Search

What is known and objective: The purpose of this paper is to discuss the limitations of the evidence supporting the SIS recommendations for antibiotic prescribing in patients with traumatic facial fractures and to provide suggestions for clinical decision‐making and further research in this area given the wide variation in prescribing practices. Comment: The Surgical Infection Society (SIS) recently published guidelines on antibiotic use in patients with traumatic facial fractures. The guidelines recommend against the use of prophylactic antibiotics for all adult patients with mandibular or non‐mandibular facial fractures undergoing non‐operative or operative procedures. Despite the available evidence, surveys conducted in the United States and the United Kingdom prior to the publication of the SIS guidelines demonstrate substantial preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative prophylactic prescribing of antibiotics for patients with facial fractures undergoing surgery. What is new and conclusion: With the exception of strong recommendations based on moderate‐quality evidence to avoid prolonged postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis, the weak recommendations in the guidelines are a function of low‐quality evidence. A logical choice for a narrow‐spectrum antibiotic is cefazolin administered within 1 h of surgery and no longer than 24 h after surgery, since it is the gold standard of comparison based on clinical practice guidelines concerning antibiotic prophylaxis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this evaluation was to compare total hospital costs and length of stay of critically ill patients who received dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: This was a retrospective quality improvement evaluation at a tertiary care, academic medical center in the United States. Data were retrieved for patients discharged between April 2012 and June 2013. Patients were included if they were admitted to the ICU, were 18 years of age or older, and received dexmedetomidine or propofol for sedation. Multivariate regression models were developed to determine the association between sedative type and hospital costs, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay. Results: The final cohort included 3294 patients. Of these, 2685 received propofol and 609 received dexmedetomidine. The median hospital cost was US$31 041 (interquartile range [IQR] US$17 963-US$57 826) in the propofol group and US$46 716 (IQR US$31 247 to US$85 490) in the dexmedetomidine group (P < .001). The median ICU length of stay was 2 days (IQR 1-6 days) and 4 days (IQR 2-9 days) in the propofol and dexmedetomidine groups, respectively (P < .001). Overall, hospital length of stay was 8 days (IQR 4-15 days) and 9 days (IQR 5-18 days) in the 2 groups, respectively (P < .001). In the multivariate analyses, dexmedetomidine use was associated with increased costs, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay (P < .001 for each outcome). Conclusions: In this academic medical center, dexmedetomidine use was associated with higher costs when compared to propofol for sedation in the ICU. Also, use of dexmedetomidine was associated with increased lengths of ICU and hospital stay. Future prospective trials are needed to confirm these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With ever-increasing total healthcare expenditures and expenditures on new pharmaceuticals, there is a temptation to enact relatively simple silo-based, cost-control measures such as attempts to control a burgeoning health-system medication budget by limiting physician and ultimately patient access to medications without considering cost-effectiveness or overall value. Such an approach with a singular focus on dollars does not make sense. The challenge is to think beyond a pure dollars approach in a specialty of health care where the high cost of care is acknowledged but the dynamics are not always understood. This will take a thoughtful, coordinated effort by a team of dedicated health professionals that includes a clinical pharmacist with expertise in optimal and comprehensive medication management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose. Product information and pivotal studies on newly marketed injectable medications were reviewed to determine whether a weight descriptor was included and if information was provided for dosing patients with extremes of body weight. Methods. Products with new drug applications approved by the Food and Drug Administration between January 1, 2004, and January 30, 2009, were evaluated. Any information related to weight descriptors or dosing of patients with extremes of weight (body mass index of <18.5 or >40 kg/m2) relative to age and height was extracted from the product labeling or pivotal studies. Pharmaceutical companies were contacted if pivotal studies had not been published. The information was evaluated with a dosing usefulness score of 0--3; a score of 2 or greater was considered minimally adequate for dosing patients with extremes of weight. Results. Of the 84 medications evaluated, some reference to weight descriptors was found for 23 (27%). None had a calculated usefulness score of 2 or above based on information from product information or pivotal trials. Conclusion. Information from product labeling and pivotal studies involving newly marketed injectable medications is inadequate for dosing patients with extremes of weight. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the development of models for pharmacy practice among pharmacists in the U.S. It notes that the characteristics of any model rely on whether it is designed for a general or specific purpose. It points out that the development of a model should include preliminary validation with revisions and dissemination, and assessment of any given model to ascertain that it is as near as any given model.

