Search

AIM: The aim of the review was to consider the relationship between delirium and aspects of sedative and analgesic drug use in mechanically ventilated intensive care patients. The basis for routine delirium screening and the implications for nurses are discussed along with a brief outline of the treatment of delirium. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT: Delirium is common in intensive care patients and like other markers of organ failure is associated with worse outcomes. The risk of developing delirium is dependent on the patients' individual vulnerability and on the burden of precipitating factors they are exposed to. Detection of delirium in intensive care patients is often difficult and requires the regular use of a validated screening tool. Intensive care patients are exposed to multiple delirium risk factors, and sedative and analgesic agents present an important subgroup, which we can attempt to control. Sedative and analgesic drug choice, their mode of administration, monitoring and titration have consequences for delirium development. METHOD: Literature review. CONCLUSIONS: Sedative and analgesic drugs have an important role in the prevention and treatment of delirium in intensive care patients. Routine delirium screening should be included as part of sedation monitoring practice. When detected, treatment is focused on the prompt correction of precipitating factors, non-pharmacological interventions and appropriate drug therapy for symptom control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient recovery after a critical illness can be protracted, requiring a care continuum that extends along a patient pathway from the critical care unit, hospital ward, and into the community care setting. High-quality care on patient transfer from critical care, including medication safety, is facilitated by education for patients and families, family engagement, support systems, and health care professional (HCP)-patient communication. Currently, uncertainty exists regarding how HCPs can and should engage with critical care patients and family members about their medication., Research Question: What are the views and experiences of critical care patients and family members about their involvement in, communication about, understanding of, and decision-making related to their medication after transfer from critical care to the hospital ward?, Study Design and Methods: This qualitative study used semistructured interviews, conducted with critical care patients and family members after transfer from critical care to a hospital ward in a large National Health Service hospital trust. Anonymized transcripts of interviews were analyzed thematically using a coding framework developed from understandings of patient and family engagement in medication administration., Results: Twenty-seven participants (15 patients and 12 family members of patients) completed the interviews. We identified five themes and 15 subthemes, providing an overview of patients' and family members' views on medication management during acute illness and ongoing recovery. Themes identified were: impact of acute illness and treatment burden on preexisting illness, preexisting knowledge and capability, beliefs about persons roles and expectations, care continuity and individualized information exchange, and engagement in practice., Interpretation: This study demonstrated that critical care patients and family members want to engage with HCPs about medication administration. HCPs must take an individualized approach to communication and timing, acknowledging the dynamic interplay between patients and family members, using multimodal forms of communication., Competing Interests: None declared., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Dr. McKenzie receives an honorarium for her role as Editor in Chief of Critical Illness (www.medicinescomplete.com), published by Pharmaceutical Press.

Background: Discontinuation of important chronic medication after hospitalisation is common. This study aimed to investigate the association between critical care (vs non-critical care) admission and discontinuation of chronic medications post-hospital discharge, along with factors associated with discontinuation among critical care survivors. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study in Lothian, Scotland of adults who were admitted to hospital between 01/01/2012 and 31/12/2019 and survived to hospital discharge. Medication classes investigated were statins, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEi/ARBs), beta-blockers, oral anticoagulants, and thyroid hormones. The risk of medication discontinuation for each class was estimated by odds ratios (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI), using multivariable logistic regression adjusted for patient demographics, main clinical condition, and index comorbidity. A secondary analysis assessed factors associated with discontinuation in critical care survivors. Results: There were 22,340 critical care and 367,185 non-critical care survivors included. Critical care admission had the highest association with ACEi/ARBs discontinuation (adjusted OR 2.41, 95%CI: 2.26-2.58), followed by oral anticoagulants (adjusted OR 1.33, 95%CI: 1.15-1.53), and beta blockers (adjusted OR 1.18, 95%CI: 1.07-1.29). There was no significant association with thyroid hormones or statin discontinuation. Among critical care survivors, hospital length of stay of 14 days or more was associated with increased discontinuation across all medication classes. Conclusion: Critical care admission was associated with discontinuation of three out of five medication classes studied (ACEi/ARBs, beta-blockers, and oral anticoagulants). Further research is needed to understand the reason for increased medication discontinuation in critical care survivors and how these risks can be mitigated to improve patient outcomes., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Intensive Care Society 2024.)

