Critical Care Pharmacists Research Articles

Identifying barriers and enablers for a robust independent second check of medication in adult intensive care.

Independent second-checking of medication is part of everyday practice across many parts of the NHS. A robust, independent second check is built into medication administration protocols to reduce the risk of drug errors affecting patients. This work aims to determine the barriers and facilitators regarding a robust independent second check of medication before administration to patients within adult critical care. Nurses in adult critical care were invited to participate in focus groups. They were asked to discuss factors that they felt enabled or prevented a robust second check of medication. Thematic analysis was undertaken by three critical care pharmacists. The major themes identified as barriers to an independent second check were: geography of the critical care unit; IT; routine; complex process; and personnel. There are complex barriers to undertaking a robust second check and addressing some of these could improve patient safety.

Optimizing Pharmacist Team-Integration for ICU Patient Management: Rationale, Study Design, and Methods for a Multicentered Exploration of Pharmacist-to-Patient Ratio.

The workload of healthcare professionals including physicians and nurses in the ICU has an established relationship to patient outcomes, including mortality, length of stay, and other quality indicators; however, the relationship of critical care pharmacist workload to outcomes has not been rigorously evaluated and determined. The objective of our study is to characterize the relationship of critical care pharmacist workload in the ICU as it relates to patient-centered outcomes of critically ill patients. Optimizing Pharmacist Team-Integration for ICU patient Management is a multicenter, observational cohort study with a target enrollment of 20,000 critically ill patients. Participating critical care pharmacists will enroll patients managed in the ICU. Data collection will consist of two observational phases: prospective and retrospective. During the prospective phase, critical care pharmacists will record daily workload data (e.g., census, number of rounding teams). During the retrospective phase, patient demographics, severity of illness, medication regimen complexity, and outcomes will be recorded. The primary outcome is mortality. Multiple methods will be used to explore the primary outcome including multilevel multiple logistic regression with stepwise variable selection to exclude nonsignificant covariates from the final model, supervised and unsupervised machine learning techniques, and Bayesian analysis. Our protocol describes the processes and methods for an observational study in the ICU. This study seeks to determine the relationship between pharmacist workload, as measured by pharmacist-to-patient ratio and the pharmacist clinical burden index, and patient-centered outcomes, including mortality and length of stay.

Discrepancy between perceptions and acceptance of clinical decision support Systems: implementation of artificial intelligence for vancomycin dosing

BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) tools are more effective if accepted by clinicians. We developed an AI-based clinical decision support system (CDSS) to facilitate vancomycin dosing. This qualitative study assesses clinicians' perceptions regarding CDSS implementation.MethodsThirteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with critical care pharmacists, at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN), from March through April 2020. Eight clinical cases were discussed with each pharmacist (N = 104). Following initial responses, we revealed the CDSS recommendations to assess participants' reactions and feedback. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and summarized.ResultsThe participants reported considerable time and effort invested daily in individualizing vancomycin therapy for hospitalized patients. Most pharmacists agreed that such a CDSS could favorably affect (N = 8, 62%) or enhance (9, 69%) their ability to make vancomycin dosing decisions. In case-based evaluations, pharmacists' empiric doses differed from the CDSS recommendation in most cases (88/104, 85%). Following revealing the CDSS recommendations, we noted 78% (69/88) discrepant doses. In discrepant cases, pharmacists indicated they would not alter their recommendations. The reasons for declining the CDSS recommendation were general distrust of CDSS, lack of dynamic evaluation and in-depth analysis, inability to integrate all clinical data, and lack of a risk index.ConclusionWhile pharmacists acknowledged enthusiasm about the advantages of AI-based models to improve drug dosing, they were reluctant to integrate the tool into clinical practice. Additional research is necessary to determine the optimal approach to implementing CDSS at the point of care acceptable to clinicians and effective at improving patient outcomes.