Purpose. The cost implications of and potential adverse events prevented by the interventions of a critical care pharmacist were studied. Methods. A decentralized clinical pharmacist assigned to a surgical intensive care unit (ICU) documented all interventions made from mid-October 2003 through February 2004 using a standardized written form. The data were retrospectively evaluated and the following information was extracted: amount of time spent performing various clinical activities, how drug-related problems were identified (e.g., order entry versus chart review), and a general description of the interventions. The interventions were independently reviewed by two other clinical pharmacists to determine whether an actual or potential adverse drug event (ADE) would have occurred without the intervention, the probability that an ADE would have occurred without the intervention, the type of intervention, and potential cost avoidance of the intervention. Once the evaluations were completed, the data obtained from order entry and verification activities were compared with the data obtained during other clinical functions. Results. A total of 129 interventions were documented over 4.5 months. The majority of interventions were identified during chart review (40%) and patient care rounds (39%). The potential cost avoidance of the documented interventions was $205,919-$280,421. Interventions identified during patient care rounds and chart review were most likely to achieve the greatest impact on cost avoidance. Conclusion. Among the interventions performed and documented by a clinical pharmacist in an ICU, patient care rounds and chart-review activities were associated with the greatest number of interventionsand the greatest potential cost avoidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To conduct a cost analysis of adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy for severe septic shock from the perspective of a third-party payer in the United States.Design: Estimates of outcomes were aggregate data from the Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock and Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock trials. In these trials, the outcomes of interests were ICU length of stay, vasopressor-free days, ventilation-free days, and the proportion of patients receiving blood transfusion. Each outcome was monetized into a set of mutually exclusive components and was aggregated to estimate the cost-per-patient based on each trial. Cost inputs for each outcome were obtained from literature and adjusted based on the medical care consumer price index. To estimate the budget impact using adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy, per-patient avoided cost was multiplied by expected septic shock annual incidence. Deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis evaluated the robustness of the findings, and Monte Carlo simulation estimated 95% CI of the findings.Setting: A total of 103 medical-surgical ICU (69 for Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock and 34 for Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock).Patients: Adults greater than or equal to 18 years old with septic shock.Interventions: Adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy (hydrocortisone at a dose of 200 mg/d for 7 d for Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock and hydrocortisone at a 50 mg IV bolus every 6 hr and fludrocortisone as a 50 μg tablet once daily).Measurements and Main Results: Per Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock, adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy showed a 90-day monetized benefit of $8,111 (95% CI, $3,914-$12,307) per patient, driven by improvements in ICU-free days, vasopressor-free days, ventilation-free days, and blood transfusion proportion. The total estimated annual impact of adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy, in 2019 dollars, was $750 million. Per Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock, adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy showed a 90-day monetized benefit of $25,539 per patient (95% CI, $22,853-$28,224), driven by improvements in ICU free-days, vasopressor-free days, and ventilation-free days. The total estimated annual impact of adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy, in 2019 dollars, was $2.3 billion. The deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis showed the cost of ICU stays to be the most influential factor in both analyses. The sensitivity analysis using the reported median showed a greater monetized benefit of $10,658 (Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock) and $30,911 (Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock) per patient.Conclusions: Using adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy yields a significant monetized benefit based on inputs from the Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock and Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose. The development of the Critical Care Pharmacotherapy Trials Network (CCPTN) as a model for practice-based pharmacotherapy research is described. Summary. The CCPTN was formed in 2010 as a collaborative research network dedicated to scientific investigation in the field of critical care pharmacotherapy. The CCPTN organizational structure is consistent with many professional pharmacy and interdisciplinary organizations and organized into 3 primary domains: executive committee, working committees, and network membership. The network membership consists of critical care investigators dedicated to the mission and vision of the CCPTN and is open to anyone expressing an interest in contributing to high-level research. Network member sites represent the breadth of U.S. critical care practice environments. In addition, network members include individuals with demonstrated expertise in patient safety, administration, research design, grantsmanship, database management, peer review, and scientific writing. In 2015, there were more than 100 site investigators from around the United States and Canada. Projects to date have yielded numerous abstracts, platform presentations, and peer-reviewed publications in high-impact journals. The CCPTN has expanded to form collaborations with researchers in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. The CCPTN has identified new potential partnerships and field-based areas for inquiry. Numerous opportunities for continued growth and scientific inquiry in the field of critical care pharmacotherapy research exist for the CCPTN to foster in the coming years. Conclusion. The CCPTN has been a successful model for practice-based pharmacotherapy research and assists its members in expanding critical care pharmacotherapy knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To assess the association between insulin infusion rates, and 24-h insulin consumption on hypoglycemia in the intensive care unit (ICU).Methods: This was a retrospective case-control study, conducted at an academic institution in the United States. Adult patients admitted to the ICU receiving intravenous insulin infusions for blood glucose control were included. Hypoglycemic (blood glucose <70 mg/dL) patients were matched 1:1 with non-hypoglycemic controls based on age, gender, and body mass index. Multivariable conditional logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine the effect of: (1) weight-adjusted insulin infusion rate (units/kg/h), (2) non-weight-adjusted insulin infusion rate (units/h), or (3) 24-h insulin consumption (units/day) on hypoglycemia.Results: A total of 122 patients were included in the study (61 cases, 61 controls). Compared to those patients who received <0.05 units/kg/h, the odds of hypoglycemia was higher in those who received was ≥0.1 units/kg/h (OR 4.57, 95% CI 1.45-14.41, p=0.010). Compared to those patients who received <4 units/h, the odds of hypoglycemia was higher in those who received was ≥8 units/h (4.17, 95% CI 1.18-14.75, p=0.027). The risk of hypoglycemia did not increase with higher 24-h insulin consumption.Conclusions: Higher insulin infusion rates rather than 24-h insulin consumption may be associated with hypoglycemia in critically ill patients in the ICU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on assessing and evaluating the pain in intensive care unit (ICU) patients in the U.S. It features the pain behavior instruments that have been tested for their reliability, validity, and feasibility of use in ICUs, the pain behavior scale and the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool. It also discusses the alternative methods of augmenting a pain evaluation including completion of pain risk profile, use of surrogates, or performance of an analgesic trial.

Since 2020, there have been changes in Food and Drug Administration guidance and in recommendations by national organizations with a focus on kidney diseases pertaining to the choice of equations used to estimate creatinine clearance and glomerular filtration rate in patients with renal impairment. This includes a recommendation by the National Kidney Foundation to avoid the use of the Cockcroft-Gault equation for drug dosing in patients with renal impairment. This commentary provides an overview of recent recommendations concerning kidney function assessment that have important implications for drug dosing in patients with renal impairment and provides suggestions for implementing these recommendations., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Obesity