Background: Many people survive critical illness with the burden of new or worsened mental health issues and sleep disturbances. We examined the frequency of psychotropic prescribing after critical illness, comparing critical care to non-critical care hospitalised survivors, and whether this varied in important subgroups., Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 23,340 critical care and 367,185 non-critical care hospitalised adults from 2012 through 2019 in Lothian, Scotland, who survived to discharge., Results: One-third of critical care survivors (32%; 7527/23,340) received a psychotropic prescription within 90 days after hospital discharge (25% antidepressants; 14% anxiolytics/hypnotics; 4% antipsychotics/mania medicines). In contrast, 15% (54,589/367,185) of non-critical care survivors received a psychotropic prescription (12% antidepressants; 5% anxiolytics/hypnotics; 2% antipsychotics/mania medicines). Among patients without psychotropic prescriptions within 180 days prior to hospitalisation, after hospital discharge, the critical care group had a higher incidence of psychotropic prescription (10.3%; 1610/15,609) compared with the non-critical care group (3.2%; 9743/307,429); unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) 3.39, 95% CI: 3.22-3.57. After adjustment for potential confounders, the risk remained elevated (adjusted HR 2.03, 95% CI: 1.91-2.16), persisted later in follow-up (90-365 days; adjusted HR 1.38, 95% CI: 1.30-1.46), and was more pronounced in those without recorded comorbidities (adjusted HR 3.49, 95% CI: 3.22-3.78)., Conclusions: Critical care survivors have a higher risk of receiving psychotropic prescriptions than hospitalised patients, with a significant proportion receiving benzodiazepines and other hypnotics. Future research should focus on the requirement for and safety of psychotropic medicines in survivors of critical illness, to help guide policy for clinical practice., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: NL received funding from the Wellcome Trust Institutional Strategic Support Fund-3 (ISR-R1.05 19/20) for data extraction and preparation. For the remaining authors, none were declared., (© The Intensive Care Society 2024.)

Objectives: To summarise the extent and type of evidence available regarding economic evaluations of adult critical care pharmacy services in the context of UK practice., Methods: A literature search was conducted in eight electronic databases and hand searching of full-text reference lists. Of 2409 journal articles initially identified, 38 were included in the final review. Independent literature review was undertaken by two investigators in a two-step process against the inclusion and exclusion criteria; title and abstract screening were followed by full-text screening. Included studies were taken from high-income economy countries that contained economic data evaluating any key aspect of adult critical care pharmacy services. Grey literature and studies that could not be translated into the English language were excluded., Results: The majority were before-and-after studies (18, 47%) or other observational studies (17, 45%), and conducted in North America (25, 66%). None of the included studies were undertaken in the UK. Seven studies (18%) included cost-benefit analysis; all demonstrated positive cost-benefit values for clinical pharmacist activities., Conclusions: Further high-quality primary research focussing on the economic evaluation of UK adult critical care pharmacy services is needed, before undertaking a future systematic review. There is an indication of a cost-benefit value for critical care pharmacist activities. The lack of UK-based economic evaluations is a limitation to further development and standardisation of critical care pharmacy services nationally., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.)

