1. Discharge prescription optimization by emergency medicine pharmacists in an academic emergency department in the United States
- Author
-
Michael Spinner, Erick Sokn, Stephen W. Meldon, Seth Podolsky, Jesse Castillo, Matthew J. Campbell, and Simon W. Lam
- Subjects
Pharmacology ,medicine.medical_specialty ,business.industry ,Psychological intervention ,Pharmacist ,Pharmaceutical Science ,Pharmacy ,Retrospective cohort study ,Emergency department ,Toxicology ,Logistic regression ,030226 pharmacology & pharmacy ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Emergency medicine ,Medicine ,Pharmacology (medical) ,Clinical significance ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Medical prescription ,business - Abstract
Background Emergency medicine (EM) pharmacists may be uniquely positioned to optimize discharge prescriptions for emergency department (ED) patients but the clinical significance of interventions and association with patient outcomes are not well-described. Objective To evaluate the clinical significance of EM pharmacist interventions completed during review of ED discharge prescriptions. Setting This study was conducted in an academic medical center ED. Methods: This was a retrospective observational study of patients discharged with prescriptions from the ED over two months. EM pharmacists reviewed discharge prescriptions and provided drug therapy recommendations. Two independent reviewers rated the clinical significance of interventions. High risk criteria were proposed a priori and included in a multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify variables independently associated with pharmacist intervention. Main Outcome Measure The primary outcome measure was the rate, type, and clinical significance of interventions associated with EM pharmacist review of discharge prescriptions. Results A total of 3107 prescriptions for 1648 patients were reviewed. Interventions occurred for 7.3% of patients with 29% of interventions rated as significant. The intervention rate was higher in patients with at least 1 high risk criteria versus those without (9.6% vs. 3.7%, p
- Published
- 2020
- Full Text
- View/download PDF