is highly prevalent in hospitalized patients admitted with COVID-19. Evidence based guidelines are available for COVID-19-related therapies but dosing information specific to patients with obesity is lacking. Failure to account for the pharmacokinetic alterations that exist in this population can lead to underdosing, and treatment failure, or overdosing, resulting in an adverse effect. The objective of this manuscript is to provide clinicians with guidance for making dosing decisions for medications used in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. A detailed literature search was conducted for medications listed in evidence-based guidelines from the National Institutes of Health with an emphasis on pharmacokinetics, dosing and obesity. Retrieved manuscripts were evaluated and the following prioritization strategy was used to form the decision framework for recommendations: clinical outcome data > pharmacokinetic studies > adverse effects > physicochemical properties. Most randomized controlled studies included a substantial number of patients who were obese but few had large numbers of patients more extreme forms of obesity. Pharmacokinetic data have described alterations with volume of distribution and clearance but this variability does not appear to warrant dosing modifications. Future studies should provide more information on size descriptors and stratification of data according to obesity and body habitus., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

In this population-based study, we used the SEER database (1985-2015) to examine survival outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients followed up to the era of advanced treatments including targeted therapies. Data were extracted for patients 15 years or older with a primary diagnosis of CLL. A period analysis was performed to estimate 5- and 10-year relative survival rates for patients diagnosed during different calendar periods from 1985 to 2015. A mixture cure model was used to examine long-term survivors' proportions among patients diagnosed in 1985-2015 and for two cohorts diagnosed in 2000-2003, followed up to 2012 and 2004-2007, and followed up to 2015. Cox proportional hazard modeling was used for the two cohorts to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of death adjusted for gender and age. The 5-year and 10-year age-adjusted relative survival rate ranged between 73.7 and 89.4% and from 51.6% to "not reached," respectively, for calendar periods of 1985-1989 to 2010-2014. The long-term survivor proportions varied by age and gender from 0 to 59%. The HRs (95%CI) for the 2004-2007 cohort in comparison to the 2000-2003 cohort were 0.58 (0.43-0.78), 0.58 (0.48-0.70), 0.57 (0.49-0.0.67), 0.68 (0.54-0.85), and 0.83 (0.68-1.02) for the age categories of 45-54, 55-64, 65-74, 75-84, and ≥ 85 years, respectively. Overall, relative survival improved significantly for CLL patients diagnosed between 1985 and 2015. These improvements were markedly better following the introduction of targeted therapies., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: The risk of immune-related(ir)-hypothyroidism in older patients with advanced melanoma treated with anti-CTLA4 or anti-PD1 therapies is poorly understood, especially in the real-world setting. Research design and methods: We identified older patients (≥65 years) diagnosed with advanced melanoma between 2011-2015 and treated with anti-CTLA4 or anti-PD1 agents in the SEER-Medicare database. Applying probability-of-treatment-weighting for confounder adjustment and proportional hazards models, we estimated the risk of ir-hypothyroidism between treatment initiation and up to 90 days from last dose between anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA4 users. Results: Of 210 older patients with advanced melanoma identified, 164 received anti-CTLA4 (ipilimumab) and 46 anti-PD1 agents (11 nivolumab, 35 pembrolizumab). There was no statistically significant difference in ir-hypothyroidism risk between anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA4 users (HR=2.15, 95%CI=0.83-5.53). Pairwise medication comparisons showed a lower risk among ipilimumab versus nivolumab (HR=0.15, 95%CI=0.06-0.40) and pembrolizumab versus nivolumab users (HR=0.13, 95%CI=0.03-0.55). Sensitivity analyses using an all-stages melanoma cohort did not show a difference in ir-hypothyroidism risk between medication classes and individual medications. Conclusions: This retrospective claims data analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in ir-hypothyroidism risk between anti-CTLA4 or anti-PD1 users. However, patients with advanced melanoma treated with ipilimumab or pembrolizumab may have a lower ir-hypothyroidism risk compared to nivolumab users.