Background: 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., Objectives: To describe UK critical care pharmacist research activity, experiences, interests and barriers to better engagement., Method: An electronic survey was developed, piloted and distributed (June to October 2021) to all critical care pharmacists via UK professional organisations., Key Findings: 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., Conclusions: 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., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: To understand the sociotechnical factors affecting medication safety when intensive care patients are transferred to a hospital ward. Consideration of these medication safety factors would provide a theoretical basis, on which future interventions can be developed and evaluated to improve patient care., Design: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews of intensive care and hospital ward-based healthcare professionals. Transcripts were anonymised prior to thematic analysis using the London Protocol and Systems Engineering in Patient Safety V.3.0 model frameworks., Setting: Four north of England National Health Service hospitals. All hospitals used electronic prescribing in intensive care and hospital ward settings., Participants: Intensive care and hospital ward healthcare professionals (intensive care medical staff, advanced practitioners, pharmacists and outreach team members; ward-based medical staff and clinical pharmacists)., Results: Twenty-two healthcare professionals were interviewed. We identified 13 factors within five broad themes, describing the interactions that most strongly influenced the performance of the intensive care to hospital ward system interface. The themes were: Complexity of process performance and interactions; Time pressures and considerations; Communication processes and challenges; Technology and systems and Beliefs about consequences for the patient and organisation., Conclusions: The complexity of the interactions on the system performance and time dependency was clear. We make several recommendations for policy change and further research based on improving: availability of hospital-wide integrated and functional electronic prescribing systems, patient flow systems, sufficient multiprofessional critical care staffing, knowledge and skills of staff, team performance, communication and collaboration and patient and family engagement., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Objectives: Admission of complex and frail patients to critical care units is common. Little is known about the relationship between clinical frailty and polypharmacy measures in critical care patients or how a critical care admission affects polypharmacy.We sought to: (1) Describe the extent and relationship between clinical frailty and polypharmacy in a cohort of older emergency general critical care patients, and to (2) Describe the effect of the critical care pathway on patient polypharmacy measures., Methods: A retrospective evaluation was undertaken in all patients ≥70 years of age, admitted as emergencies to the general critical care units of a single large UK academic hospital, over a 2-year period (March 2016 to February 2018) (n=762). Patient Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and polypharmacy measures on admission were described and association was tested. Medication changes and documentation on care transitions were analysed in a randomly selected convenience cohort of critical care survivors (n=77)., Results: On admission patients had a median of 9 (5;12) medicines, of which a median of 3 (2;5) were high-risk medicines. Polypharmacy (5-9 medicines) and hyperpolypharmacy (≥10 medicines) occurred in 80.7% (615/762) and 43.2% (329/762) of patients, respectively. A degree of frailty was the standard (median CFS 4 (3;5)) with 45.7% (348/762) CFS 4-5 and 20% (153/762) CFS ≥6. The patient median CFS increased by 1 with polypharmacy classification increments (p<0.001). In the survivor cohort, a median of 6 (4;8) and 5 (4;8) medication changes occurred on critical care and hospital discharges, respectively. A minority of patients had detailed medication continuity plans on care transitions., Conclusions: Polypharmacy and frailty were very common in this UK single-centre cohort of older emergency critical care patients. There was a significant association between the degree of polypharmacy and frailty score. The critical care pathway created extensive changes in patient medication therapy. Medication changes on care transitions often lacked detailed documentation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© European Association of Hospital Pharmacists 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Critical 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., Methods: The 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 Findings: Data 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., Conclusions: Availability 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., (© 2023. Crown.)

Background: Intensive care patients surviving to transfer to a lower-acuity hospital ward experience ongoing challenges to their recovery and lack a well-defined and developed care pathway. The transfer process to a hospital ward exposes intensive care patients to high rates of medication errors, which increase their risk of adverse drug events., Objective: The aims of this study were to identify priorities for medication-related intervention components and outcome measures for improving medication safety for intensive care patients transferring to a hospital ward., Methods: Three panels involving 129 participants covering (i) intensive care, (ii) hospital ward health-care professionals and (iii) public representatives completed an electronic Delphi survey conducted over three phases. The Delphi process comprised three sections (medication-related intervention components, medication outcomes and patient outcomes). Items were graded in their level of importance, with predefined important criteria. Item agreement required consensus across all three panels. Intervention barriers and facilitators identified in participant comments were categorized according to a socio-technical systems approach to the patient journey and patient safety (Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety 3.0 model)., Results: Of the 129 (84.5%) participants, 109 completed all three Delphi phases. Consensus was achieved for 48 intervention components, 13 medication outcome measures and 11 patient outcome measures. Phase 1 provided 158 comments comprising >200 individual barriers and facilitators to intervention delivery. Frequently cited facilitators included clearly specified roles and responsibilities (10.7% (organizational conditions)), patient and family as agents (8.8% (care team)), medicines-related information easily accessible (7.8% (tools and technologies)) and clear medication plan and communication (7.3% (tasks))., Conclusions: Our findings provide identification of priorities for medication-related intervention components to improve medication safety for intensive care patients transferring to a hospital ward. Prioritization is complemented by the identification and socio-technical categorization of barriers and facilitators to intervention delivery. The identified important medication and patient outcomes to measure will inform the design of a future patient medication safety intervention study., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Quality in Health Care.)

