An Analysis of Psychoactive Medications Initiated in the ICU but Continued Beyond Discharge: A Pilot Study of Stewardship

Impact of Pharmacist Intervention on Inappropriate Continuations of Antipsychotics upon ICU Discharge

Background: Transitions of care (TOC) are important to best practices as they are at times prone to medication errors. The intensive care unit (ICU) is an essential location needing effective TOC due to many reasons, but an important one being that certain medications are only indicated there. One example is antipsychotics used for agitation, delirium, and sedation. Objective: To design, implement, and analyze the benefit of a pharmacist intervention on inappropriate antipsychotic continuation from the ICU to another point in care at a small community hospital. Secondary outcomes include patients discharged from the hospital on antipsychotics inappropriately and accepted pharmacist interventions. Methods: This standard of care, prospective with historical control study included adult patients who were ordered a formulary antipsychotic for delirium, agitation, or sedation during their ICU-level of care admission at SSM Health: St. Clare Hospital- Fenton. Results: There were 33 patients in the historical period and 24 in the intervention period. Those in the intervention period were less likely to have a continuation of antipsychotics beyond 72 hours compared to patients in the historical period (16.7% vs 57.6%, P = 0.002). In addition, patients in the intervention period were less likely to have continuation of antipsychotics when discharged to home (12.5% vs 36.4%, P = 0.04). Conclusions: A pharmacist-driven intervention led to a significant decrease in patients continuing antipsychotics upon ICU discharge. This decrease was seen at both 72 hours from patients leaving the ICU and at hospital discharge.

The PROMISING Project: A Pilot Study to Improve Geriatric Care Through a Pharmacist-Led Psychotropic Stewardship Program

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Psychotropic medications are frequently prescribed during acute care, even in older patients. They represent a risk for inappropriate long-term use and increase the overall risk of morbidity and mortality in this population. Our project aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a psychotropic medication stewardship program led by pharmacists.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, observational pilot study in patients aged 75 years and older, admitted to a surgical unit with at least one active prescription of a psychotropic medication (antipsychotic, benzodiazepine or non-benzodiazepine receptor agonist). Each psychotropic medication was assessed for potential deprescription, and if eligible, a recommendation from the stewardship pharmacist was made to the medical team.

RESULTS

Among 183 patients, 93.4% were eligible for a potential deprescription. A total of 298 prescriptions were evaluated by the stewardship pharmacists, of which 57.7% were antipsychotics, 22.8% were benzodiazepines and 19.5% were non-benzodiazepine receptor agonists. Most of the assessed prescriptions were started during current hospitalization (62.7%). The median time required for the intervention per patient was 17 min 30 s. The stewardship pharmacists made 192 suggestions for 258 eligible prescriptions, with 69.8% being deprescription recommendations. Of all the deprescription suggestions, 75.4% were accepted by the medical team and 84.8% of those accepted persisted at discharge.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of a pharmacist-led psychotropic medication stewardship program on surgical units in our hospital is feasible and is a promising approach to improve geriatric care.

Opioid and Sedative Coprescription: Prescribing Patterns after an ICU Admission

Background

Opioid misuse constitutes a health care crisis in Canada, and coprescription of opioids with sedatives has been associated with adverse events. Opioids and sedatives are frequently administered in the intensive care unit (ICU). The rate of continuation of opioid-sedative combinations after an ICU admission at the study institution was unknown.

Objectives

To determine the rates of opioid and sedative coprescriptions following an ICU admission and to identify factors associated with continuation of hospital-initiated opioid-sedative coprescriptions at ICU transfer and hospital discharge.

Methods

This retrospective chart review involved patients admitted to ICUs at a tertiary care centre between April 1, 2018, and March 31, 2019. Baseline characteristics were obtained from a clinical database and medication information from medication reconciliation forms. An opioid coprescription was defined as prescription of an opioid in combination with a sedative (benzodiazepine, z-drug, gabapentinoid, tricyclic antidepressant, or antipsychotic), and hospital-initiated coprescriptions encompassed various predefined scenarios of therapy started or modified before ICU transfer. Factors associated with hospital-initiated opioid coprescription were analyzed by multivariable logistic regression.