Characterization of tele‐pharmacy interventions performed via an expanded tele‐critical care pharmacist protocol

AbstractBackgroundTo enhance patient care during the COVID‐19 pandemic, tele‐critical care (TCC) pharmacists within Atrium Health (AH) managed therapy in multiple domains under a Critical Care Pharmacist Emergency Protocol Agreement (CCPEPA).MethodsThis was a multicenter, retrospective quality improvement (QI) study conducted at AH's North Carolina facilities to compare TCC pharmacist interventions between shifts (timeframes 1 and 2), identify and categorize medication management interventions (timeframe 3), and to assess how the CCPEPA was utilized during these different timeframes.ResultsAfter removing duplicate patients and interventions that were recorded in overlapping timeframes, 5681 interventions were performed on 1665 unique patients. Timeframe 1 documented 2150 interventions on 861 patients with an average of 37.2 interventions/shift on first shift and 14.3 interventions/shift on second shift. Medication management (46.5%) was the most common activity on first shift whereas glucose management activities (42.8%) were most common on second shift. During timeframe 2, the full time TCC pharmacists documented 710 interventions on 395 patients with an average of 15.8 interventions/shift on first shift and 11.3 interventions/shift on second shift. Activity results were similar to timeframe 1. During timeframe 3, 2331 medication management interventions were performed on 700 patients, averaging 18.4 interventions/day, including medication discontinuation (39.2%), medication addition (15.7%), and order clarification (11.8%). The most common medication class was sedation and analgesia (26.3%).ConclusionsThe CCPEPA provided TCC pharmacists various opportunities to enhance patient care and practice at the top of their license. First shift hours with proactive patient review for both faculty and full‐time TCC pharmacists resulted in more interventions per shift and increased medication management interventions. These QI initiatives demonstrate the benefit of having TCC pharmacists as part of the healthcare team. Within AH, the success of the CCPEPA protocol has supported advocating for Clinical Pharmacist Practitioner status and increases in TCC pharmacist staff.

Expansion of around the clock critical care and emergency medicine clinical pharmacy services at a large urban academic medical center

AbstractThe impact of a pharmacist as a dedicated member of multidisciplinary intensive care unit (ICU) and emergency department (ED) teams has repeatedly been described in the literature for over 20 years. A 2020 position paper published by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the American College of Clinical Pharmacy recommended the optimal practice model include critical care pharmacists providing direct patient care 24 h a day, 7 days a week. The objective of this paper is to describe the expansion and evolution of clinical pharmacy services provided in the ICU and ED at a large academic health center, beginning in 2015 and accelerated in the face of a global pandemic. This was made possible through a combination of creating new positions and reallocating existing positions to substantially increase ICU and ED clinical pharmacy coverage. Over a 7 year period, the emergency medicine and critical care clinical pharmacy team expanded from six full time equivalent (FTE) employees in 2015 to 16 FTEs in early 2022. This allowed for reduced pharmacist to patient ratios, the expansion of clinical pharmacy services from primarily weekday hours to a 24 h per day coverage model, 7 days a week, and to better support clinical pharmacy specialists providing these services. Rapid expansion of around the clock clinical pharmacy services was only possible through collaboration between clinical and operations pharmacy managers and feedback from members of the multidisciplinary team.

Critical care pharmacists have a rich history and evolving roles

AbstractCritical care (CC) pharmacists have been contributing to patient outcomes, team effectiveness, education, research and quality improvement for approximately 50 years. Current CC specialists are evolving the practice, science and scholarship into new and exciting areas as described in the series of articles collected for a special series in this journal. To summarize past accomplishments and contemplate how next level achievements may develop, brainstorming by experienced CC specialists, researchers, educators, and scholars was done to establish a foundation for this paper and three of that group summarized it into an overview of the challenges of the past and opportunities that are shaping the future. A small group of CC pharmacists identified need and opportunity to improve patient care in a limited number of settings but subsequent CC pharmacists have expanded into numerous specialties and subspecialties. Comprehensive medication management of CC patients and survivors of their critical illness is now a standard, but delivery may be influenced by new technology and equipment. Improved quality of care and outcome measures are being developed and measured. The imperative to move practice forward and adopt new practices while maintaining a core set of guideline‐based practices may be facilitated by technology such as wearable devices, personalized medicine, machine learning or artificial intelligence. However, these new tools may create new obstacles. Similar changes in education and expansion into administrative roles afford new opportunities and challenges. CC pharmacists have created a solid foundation, but continued growth in number and expansion of roles requires the next generation to continue to push ahead and continue to demonstrate value in key areas.