Background: Patients recovering from an episode in an intensive care unit (ICU) frequently experience medication errors on transition to the hospital ward. Structured handover recommendations often underestimate the challenges and complexity of ICU patient transitions. For adult ICU patients transitioning to a hospital ward, it is currently unclear what interventions reduce the risks of medication errors.The aims were to examine the impact of medication-related interventions on medication and patient outcomes on transition from adult ICU settings and identify barriers and facilitators to implementation., Methods: The systematic review protocol was preregistered on PROSPERO. Six electronic databases were searched until October 2020 for controlled and uncontrolled study designs that reported medication-related (ie, de-prescribing; medication errors) or patient-related outcomes (ie, mortality; length of stay). Risk of bias (RoB) assessment used V.2.0 and ROBINS-I Cochrane tools. Where feasible, random-effects meta-analysis was used for pooling the OR across studies. The quality of evidence was assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations., Results: Seventeen studies were eligible, 15 (88%) were uncontrolled before-after studies. The intervention components included education of staff (n=8 studies), medication review (n=7), guidelines (n=6), electronic transfer/handover tool or letter (n=4) and medicines reconciliation (n=4). Overall, pooled analysis of all interventions reduced risk of inappropriate medication continuation at ICU discharge (OR=0.45 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.63), I 2 =55%, n=9) and hospital discharge (OR=0.39 (95% CI 0.2 to 0.76), I 2 =75%, n=9). Multicomponent interventions, based on education of staff and guidelines, demonstrated no significant difference in inappropriate medication continuation at the ICU discharge point (OR 0.5 (95% CI 0.22 to 1.11), I 2 =62%, n=4), but were very effective in increasing de-prescribing outcomes on hospital discharge (OR 0.26 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.55), I 2 =67%, n=6)). Facilitators to intervention delivery included ICU clinical pharmacist availability and participation in multiprofessional ward rounds, while barriers included increased workload associated with the discharge intervention process., Conclusions: Multicomponent interventions based on education of staff and guidelines were effective at achieving almost four times more de-prescribing of inappropriate medication by the time of patient hospital discharge. Based on the findings, practice and policy recommendations are made and guidance is provided on the need for, and design of theory informed interventions in this area, including the requirement for process and economic evaluations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Aim: Postoperative delirium (POD) is associated with increased morbidity and is poorly understood. The aim of this review was to identify putative mechanisms through re-analysis of randomized trials on treatment or prevention of POD. Materials & methods: A systematic review was performed to identify systematic reviews of treatments for POD. Constituent randomized controlled trials were identified, and interventions were grouped according to hypothesized mechanisms of action. Effects were meta-analyzed by hypothesized mechanism and timing of intervention. Results: A total of 116 randomized controlled trials described 47 individual interventions for POD, with nine mechanisms identified. The largest effects were observed for postoperative inflammation reduction, and preoperative reinforcement of sleep-wake cycle. Conclusion: This approach identifies treatments focused on mechanisms of action that may be front runners for future trials and interventions.

Background: Medication errors are the most common type of medical errors critical care patients experience. Critical care units utilise a variety of resources to reduce medication errors; it is unknown which resources or combinations thereof are most effective in improving medication safety., Objectives: To obtain UK critical care pharmacist group consensus on the most important interventions/resources that reduce medication errors. To then classify units that participated in the PROTECTED UK study to investigate if there were significant differences in the reported pharmacist prescription intervention type, clinical impact and rates according to unit resource classification., Methods: An e-Delphi process (three rounds) obtained pharmacist consensus on which interventions/resources were most important in the reduction of medication errors in critical care patients. The 21 units involved in the PROTECTED UK study (multicentre study of UK critical care pharmacist medicines interventions), were categorised as high-, medium- and low-resource units based on routine delivery of the final Top 5 interventions/ resources. High and low units were compared according to type, clinical impact and rate of medication interventions reported during the PROTECTED UK study., Key Findings: Consensus on the Top 5 combined medication error reduction resources was established: advanced-level clinical pharmacist embedded in critical care being ranked most important. Pharmacists working on units with high resources made significantly more clinically significant medicines optimisations compared to those on low-resourced units (OR 3.09; P = 0.035)., Conclusions: Critical care pharmacist group consensus on the most important medication error reduction resources was established. Pharmacists working on high-resourced units made more clinically significant medicines optimisations., (© 2018 Royal Pharmaceutical Society.)

Objective: Clinical pharmacists reduce medication errors and optimize the use of medication in critically ill patients, although actual staffing level and deployment of UK pharmacists is unknown. The primary aim was to investigate the UK deployment of the clinical pharmacy workforce in critical care and compare this with published standards., Methods: An electronic data entry tool was created and distributed for UK critical care pharmacy services to record their critical care workforce deployment data., Key Findings: Data were received for 279 critical care units in 171 organizations. Clinical pharmacist input was identified for 98.6% of critical care units. The median weekday pharmacist input to critical care was 0.045 whole time equivalents per Level 3 (ICU) bed with significant interregional variation. Weekend services were sparse. Pharmacists spent 24.5% of time on the multidisciplinary team ward round, 58.5% of time on independent patient review and 17% of time on other critical care professional support activities. There is significant variation in staffing levels when services are stratified by highest level of competence of critical care pharmacist within an organization (P = 0.03), with significant differences in time spent on the multi-disciplinary ward round (P = 0.010) and on other critical care activities (P = 0.009), but not on independent patient review., Conclusions: Investment in pharmacy services is required to improve access to clinical pharmacy expertise at weekends, on MDT ward rounds and for other critical care activities., (© 2017 Royal Pharmaceutical Society.)