Results

A total of 735 patients met the inclusion criteria. At ICU transfer, 23.0% (169/735) of the patients had an opioid coprescription, and 87.0% (147/169) of these coprescriptions were hospital-initiated. At hospital discharge, 8.6% (44/514) of the patients had an opioid coprescription, and 56.8% (25/44) of these coprescriptions were hospital-initiated. Male sex, home opioid coprescription, surgical patient, prolonged hospital stay, and in-hospital death were significantly associated with hospital-initiated opioid coprescription at the time of ICU transfer. Home opioid coprescription was significantly associated with opioid coprescription at the time of hospital discharge.

Conclusions

Hospital-initiated opioid coprescriptions accounted for the majority of opioid coprescriptions at ICU transfer and hospital discharge. Pharmacists should assess all opioid coprescriptions to determine whether discontinuation and/or dose reduction is appropriate.

Co-designed and consensus based development of a quality improvement checklist of patient and family-centered actionable processes of care for adults with persistent critical illness

PURPOSE

Few quality improvement tools specific to patients with persistent or chronic critical illness exist to aid delivery of high-quality care. Using experience-based co-design methods, we sought consensus from key stakeholders on the most important actionable processes of care for inclusion in a quality improvement checklist.

METHODS

Item generation methods: systematic review, semi-structured interviews (ICU survivors and family) members, touchpoint video creation, and semi-structured interviews (ICU clinicians). Consensus methods: modified online Delphi and a virtual meeting using nominal group technique methods.

RESULTS

We enrolled 138 ICU interprofessional team, patients, and family members. We obtained consensus on a quality improvement checklist comprising 11 core domains: patient and family involvement in decision-making; patient communication; physical comfort and complication prevention; promoting self-care and normalcy; ventilator weaning; physical therapy; swallowing; pharmacotherapy; psychological issues; delirium; and appropriate referrals. An additional 27 actionable processes are contained within 6 core domains that provide more specific direction on the actionable process to be targeted.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a highly collaborative and methodologically rigorous process, we generated a quality improvement checklist of actionable processes to improve patient and family-centred care considered important by key stakeholders. Future research is needed to understand optimal implementation strategies and impact on outcomes and experience.

Stewardship applied to antipsychotics: Development of an antipsychotic stewardship program in inpatient settings for monitoring and optimizing outcomes

Antipsychotic (AP) medications are prescribed for various psychiatric diagnoses that require routine monitoring to ensure optimal use, effectiveness, adherence, and for potentially severe adverse effects. There is currently no comprehensive protocol for institutional supervision of prescribing and monitoring AP. Antibiotics (ABX) are commonly associated with stewardship programs aimed at optimizing use and mitigating harm. These programs have proven to result in positive outcomes in both safety and efficacy parameters for numerous institutions. Given that AP are also associated with significant adverse effects and often misused, the concept of stewardship can be applied to this class of agents to optimize their use and improve overall patient outcomes. The objective of this paper is to provide guidance for the implementation of antipsychotic stewardship programs (APSP) in the inpatient setting. The development of this APSP was designed based on ABX stewardship programs and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the American Psychiatric Association practice guidelines on the treatment of patients with schizophrenia. In conclusion, APSPs have the potential to enhance and standardize institutional supervision of prescribing and monitoring practices of AP, leading to improved clinical outcomes and the reduction of adverse effects. APSP teams should be multidisciplinary, consisting of clinicians and administrators, working in conjunction with patients and patient advocates to design individualized recovery plans that consider the individual patient's history and desired outcomes. Monitoring, stewardship interventions, and outcomes should be documented on both an individual and deidentified institutional basis, analyzed, and summarized periodically as measures for quality improvement.