The clot thickens: How to use viscoelastic testing in critical illness

AbstractCoagulopathy is common in critically ill patients and may result in complications such as bleeding or thromboembolic events. Viscoelastic testing (VET), including both thromboelastography (TEG®) and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM®), offers a benefit over conventional coagulation tests in that it provides a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the degree of coagulopathy, including the ability to measure fibrinolysis. This review is a “how‐to” primer for critical care pharmacists to interpret and utilize VET in practice across a spectrum of coagulopathies, including trauma and traumatic brain injury, neurologic injury and emergencies, cardiothoracic surgery, liver disease, and medication‐induced coagulopathy.

Creation and execution of an effective critical care pharmacist collaborative in an academic health system

AbstractHospital systems continue to face significant pressure to mitigate medication costs, which may be achieved by effective pharmacy collaboration between medical centers. The purpose of this narrative is to discuss the essential elements, methods, obstacles, and solutions that were encountered in the formation and function of a successful multicenter pharmacy collaborative. The objective is to share the tools and examples that illustrate the framework and mechanics employed by a collaborative to execute initiatives that improved patient care and institutional processes. In 2018, five academic medical centers (AMCs) formed a critical care pharmacy collaborative team (PCT). The group's sustainable leadership structure allowed for equal voicing while avoiding individual burnout. Focused monthly working meetings allowed for comparison of each AMC's best practices to identify unexplored practice gaps and project planning. System goals with standardized metrics were set and parallel institutional approaches were implemented. Pooling use experience from five AMCs allowed for a larger sample size for data evaluation to assist in management of high impact medications. Additional benefits of group collaboration extended to research opportunities and incorporation of pharmacy learners for practice‐based learning. During this journey, barriers were uncovered including inconsistent access to a centralized secure platform for information sharing, data collection and analysis, overreliance of responsibilities on few individuals, and unpredictable dedicated project time for team leads and members. Overall, pharmacist led stewardship projects across five AMCs were leveraged to advance patient care through increased clinical guideline adherence, operational efficiency, and medication cost savings.

Rethinking justifications for critical care pharmacist positions: Translating bedside evidence to the C-suite.

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.

Non‐trauma uses of viscoelastic hemostatic assays in critical care: A narrative review and primer for pharmacists

AbstractThromboelastography (TEG) and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) are point‐of‐care viscoelastic tests of whole blood that provide real‐time analyses of coagulation. TEG and ROTEM are often used to guide blood product administration in the trauma and surgical settings. These tests are increasingly being explored for their use in other disease states encountered in critically ill patients and in the management of antithrombotic medications. As the medication experts, pharmacists should be familiar with how to interpret and apply viscoelastic tests to disease state and medication management. The purpose of this narrative review is to provide a primer for pharmacists on viscoelastic tests and their interpretation and to explore non‐trauma indications for viscoelastic testing in critical care. Literature evaluating the use of TEG and ROTEM for patients with acute and chronic liver disease, ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, coronavirus disease 2019, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation are described. Current applications of viscoelastic tests by pharmacists and potential future roles of critical care pharmacists in expanding the use of viscoelastic tests are summarized.

