. For the majority of patients this information can be retrieved from the GP.

The pharmacist and the EHR

The adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) across the United States has impacted the methods by which health care professionals care for their patients. It is not always recognized, however, that pharmacists also actively use advanced functionality within the EHR. As critical members of the health care team, pharmacists utilize many different features of the EHR. The literature focuses on 3 main roles: documentation, medication reconciliation, and patient evaluation and monitoring. As health information technology proliferates, it is imperative that pharmacists' workflow and information needs are met within the EHR to optimize medication therapy quality, team communication, and patient outcomes.

Pharmacist independent prescribing in critical care: results of a national questionnaire to establish the 2014 UK position

OBJECTIVES

Clinical pharmacist practice is well established in the safe and effective use of medicines in the critically ill patient. In the UK, independent pharmacist prescribers are generally recognised as a valuable and desirable resource. However, currently, there are only anecdotal reports of pharmacist-independent prescribing in critical care. The aim of this questionnaire was to determine the current and proposed future independent prescribing practice of UK clinical pharmacists working in adult critical care.

METHODS

The questionnaire was distributed electronically to UK Clinical Pharmacy Association members (closed August 2014).

KEY FINDINGS

There were 134 responses to the questionnaire (response rate at least 33%). Over a third of critical care pharmacists were practising independent prescribers in the specialty, and 70% intended to be prescribers within the next 3 years. Pharmacists with ≥5 years critical care experience (P < 0.001) or worked in a team (P = 0.005) were more likely to be practising independent prescribers. Pharmacists reported significant positives to the use of independent prescribing in critical care both in patient care and job satisfaction. Independently, prescribing was routine in: dose adjustment for multi-organ failure, change in route or formulation, correction prescribing errors, therapeutic drug monitoring and chronic medication. The majority of pharmacist prescribers reported they spent ≤5% of their clinical time prescribing and accounted for ≤5% of new prescriptions in critical care patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Most critical care pharmacists intend to be practising as independent prescribers within the next 3 years. The extent and scope of critical care pharmacist prescribing appear to be of relatively low volume and within niche prescribing areas.

The role of medications and their management in acute kidney injury

Prior to 2002, the incidence of acute renal failure (ARF) varied as there was no standard definition. To better understand its incidence and etiology and to develop treatment and prevention strategies, while moving research forward, the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative workgroup developed the RIFLE (risk, injury, failure, loss, end-stage kidney disease) classification. After continued data suggesting that even small increases in serum creatinine lead to worse outcomes, the Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) modified the RIFLE criteria and used the term acute kidney injury (AKI) instead of ARF. These classification and staging systems provide the clinician and researcher a starting point for refining the understanding and treatment of AKI. An important initial step in evaluating AKI is determining the likely location of injury, generally classified as prerenal, renal, or postrenal. There is no single biomarker or test that definitively defines the mechanism of the injury. Identifying the insult(s) requires a thorough assessment of the patient and their medical and medication histories. Prerenal injuries arise primarily due to renal hypoperfusion. This may be the result of systemic or focal conditions or secondary to the effects of drugs such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, calcineurin inhibitors (CIs), and modulators of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Renal, or intrinsic, injury is an overarching term that represents complex conditions leading to considerable damage to a component of the intrinsic renal system (renal tubules, glomerulus, vascular structures, inter-stitium, or renal tubule obstruction). Acute tubular necrosis and acute interstitial nephritis are the more common types of intrinsic renal injury. Each type of injury has several drugs that are implicated as a possible cause, with antiinfectives being the most common. Postrenal injuries that result from obstruction block the flow of urine, leading to hydronephrosis and subsequent damage to the renal parenchyma. Drugs associated with tubular obstruction include acyclovir, methotrexate, and several antiretrovirals. Renal recovery from drug-induced AKI begins once the offending agent has been removed, if clinically possible, and is complete in most cases. It is uncommon that renal replacement therapy will be needed while recovery occurs. Pharmacists can play a pivotal role in identifying possible causes of drug-induced AKI and limit their toxic effect by identifying those most likely to cause or contribute to injury. Dose adjustment is critical during changes in renal function, and the pharmacist can ensure that optimal therapy is provided during this critical time.

Pharmacist's review and outcomes: Treatment-enhancing contributions tallied, evaluated, and documented (PROTECTED-UK)

PURPOSE

The purpose was to describe clinical pharmacist interventions across a range of critical care units (CCUs) throughout the United Kingdom, to identify CCU medication error rate and prescription optimization, and to identify the type and impact of each intervention in the prevention of harm and improvement of patient therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective observational study was undertaken in 21 UK CCUs from November 5 to 18, 2012. A data collection web portal was designed where the specialist critical care pharmacist reported all interventions at their site. Each intervention was classified as medication error, optimization, or consult. In addition, a clinical impact scale was used to code the interventions. Interventions were scored as low impact, moderate impact, high impact, and life saving. The final coding was moderated by blinded independent multidisciplinary trialists.