Critical drug shortages have been widely documented during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, particularly for IV sedatives used to facilitate mechanical ventilation. Surges in volume of patients requiring mechanical ventilation coupled with prolonged ventilator days and the high sedative dosing requirements observed quickly led to the depletion of "just-in-time" inventories typically maintained by institutions. This manuscript describes drug shortages in the context of global, manufacturing, regional and institutional perspectives in times of a worldwide crisis such as a pandemic. We describe etiologic factors that lead to drug shortages including issues related to supply (eg, manufacturing difficulties, supply chain breakdowns) and variables that influence demand (eg, volatile prescribing practices, anecdotal or low-level data, hoarding). In addition, we describe methods to mitigate drug shortages as well as conservation strategies for sedatives, analgesics and neuromuscular blockers that could readily be applied at the bedside. The COVID-19 pandemic has accentuated the need for a coordinated, multi-pronged approach to optimize medication availability as individual or unilateral efforts are unlikely to be successful., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Chest Physicians. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Medication product labeling was reviewed to determine if sufficient information is available to appropriately calculate dosing regimens for special intensive care unit (ICU) populations, including patients at extremes of body habitus and patients receiving hemodialysis, continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)., Methods: The labeling of the 100 most commonly used injectable medications in the adult ICUs of an academic medical center in Arizona were evaluated. Any information related to adult weight-based dosing, weight descriptors, dosing of patients at extremes of weight (body mass index of <18.5 or >40 kg/m2), and dosing of patients receiving hemodialysis, CRRT, or ECMO was extracted from Food and Drug Administration-approved product labeling. Information was ranked for dosing usefulness on a scale of 0 to 3; an information usefulness score of 2 or greater was considered minimally adequate for dosing special ICU populations., Results: Among the 100 medications evaluated, the labeling of 47 provided information on weight-based dosing, with the labeling of 30% referring to a specific weight descriptor. The labeling of 15 medications had information on dosing for patients at extremes of body habitus: underweight (3 medications), obesity (12 medications), and extreme obesity (2 medications), with the labeling of 8 medications receiving an information usefulness score of ≥2 (2, 6, and 1 medication in the respective categories). Among the 42 medications whose labeling provided hemodialysis-related dosing information, the labeled information of 52% was assigned a usefulness score of ≥2; among the 3 medications with CRRT-related dosing information, the labeling of 1 received a score of ≥2. ECMO-related dosing information was available for 2 medications, with 1 score of ≥2 assigned., Conclusion: Information in the product labeling of injectable medications commonly used in the ICU is limited and generally inadequate for calculating an appropriate dose for special ICU populations., (© American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 2020. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer include monotherapy with gemcitabine (GEM); combinations of GEM with oxaliplatin (OX + GEM), cisplatin (CIS + GEM), capecitabine (CAP + GEM), or nab-paclitaxel (NAB-P + GEM); and the non-GEM combination FOLFIRINOX. Combination therapies have yielded better survival outcomes than GEM alone. A sponsor-independent economic evaluation of these regimens has not been conducted for USA., Objective: The objective of this study was to estimate the cost utility and cost effectiveness of these regimens from the payer perspective for USA., Methods: A three-state Markov model (progression-free, progressed disease, death) simulating the total costs and health outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years; life-years) was developed to estimate the incremental cost-utility and cost-effectiveness ratios. FOLFIRINOX clinical data were obtained from trial and indirect estimates were obtained from network meta-analyses. Lifetime horizon and 3%/year discount rates were used., Results: FOLFIRINOX was the most expensive regimen and GEM the least costly regimen. Compared to GEM, all but one (CIS + GEM) regimen were found to be more effective in quality-adjusted life-years and life-years. Compared to GEM, the incremental cost-utility ratios for CAP + GEM, OX-GEM, NAB-P + GEM, and FOLFIRINOX, were US$180,503, US$197,993, US$204,833, and US$265,718 per additional quality-adjusted life-year, respectively; and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were US$88,181, US$87,620, US$135,683, and US$167,040 per additional life-year, respectively. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the base-case analysis., Conclusions: This sponsor-independent economic evaluation for USA found that OX + GEM, CAP + GEM, FOLFIRINOX, and NAB-P + GEM, but not CIS + GEM, were more expensive but also more effective than GEM alone in terms of quality-adjusted life-years and life-years gained. The NAB-P + GEM regimen appears to be the most cost effective in USA at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$200,000/quality-adjusted life-year.