Development of 8‐h urine collections and an augmented renal clearance dosing program at an academic medical center

AbstractEnsuring appropriate dosing of medications is an essential practice of clinical pharmacists. Dose adjustments in the setting of decreased renal function are common but may also be warranted for patients with supraphysiologic or augmented renal clearance (ARC). Conventional estimates of creatinine clearance using only serum creatinine may not be accurate in the setting of ARC, thus a measured creatinine clearance using serum and urine creatinine measurements are preferred. We describe the development of an 8‐h urine collection and ARC dosing program at a large academic medical center initiated by critical care and infectious disease pharmacists. Using a Plan–Do–Study–Act approach, we implemented and updated the 8‐h collection program with the guidance of our clinical laboratories. Eight‐hour urine collections are useful for patients with suspected ARC and for other scenarios where accurate dose adjustments are needed to minimize toxicity in the absence of therapeutic drug monitoring.

Critical care pharmacy practice advancement recommendations on direct patient care activities: An opinion of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy Critical Care Practice and Research Network

AbstractAn updated position paper on critical care pharmacy services recommends the development of new clinical programs. However, proposed pragmatic strategies for critical care pharmacy practice advancement are lacking. The purpose of this position paper is to develop consensus recommendations aimed at direct patient care activities for the advancement of critical care pharmacy practice. A 24‐member task force of critical care pharmacists, physicians, and nurses participated in a Recommendation Development Phase and Consensus‐building Phase (using a Delphi method) to produce the final critical care practice advancement recommendations. Proposed recommendations of pragmatic medication management opportunities with an advanced scope of practice involving pharmacist prescriptive authority for initiating, modifying, or discontinuing drug therapy and medication monitoring were developed. Task force participants anonymously voted on each proposed recommendation using a five‐point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = neutral, 4 = disagree, and 5 = strongly disagree). Recommendations failing to achieve consensus (≥70% agreement on “strongly agree”/“agree” votes) were revised for subsequent voting. Task force response rates during the first and second voting rounds were 71% (n = 17) and 79% (n = 19), respectively. A total of 57 (93.4%) of the 61 proposed practice advancement recommendations achieved consensus of which 88.5% (n = 54) met consensus after the first round. Consensus recommendations involved the critical care pharmacist initiating (n = 15), modifying (n = 22), or discontinuing (n = 9) drug therapy, and ordering relevant laboratory values or tests to optimize drug therapy (n = 11). One recommendation failing consensus was not revised for additional voting given the impracticality of achieving agreement. Fifty‐seven of the proposed 61 recommendation statements (93%) achieved the consensus threshold after two rounds of voting by an interprofessional expert panel. These recommendations provide a conceptual framework for promoting novel critical care pharmacist prescriptive authority over specific aspects of direct patient care. Implementation challenges and barriers, further described in this paper, must be explored at the institutional level for acceptance.

An Evaluation of the Relationship Between Medication Regimen Complexity as Measured by the MRC-ICU to Medication Errors in Critically Ill Patients.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between medication regimen complexity-intensive care unit (MRC-ICU) score at 24 hours and medication errors identified throughout the ICU. Methods: A single-center, observational study was conducted from August to October 2021. The primary outcome was the association between MRC-ICU at 24 hours and total medication errors identified. During the prospective component, ICU pharmacists recorded medication errors identified over an 8-week period. During the retrospective component, the electronic medical record was reviewed to collect patient demographics, outcomes, and MRC-ICU score at 24 hours. The primary outcome of the relationship of MRC-ICU at 24 hours to medication errors was assessed using Pearson correlation. Results: A total of 150 patients were included. There were 2 pharmacists who recorded 634 errors during the 8-week study period. No significant relationship between MRC-ICU and medication errors was observed (r2 = .13, P = .11). Exploratory analyses of MRC-ICU relationship to major interventions and harm scores showed that MRC-ICU scores >10 had more major interventions (27 vs 14, P = .27) and higher harm scores (15 vs 7, P = .33), although these values were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Medication errors appear to occur independently of medication regimen complexity. Critical care pharmacists were responsible for mitigating a large number of medication errors.

