Search

Background: Post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) is defined as a new or worsening impairment in physical, cognitive, or mental health following critical illness. Intensive care unit recovery centers (ICU-RC) are one means to treat patients who have PICS. The purpose of this study is to describe the role of pharmacists in ICU-RCs. Research Question: What is the number and type of medication interventions made by a pharmacist at an ICU-RC at 12 different centers? Study Design and Methods: This prospective, observational study was conducted in 12 intensive care units (ICUs)/ICU-RCs between September 2019 and July 2021. A full medication review was conducted by a pharmacist on patients seen at the ICU-RC. Results: 507 patients were referred to the ICU-RC. Of these patients, 474 attended the ICU-RC and 472 had a full medication review performed by a pharmacist. Baseline demographic and hospital course data were obtained from the electronic health record and at the ICU-RC appointment. Pharmacy interventions were made in 397 (84%) patients. The median number of pharmacy interventions per patient was 2 (interquartile range [IQR] = 1,3). Medications were stopped and started in 124 (26%) and 91 (19%) patients, respectively. The number of patients that had a dose decreased and a dose increased was 51 (11%) and 43 (9%), respectively. There was no difference in the median total number of medications that the patient was prescribed at the start and end of the patient visit (10, IQR = 5, 15). Adverse drug event (ADE) preventive measures were implemented in 115 (24%) patients. ADE events were identified in 69 (15%) patients. Medication interactions were identified in 30 (6%) patients. Interpretation: A pharmacist plays an integral role in an ICU-RC resulting in the identification, prevention, and treatment of medication-related problems. This paper should serve as a call to action on the importance of the inclusion of a pharmacist in ICU-RC clinics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The practice guidelines for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD) from the Society of Critical Care Medicine shifted from primarily focusing on the treatment of anxiety in 2002 to the treatment of pain in 2013. Objective: This prospective, observational, multicenter study aimed to assess the degree of practice adherence to the PAD guidelines for ventilated patients in New Jersey intensive care units (ICUs). Methods: Pharmacist investigators at 8 centers designated 4 days at least 10 days apart to evaluate all patients on mechanical ventilation. The primary outcomes included adherence to 4 guideline recommendations: treatment of pain before sedation, use of nonnarcotic analgesic medications, use of nonbenzodiazepine sedative medications, and use of goal-directed sedation. Results: Of 138 patients evaluated, 50% had a primary medical diagnosis (as opposed to surgical, cardiac, or neurological diagnosis), and the median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was 7. Pain was treated prior to administration of sedatives in 55.4% of subjects, with fentanyl being the primary analgesic used. In addition, 19% received no analgesia, and 11.5% received nonopioid analgesia. Sedative agents were administered to 87 subjects (48 nonbenzodiazepine and 39 benzodiazepine). Of those receiving benzodiazepines, 22 received intermittent bolus regimens and 16 received continuous infusions, of which 5 were for another indication besides sedation. Validated scales measuring the degree of sedation were completed at least once in 56 (81.6%) patients receiving sedatives. Conclusions: Current sedation practices suggest that integration of evidence-based PAD guidelines across New Jersey adult ICUs is inconsistent despite pharmacist involvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Critical care pharmacists complete comprehensive medication reviews in Post Intensive Care Syndrome (PICS) patients at Intensive Care Unit Recovery Centers (ICU-RCs) to optimize medication therapies after hospital discharge. Inpatient pharmacists often complete medication reconciliations prior to hospital discharge, which could affect interventions at an ICU-RC. However, this association remains ill-described. Objective: The purpose of this study was to, in patients with PICS, describe the effect of an inpatient, pharmacist-led medication reconciliation on the number of clinical pharmacist interventions at the first ICU-RC visit. Methods: This was a post-hoc subgroup analysis of an international, multicenter cohort study of adults who had a pharmacist-led comprehensive medication reconciliation conducted in 12 ICU-RCs. Only patients’ first ICU-RC visit was eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was the number of medication interventions made at initial ICU-RC visit in PICS patients who had an inpatient, pharmacist-led medication reconciliation compared to those who did not. Results: Of 323 patients included, 83 received inpatient medication reconciliations and 240 did not. No difference was observed in the median number of medication interventions between groups (2 vs 2, p = .06). However, a higher incidence of any intervention (86.3% vs 78.3%, p = .09) and dose adjustment (20.4% vs 9.6%; p = .03) was observed in the no medication reconciliation group. Only ICU Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was associated with an increased odds of medication intervention at ICU-RC visit (aOR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05-1.25, p < .01). Conclusion and Relevance: No difference in the total number of medication interventions made by ICU-RC clinical pharmacists was observed in patients who received an inpatient, pharmacist-led medication reconciliation before hospital discharge compared to those who did not. Still, clinical observations within this study highlight the continued importance and study of clinical pharmacist involvement during transitions of care, including ICU-RC visits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]