Pharmacist involvement in blood culture follow up for patients discharged from the emergency department

Abstract

Study objectiveThis study evaluates the time to attempted patient contact for positive blood cultures in patients discharged from the Emergency Department (ED) resulting when an Emergency Medicine (EM) pharmacist is on-duty compared to off-duty. MethodsThis single center, retrospective study included patients who were discharged from the ED and had subsequent positive blood cultures. Blood cultures were reviewed utilizing an algorithm previously approved and implemented by an interdisciplinary team in 2016. Standard practice was for the microbiology lab to notify the ED charge nurse of the positive blood culture, however, the algorithm placed the pharmacist as the responsible reviewer when on duty, leaving charge nurses and physicians as the responsible reviewers when a pharmacist was off duty and not on site. The primary outcome was time from ED notification of the positive gram stain of the blood culture to first attempted patient contact; we compared this outcome for cultures resulting when an EM pharmacist was on duty to those resulting when an EM pharmacist was off duty. Despite being off duty, a pharmacist may have reviewed these cultures if they remained unaddressed when the pharmacist returned on-site. In this case, the blood culture review was included in the off-duty cohort. Secondary outcomes included evaluation for appropriateness of the recommendation made to the patient during contact, 30-day infection-related readmission rates, patient's adherence to the recommendations, and barriers to patient contact. An infectious disease attending physician independently reviewed cases where the algorithm was not followed. ResultsA total of 127 patients identified by a query of our institution's database were screened against inclusion/exclusion criteria and 56 were excluded, leaving 71 patients for final analysis (54 and 17 in the on- and off-duty cohorts, respectively). Baseline demographics with respect to sex, age and risk factors for bacteremia were not different between groups, except there were more immunocompromised patients in the on-duty cohort (35.2%) compared to off-duty cohort (5.9%) [p = 0.01]. Median [IQR] time to first attempted patient contact was significantly shorter in the on-duty cohort at 0.8 h [0.4–2.8] vs 5.6 h [1.4–11.7] (p = 0.025). A pharmacist acted upon 93% of all cultures, including several resulting during off-duty hours. Secondary outcomes did not differ. Fourteen (25.9%) of on-duty cultures and six (35.3%) of off-duty cultures were deemed contaminants. Two recommendations in the off-duty group were inappropriate based on the infectious disease attending physician review. The lack of active voicemail was the main barrier to contacting a patient. ConclusionsIn patients discharged from the ED with subsequent positive blood cultures, time to attempted patient contact was significantly shorter when a pharmacist was on-duty. Our data emphasizes the importance of having a standardized practice in place to optimize ED patient care and outcomes and the benefit of a pharmacist's involvement in the process.