Retrospective evaluation of a delirium order set utilizing nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions for the treatment of delirium in medical intensive care unit patients

DISCLAIMER

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

PURPOSE

To describe the use of a medical intensive care unit (MICU) delirium order set pilot and its associated impact on utilization of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions, pharmacologic continuation at transitions of care, and resolution of ICU delirium.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort analysis of MICU patients who received delirium management using an order set pilot compared to standard care. Patients 18 years of age or older admitted to the MICU between May 2019 and January 2020 who received an antipsychotic or valproic acid for the treatment of delirium were included.

RESULTS

Pharmacologic treatment continuation past ICU discharge occurred in 30% of patients in the pilot cohort (n = 50) compared to 54% of patients receiving standard care (n = 50; P = 0.027). On treatment days 1 through 7, utilization of deliriogenic medications was significantly lower in the pilot cohort (78% vs 96%, P = 0.007). No differences were observed between the groups in delirium resolution, delirium recurrence, hospital and ICU length of stay, or mortality.

CONCLUSION

A MICU order set prioritizing nonpharmacologic management and limiting the duration of pharmacologic agents for delirium may aid providers in the management of ICU delirium and reduce exposure to pharmacologic interventions.

Amantadine and Modafinil as Neurostimulants Following Acute Stroke: A Retrospective Study of Intensive Care Unit Patients

Background/Objective

Neurostimulants may improve or accelerate cognitive and functional recovery after intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), ischemic stroke (IS), or subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), but few studies have described their safety and effectiveness in the intensive care unit (ICU). The objective of this study was to describe amantadine and modafinil administration practices during acute stroke care starting in the ICU and to evaluate safety and effectiveness.

Methods

Consecutive adult ICU patients treated with amantadine and/or modafinil following acute non-traumatic IS, ICH, or SAH were evaluated. Neurostimulant administration data were extracted from the electronic medication administration record, including medication (amantadine, modafinil, or both), starting dose, time from stroke to initiation, and whether the neurostimulant was continued at hospital discharge. Patients were considered responders if they met two of three criteria within 9 days of neurostimulant initiation: increase in Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score ≥ 3 points from pre-treatment baseline, improved wakefulness or participation documented in caregiver notes, or clinical improvement documented in physical or occupational therapy notes. Potential confounders of the effectiveness assessment and adverse drug effects were also recorded.

Results

A total of 87 patients were evaluable during the 3.7-year study period, including 41 (47%) with ICH, 29 (33%) with IS, and 17 (20%) with SAH. The initial neurostimulant administered was amantadine in 71 (82%) patients, modafinil in 13 (15%), or both in 3 (3%) patients. Neurostimulants were initiated a median of 7 (4.25, 12.75) days post-stroke (range 1–27 days) for somnolence (77%), not following commands (32%), lack of eye opening (28%), or low GCS (17%). The most common starting dose was 100 mg twice daily for both amantadine (86%) and modafinil (54%). Of the 79 patients included in the effectiveness evaluation, 42 (53%) were considered responders, including 34/62 (55%) receiving amantadine monotherapy and 8/24 (33%) receiving both amantadine and modafinil at the time they met the definition of a responder. No patient receiving modafinil monotherapy was considered a responder. The median time from initiation to response was 3 (2, 5) days. Responders were more frequently discharged home or to acute rehabilitation compared to non-responders (90% vs 62%, p = 0.006). Among survivors, 63/72 (88%) were prescribed a neurostimulant at hospital discharge. The most common potential adverse drug effect was sleep disruption (16%).

Conclusions

Neurostimulant administration during acute stroke care may improve wakefulness. Future controlled studies with a neurostimulant administration protocol, prospective evaluation, and discretely defined response and safety criteria are needed to confirm these encouraging findings.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12028-020-00986-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.