Reduction in thrombolytic order‐to‐needle time with addition of a pharmacist to a pulmonary embolism response team

AbstractIntroductionPulmonary embolism (PE) is the third most common cause of cardiovascular death in the United States. Institutions have implemented pulmonary embolism response teams (PERT) to hasten clinical decision making and therapeutic interventions. The extent to which critical care pharmacists are included in PERTs is not known. Although improved outcomes with pharmacist involvement in other emergency response teams (e.g., stroke teams) is well described, literature surrounding the impact of pharmacist inclusion in PERTs is limited. The objective was to evaluate if direct pharmacist inclusion in a PERT resulted in reduced time to systemic thrombolysis from time of medication order release in appropriate PE candidates.MethodsThis was a retrospective, observational study of patients with submassive or massive PE who received systemic thrombolysis at a large academic medical center. Patients were divided into two groups based on if they received systemic thrombolysis before or after the intervention. This intervention was the addition of a pharmacist to the PERT with emphasis on early communication between the PERT pharmacist and other stakeholders at time of PERT activation, and a revised thrombolytic preparation workflow emphasizing bedside preparation by the pharmacist. The primary outcome was time to administration of thrombolytic from time of medication order release.ResultsThirty‐four patients were included. Median time to thrombolytic administration was reduced in the post‐intervention group compared to the pre‐intervention group (23 min [14.8–42] vs. 54 min [42.8–69], p = 0.007). Bleeding events were not different between groups. Time to resumption of systemic anticoagulation after systemic thrombolysis was greater in the post‐intervention group.ConclusionInclusion of a pharmacist in the PERT at this institution significantly reduced time to administration of systemic thrombolysis from time of medication order release in appropriate PE candidates. Larger studies should be conducted to expand upon and confirm these findings.

Symptom Assessment for Mechanically Ventilated Patients: Principles and Priorities: An Official American Thoracic Society Workshop Report.

Mechanically ventilated patients experience many adverse symptoms, such as anxiety, thirst, and dyspnea. However, these common symptoms are not included in practice guideline recommendations for routine assessment of mechanically ventilated patients. An American Thoracic Society-sponsored workshop with researchers and clinicians with expertise in critical care and symptom management was convened for a discussion of symptom assessment in mechanically ventilated patients. Members included nurses, physicians, a respiratory therapist, a speech-language pathologist, a critical care pharmacist, and a former intensive care unit patient. This report summarizes existing evidence and consensus among workshop participants regarding 1) symptoms that should be considered for routine assessment of adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation; 2) key symptom assessment principles; 3) strategies that support symptom assessment in nonvocal patients; and 4) areas for future clinical practice development and research. Systematic patient-centered assessment of multiple symptoms has great potential to minimize patient distress and improve the patient experience. A culture shift is necessary to promote ongoing holistic symptom assessment with valid and reliable instruments. This report represents our workgroup consensus on symptom assessment for mechanically ventilated patients. Future work should address how holistic, patient-centered symptom assessment can be embedded into clinical practice.

Critical care pharmacy workforce: a 2020 re-evaluation of the UK deployment and characteristics

IntroductionCritical care pharmacists improve the quality and efficiency of medication therapy whilst reducing treatment costs where they are available. UK critical care pharmacist deployment was described in 2015, highlighting a deficit in numbers, experience level, and critical care access to pharmacy services over the 7-day week. Since then, national workforce standards have been emphasised, quality indicators published, and service commissioning documents produced, reinforced by care quality assessments. Whether these initiatives have resulted in further development of the UK critical care pharmacy workforce is unknown. This evaluation provides a 2020 status update.MethodsThe 2015 electronic data entry tool was updated and circulated for completion by UK critical care pharmacists. The tool captured workforce data disposition as it was just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, at critical care unit level.Main findingsData were received for 334 critical care units from 203 organisations (96% of UK critical care units). Overall, 98.2% of UK critical care units had specific clinical pharmacist time dedicated to the unit. The median weekday pharmacist input to each level 3 equivalent bed was 0.066 (0.043–0.088) whole time equivalents, a significant increase from the median position in 2015 (+ 0.021, p < 0.0001). Despite this progress, pharmacist availability remains below national minimum standards (0.1/level 3 equivalent bed). Most units (71.9%) had access to prescribing pharmacists. Geographical variation in pharmacist staffing levels were evident, and weekend services remain extremely limited.ConclusionsAvailability of clinical pharmacists in UK adult critical care units is improving. However, national standards are not routinely met despite widely publicised quality indicators, commissioning specifications, and assessments. Additional measures are needed to address persistent deficits and realise gains in organisational and patient-level outcomes. These measures must include promotion of cross-professional collaborative working, adjusted funding models, and a nationally recognised training pathway for critical care pharmacists.