Background: The transition of patients from the intensive care unit (ICU) to the ward is a complicated process and patients may be at risk of increased levels of pain., Objectives: The primary objective was to identify predictors of pain during the transition from the surgical ICU to the surgical ward. The secondary objective was to describe the patient pain experience during this transition., Methods: This was a cross-sectional study conducted at an academic medical centre in the United States. Patients who were discharged from the ICU were interviewed regarding their pain during transition from ICU to the ward using the Revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire (APS-POQ-R). The primary outcome measures were the total score of this validated instrument (0-180 points) and score of the pain severity and sleep interference subscale (0-50 points). Predictors of pain control during this 24-h transition period were identified using linear regression analysis., Results: A total of 50 patients were included. After transition from the ICU, the median score on the APS-POQ-R was 45 (Q1 29 to Q3 74), and the median score on the pain severity and sleep interference subscale was 23 (Q1 15 to Q3 30). After adjusting for sex in a multivariate model, mean pain score in the preceding 24 h of ICU stay explained 31% of the variation in total APS-POQ-R score and 39% of variation in the pain severity and sleep interference subscale. Age, sex, race, type of surgery, number of surgeries, and opioid dose in the 24-h period before transfer were not significantly associated with either outcome measure. The worst pain experienced by patients during transfer was severe (i.e. score ≥7 on 0 to 10 scale) in 90% (n = 45) of patients. For 70% (n = 35) of patients, severe pain persisted for more than 50% of the time during the transition period., Conclusion: Pain scores in the last 24 h of ICU stay is a predictor of total APS-POQ-R score and pain severity and sleep interference subscale score., (Copyright © 2018 Australian College of Critical Care Nurses Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The primary objective of this study was to compare the analgesic response to morphine in non-obese, obese and morbidly obese patients for acute pain., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in a tertiary care emergency department in the USA. Consecutive adults who received intravenous morphine 4 mg for pain were included. Patients were categorised into three groups based on body mass index (BMI): non-obese (18.5-29.9 kg/m(2)); obese (30.0-39.9 kg/m(2)); and morbidly obese (≥40 kg/m(2)). Baseline and post-dose pain scores were recorded. Pain was measured on a 0-10 numerical rating scale (0=no pain; 10=worst possible pain). Analgesic response was defined as the difference between the initial pain score and post-dose pain score., Results: 300 patients were included in the study (100 in each group). The median baseline pain scores were 8.5, 8 and 8.5 in the non-obese, obese and morbidly obese groups, respectively (p=0.464). The median analgesic response after morphine administration was 2, 3 and 2 in the non-obese, obese and morbidly obese groups, respectively (p=0.160). In the linear regression analysis (R(2)=0.006), BMI was not predictive of analgesic response (coefficient -0.020; p=0.199)., Conclusions: Obesity status did not influence analgesic response to a fixed dose of morphine. This suggests that obese and morbidly obese patients do not require a higher dose of morphine for acute pain reduction compared to non-obese patients.

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine if patients who weigh ≥100 kg are more likely to receive under-dosing of etomidate compared to those who weigh <100 kg for rapid sequence intubation in the emergency department (ED)., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in an academic ED in the United States. Adult patients who received etomidate for rapid sequence intubation were evaluated and categorized into two groups based on weight: 1) <100 kg or 2) ≥100 kg. The mean dose of etomidate (mg/kg) was compared between the groups using an unpaired Student's t-test. The percentage of patients who received under-dosing (less than 0.2 mg/kg) was compared between groups using the Chi-squared test., Results: A total of 200 patients were included in the final analyses (100 patients in the <100 kg group and 100 patients in the ≥100 kg group). There were no baseline differences in age, sex, paralytic used, or trauma status between the treatment groups. The mean etomidate dose (mg/kg ± standard deviation) was significantly lower in the ≥100 kg group compared to the <100 kg group (0.18 ± 0.03 vs. 0.28 ± 0.07, respectively; p<0.001). There were significantly more patients in the ≥100 kg group who received under-dosing of etomidate compared to the <100 kg group (68% vs. 2%, respectively; p<0.001)., Conclusions: Patients who weigh ≥100 kg are more likely to receive under-dosing of etomidate compared to those who weigh <100 kg for rapid sequence intubation in the ED.