RESULTS

A total of 20517 prescriptions were reviewed with 3294 interventions recorded during the weekdays. This resulted in an overall intervention rate of 16.1%: 6.8% were classified as medication errors, 8.3% optimizations, and 1.0% consults. The interventions were classified as low impact (34.0%), moderate impact (46.7%), and high impact (19.3%); and 1 case was life saving. Almost three quarters of interventions were to optimize the effectiveness of and improve safety of pharmacotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This observational study demonstrated that both medication error resolution and pharmacist-led optimization rates were substantial. Almost 1 in 6 prescriptions required an intervention from the clinical pharmacist. The error rate was slightly lower than an earlier UK prescribing error study (EQUIP). Two thirds of the interventions were of moderate to high impact.

Approaches to decreasing medication and other care errors in the ICU

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The very complex process of intensive care is accompanied by a not unexpected accumulation of risk for error and adverse events. The present review addresses strategies to decrease care errors in several domains of daily intensive care practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

Strategies to decrease care errors now focus on a systematic approach by identifying latent system failures and change the design of the care process in such a way that inevitable human errors are prevented or their consequences are mitigated. Recent examples refer to the standardization of processes, adaptation to cognitive limitations of human beings, optimization of working conditions, and the increasing use of supporting information technologies. The development of a safety climate constitutes a key element and apparently contributes to reduction of medical errors in ICUs.

SUMMARY

The present review discusses recent approaches aimed to decrease care errors in ICUs. A growing body of evidence demonstrates that a system based approach with the change of process characteristics and the development of a safety climate is most essential in the effort to increase patient safety.

Proactive clinical pharmacist interventions in critical care: effect of unit speciality and other factors

BACKGROUND

Clinical pharmacists working in critical-care areas have a beneficial effect on a range of medication-related therapies including improving medication safety, patient outcomes and reducing medicines' expenditure. However, there remains a lack of data on specific factors that affect the reason for and type of interventions made by clinical pharmacists, such as unit speciality.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the type of proactive medicines-related interventions made by clinical pharmacists on different critical-care units within the same institution.

METHODS

A retrospective evaluation of proactive clinical pharmacist recommendations, made in three separate critical-care areas. Intervention data were analysed over 18 months (general units) and 2 weeks for the cardiac and neurological units. Assessment of potential patient harm related to the medication interventions were made in the neurological and cardiac units.

KEY FINDINGS

Overall, 5623, 211 and 156 proactive recommendations were made; on average 2.2, 3.8 and 4.6 per patient from the general, neurological and cardiac units respectively. The recommendations acceptance rate by medical staff was approximately 90% for each unit. The median potential severity of patient harm averted by the interventions were 3.6 (3; 4.2) and 4 (3.2; 4.4) for the neurological and cardiac units (P = 0.059). The reasons for, types and drug classification of the medication recommendations demonstrated some significant differences between the units.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical pharmacists with critical-care training make important medication recommendations across general and specialist critical-care units. The patient case mix and admitting speciality have some bearing on the types of medication interventions made. Moreover, severity of patient illness, scope of regular/routine specialist pharmacist service and support systems provided also probably affect the reason for these interventions.

Clinical documentation: composition or synthesis?

OBJECTIVE

To understand the nature of emerging electronic documentation practices, disconnects between documentation workflows and computing systems designed to support them, and ways to improve the design of electronic documentation systems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Time-and-motion study of resident physicians' note-writing practices using a commercial electronic health record system that includes an electronic documentation module. The study was conducted in the general medicine unit of a large academic hospital.

RESULTS

During the study, 96 note-writing sessions by 11 resident physicians, resulting in close to 100 h of observations were seen. Seven of the 10 most common transitions between activities during note composition were between documenting, and gathering and reviewing patient data, and updating the plan of care.

DISCUSSION

The high frequency of transitions seen in the study suggested that clinical documentation is fundamentally a synthesis activity, in which clinicians review available patient data and summarize their impressions and judgments. At the same time, most electronic health record systems are optimized to support documentation as uninterrupted composition. This mismatch leads to fragmentation in clinical work, and results in inefficiencies and workarounds. In contrast, we propose that documentation can be best supported with tools that facilitate data exploration and search for relevant information, selective reading and annotation, and composition of a note as a temporal structure.

CONCLUSIONS

Time-and-motion study of clinicians' electronic documentation practices revealed a high level of fragmentation of documentation activities and frequent task transitions. Treating documentation as synthesis rather than composition suggests new possibilities for supporting it more effectively with electronic systems.