Critical Care Pharmacist Attitudes and Perceptions of Neuromuscular Blocker Infusions in ARDS.

Current critical care pharmacist (CCP) practices and perceptions related to neuromuscular infusion (NMBI) use for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) maybe different with the COVID-19 pandemic and the publication of 2020 NMBI practice guidelines. To evaluate CCP practices and perceptions regarding NMBI use for patients with moderate-severe ARDS. We developed, tested, and electronically administered a questionnaire (7 parent-, 42 sub-questions) to 409 American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) Critical Care Practice and Research Network members in 12 geographically diverse states. The questionnaire focused on adults with moderate-severe ARDS (PaO2:FiO2<150) whose causes of dyssynchrony were addressed. Two reminders were sent at 10-day intervals. Respondents [131/409 (32%)] primarily worked in a medical intensive care unit (ICU) 102 (78%). Compared to COVID-negative(-) ARDS patients, COVID positive(+) ARDS patients were twice as likely to receive a NMBI (34 ± 18 vs.16 ± 17%; P < 0.01). Respondents somewhat/strongly agreed a NMBI should be reserved until after trials of deep sedation (112, 86%) or proning (92, 81%) and that NMBI reduced barotrauma (88, 67%), dyssynchrony (87, 66%), and plateau pressure (79, 60%). Few respondents somewhat/strongly agreed that a NMBI should be initiated at ARDS onset (23, 18%) or that NMBI reduced 90-day mortality (12, 10%). Only 2/14 potential NMBI risks [paralysis awareness (101, 82%) and prolonged muscle weakness (84, 68%)] were frequently reported to be of high/very high concern. Multiple NMBI titration targets were assessed as very/extremely important including arterial pH (109, 88%), dyssynchrony (107, 86%), and PaO2: FiO2 ratio (82, 66%). Train-of-four (55, 44%) and BIS monitoring (36, 29%) were deemed less important. Preferred NMBI discontinuation criteria included absence of dysschrony (84, 69%) and use ≥48 hour (72, 59%). Current critical care pharmacists believe NMBI for ARDS patients are best reserved until after trials of deep sedation or proning; unique considerations exist in COVID+ patients. Our results should be considered when ICU NMBI protocols are being developed and bedside decisions regarding NMBI use in ARDS are being formulated.

Critical care pharmacist research activity, experience and interests: a 2021 United Kingdom survey.

Research and innovation are essential for effective healthcare service delivery, leading to improvements in patient health and wellbeing. National policy dictates that research delivery is embedded into daily practice of United Kingdom (UK) healthcare professionals, including pharmacists. There is a limited understanding of critical care pharmacist research activities, experiences and interests. It is, therefore, important to describe current practice including barriers and facilitators to enable increased engagement. To describe UK critical care pharmacist research activity, experiences, interests and barriers to better engagement. An electronic survey was developed, piloted and distributed (June to October 2021) to all critical care pharmacists via UK professional organisations. The survey was completed by 126 pharmacists, providing a 54% response rate. Few pharmacists reported research capability (postgraduate qualification with a research component, 31% (39/126)) and opportunity (dedicated research time, 28.6% (36/126)), only 12.7% (16/126) have both these influencers. Those that did, produced significantly more research outputs (median 4 (0,9) versus 0 (0,1), P = 0.023) and undertook grant funding applications (X2 (1, n = 126) = 25.8, P < 0.001), compared to those without. The most frequently reported barrier to research was the time (opportunity), (71.4%, 90/126). Few pharmacists reported having a research mentor (13.3%, 16/120). Most pharmacists reported an interest in collaborating on research projects across a broad range of areas. Critical care pharmacists are motivated to participate in the evaluation continuum including research, although most report capability and opportunity barriers to delivery. We suggest policy recommendations to address limitations and increase pharmacist research involvement.