Study Objective: The primary objective of this study is to determine the activities of pharmacists that lead to medication error interception in the emergency department (ED)., Methods: This was a prospective, multicenter cohort study conducted in 4 geographically diverse academic and community EDs in the United States. Each site had clinical pharmacy services. Pharmacists at each site recorded their medication error interceptions for 250 hours of cumulative time when present in the ED (1,000 hours total for all 4 sites). Items recorded included the activities of the pharmacist that led to medication error interception, type of orders, phase of medication use process, and type of error. Independent evaluators reviewed all medication errors. Descriptive analyses were performed for all variables., Results: A total of 16,446 patients presented to the EDs during the study, resulting in 364 confirmed medication error interceptions by pharmacists. The pharmacists' activities that led to medication error interception were as follows: involvement in consultative activities (n=187; 51.4%), review of medication orders (n=127; 34.9%), and other (n=50; 13.7%). The types of orders resulting in medication error interceptions were written or computerized orders (n=198; 54.4%), verbal orders (n=119; 32.7%), and other (n=47; 12.9%). Most medication error interceptions occurred during the prescribing phase of the medication use process (n=300; 82.4%) and the most common type of error was wrong dose (n=161; 44.2%)., Conclusion: Pharmacists' review of written or computerized medication orders accounts for only a third of medication error interceptions. Most medication error interceptions occur during consultative activities., (Copyright © 2011. Published by Mosby, Inc.)

Pain in patients who are critically ill remains undertreated despite decades of research, guideline development and distribution, and intense educational efforts. By nature of their complex medical conditions, these patients present unique challenges to the delivery of optimal pain treatment. Outdated clinical practices and faulty systems, such as a formulary that allows dangerous prescriptions, present additional obstacles. A multidisciplinary and patient-centered continuous quality improvement process is essential to identifying barriers and implementing evidence-based solutions to the problem of undertreated pain in hospital ICUs. This article addresses barriers common to the ICU setting and presents a number of structured approaches that have been shown to be successful in improving pain treatment in patients who are critically ill.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether differences in either prescribing or self-administration of morphine exist between Hispanic and White (Caucasian) post-operative patients treated with patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). A review of the medical records of 30 Hispanic and 30 White patients who received postoperative PCA was conducted. Both prescribed and self-administered morphine were analyzed using a two-sided, two-sample Student's t-test. No differences in the amount of morphine prescribed (11.23 +/- 3.22 mg/hr in Hispanic patients, 11.05 +/- 4.28 mg/hr in White patients; p = 0.8503) or self-administered (2.58 +/- 2.02 mg/hr in Hispanic patients, 3.32 +/- 3.00 mg/hr in White patients; p = 0.2711) were discovered. This study identified no statistically significant difference in either opioid prescribing or self-administration between Hispanic and White post-operative patients.

Introduction: A number of issues concerning stress ulcer prophylaxis remain unresolved despite numerous randomized, controlled trials and several meta-analyses. The role of stress ulcer prophylaxis, particularly in trauma patients, is further complicated by the lack of trials utilizing clinically important bleeding as an endpoint. Given the lack of consensus regarding stress ulcer prophylaxis in trauma patients, prescribing practices at Level I trauma centers in the United States were assessed., Materials and Methods: A survey was developed that contained questions related to institutional prescribing and evaluation of stress ulcer prophylaxis. The survey was intended to delineate these practices at the 188 Level I trauma centers (at the time of the present survey) in the United States., Results: One hundred and nineteen surveys were returned, yielding a response rate of 63%. Eighty-six percent stated that medications for stress ulcer prophylaxis are used in a vast majority of trauma patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Sixty-five percent stated that there is one preferred medication. For these institutions, histamine-2-blockers were the most popular at 71%. Thirty-nine percent stated that greater than 50% of patients remain on stress ulcer prophylaxis following discharge from the intensive care unit., Conclusion: The lack of consensus with regards to appropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis is apparent in this survey of Level I trauma centers. For those institutions with a preferred agent, histamine-2-blockers were most common.