A survey of critical care pharmacists on venous thromboembolism prophylaxis dosing practices with enoxaparin in adult trauma patients

AbstractEnoxaparin is the preferred treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in trauma patients, but timing of initiation, optimal dosing, and therapeutic drug monitoring remain controversial. The objective of this study was to evaluate enoxaparin VTE prophylaxis practices in adult trauma patients across trauma centers in the United States and compare results to current guideline recommendations. An online survey designed by the study investigators was sent to pharmacist members of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) Critical Care Practice Research Network (PRN) and residency directors of institutions with accredited Critical Care Pharmacy Residency programs in the fall of 2021. This survey queried pharmacists' self‐reported practices regarding enoxaparin dosing and monitoring in trauma patients. One hundred five responses were collected with an estimated response rate of 5.3%. Most respondents reported using a standard enoxaparin dose of 30 mg subcutaneously (SUBQ) every 12 h (67%; 70/104) in trauma patients with normal renal function and higher initial dosing for obese trauma patients (75%; 78/104). The most common body mass index (BMI) threshold for dose adjustments in obesity was a BMI ≥40 kg/m2; whereas 100 kg or more was commonly reported for a weight threshold. Multiple alternative enoxaparin dosing regimens were reported for obese and overweight patients. Of respondents who monitor anti‐Factor Xa (anti‐Xa) levels, 84% (61/73) reported monitoring peak levels with 47% (29/61) targeting a peak anti‐Xa goal of 0.2–0.4 units/ml. Seventy‐five percent (51/68) of respondents who adjust enoxaparin dosing based on anti‐Xa level monitoring reported adjusting doses by increments of 10 mg SUBQ every 12 h, and 41% (28/68) indicated having a pharmacist‐driven protocol for dose adjustments. Significant variation exists in enoxaparin dosing and monitoring strategies for VTE prophylaxis. Consensus among clinical practice guidelines is needed to standardize practice nationally.

Evaluation of an electronic health record documentation tool use to improve pharmacist intervention tracking in the intensive care unit

AbstractPurposePharmacists are integral members of the healthcare team, but interventions are not always captured due to documentation limitations. This study evaluated the impact of implementing a tracking tool to address gaps in capturing pharmacist interventions.MethodsA prospective, observational study was conducted to assess pharmacist interventions between July and November 2020. Twelve critical care pharmacists captured interventions on 10 weekdays using a tracking tool (iVent—Epic®) embedded in the electronic medical record (EMR) to capture high frequency interventions not standardly captured via existing standard note documentation (e.g., renal/hepatic dose adjustment, parenteral nutrition management). Value added of the interventions is proposed. Patients' baseline demographics, interventions, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) were collected. The primary outcome was to determine the added benefit of using a tracking tool within the EMR to capture pharmacist interventions compared to progress note documentation.ResultsTwo thousand seven hundred and eighty‐three interventions were documented on 514 unique patients over 120 pharmacist shifts. Of these, 2363 (84.9%) interventions were captured through iVent tracking. The median SOFA score on day of intervention was 4 [interquartile range (IQR) 2–7] and ICU LOS was 3.5 days [IQR 1.5–9]. The median number of interventions per patient per day was 2 [IQR 1–3]. A significant difference was observed among days of the week and the number of iVents documented (χ2 = 13.172, p = 0.01, df = 4). The post hoc pairwise comparison revealed more documented iVents on Tuesday than Friday.ConclusionThis study reveals that an iVent tracking tool increased total capture of pharmacist interventions by 563%. These interventions can be associated with value‐based programs and further work is needed in highlighting the pharmacist's role in these new payment models. This study confirms that the current standard practice at this institution of solely entering pharmacist progress notes into the patient chart misses a majority of pharmacist interventions.