Objectives: To evaluate the introduction of pharmacist independent prescribing activity across three general critical care units within a single large UK teaching hospital. To identify the prescribing demographics including total of all prescriptions, number prescribed by pharmacists, reason for pharmacist prescription, range of medications prescribed, pharmacist prescribing error rate and the extent of pharmacist second 'clinical check'., Methods: Retrospective evaluation of e-prescribing across all general critical care units of a single large UK teaching hospital. All prescribing data were downloaded over a 1-month period (May to June 2016) with analysis of pharmacist prescribing activity including rate, indication, therapeutic class and error rate., Results: In total, 5374 medicines were prescribed in 193 patients during the evaluated period. Prescribing pharmacists were available on the units on 60.4% (58/96) of days, during their working hours and accounted for 576/5374 (10.7%) of medicines prescribed in 65.2% (126/193) of patients. The majority (342/576) of pharmacist prescriptions were for new medicines. Infections, central nervous system, and nutrition/blood were the top three British National Formulary (BNF) therapeutic categories, accounting for 63.4% (349/576) of all pharmacist prescriptions. The critical care pharmacist prescribing error rate was 0.18% (1/550)., Conclusions: Pharmacist independent prescribers demonstrated a high degree and wide-ranging scope of prescribing activity in general critical care patients. Pharmacists contributed a significant proportion of total prescribing, despite less than full service coverage. Prescribing activity was also safe with a very low error rate recorded., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Purpose: Clinical pharmacist (CP) interventions from the PROTECTED-UK cohort, a multi-site critical care interventions study, were further analysed to assess effects of: time on critical care, number of interventions, CP expertise and days of week, on impact of intervention and ultimately contribution to patient care., Methods: Intervention data were collected from 21 adult critical care units over 14 days. Interventions could be error, optimisation or consults, and were blind-coded to ensure consistency, prior to bivariate analysis. Pharmacy service demographics were further collated by investigator survey., Key Findings: Of the 20 758 prescriptions reviewed, 3375 interventions were made (intervention rate 16.1%). CPs spent 3.5 h per day (mean, ±SD 1.7) on direct patient care, reviewed 10.3 patients per day (±SD 4.2) and required 22.5 min (±SD 9.5) per review. Intervention rate had a moderate inverse correlation with the time the pharmacist spent on critical care (P = 0.05; r = 0.4). Optimisation rate had a strong inverse association with total number of prescriptions reviewed per day (P = 0.001; r = 0.7). A consultant CP had a moderate inverse correlation with number of errors identified (P = 0.008; r = 0.6). No correlation existed between the presence of electronic prescribing in critical care and any intervention rate. Few centres provided weekend services, although the intervention rate was significantly higher on weekends than weekdays., Conclusions: A CP is essential for safe and optimised patient medication therapy; an extended and developed pharmacy service is expected to reduce errors. CP services should be adequately staffed to enable adequate time for prescription review and maximal therapy optimisation., (© 2016 Royal Pharmaceutical Society.)

The national UK standards for critical care highlight the need for clinical pharmacists to practise at an advanced level (equivalent to Royal Pharmaceutical Society, Great Britain, Faculty Advanced Stage II (MFRPSII)) and above. Currently the UK is unable to meet the workforce capacity requirements set out in the national standards in terms of numbers of pharmacist working at advanced level and above. The aim of this study was to identify the strategies, barriers and challenges to achieving Advanced Level Practice (ALP) by learning from the experiences of advanced level critical care pharmacists within the UK. Eight participants were recruited to complete semi-structured interviews on their views and experiences of ALP. The interviews were analysed thematically and three overarching themes were identified; support, work-based learning and reflective practice. The results of this study highlight that to increase the number of MFRPSII level practitioners within critical care support for their ALP development is required. This support involves developing face-to-face access to expert critical care pharmacists within a national training programme. Additionally, chief pharmacists need to implement drivers including in house mentorship and peer review programmes and the need to align job descriptions and appraisals to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, Great Britain, Advanced Practice Framework (APF)., Competing Interests: This study forms part of a larger project being supported and funded by the UKCPA. The UKCPA had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results.

Objective: To identify between and within profession-rater reliability of clinical impact grading for common critical care prescribing error and optimisation cases. To identify representative clinical impact grades for each individual case., Design: Electronic questionnaire., Setting: 5 UK NHS Trusts., Participants: 30 Critical care healthcare professionals (doctors, pharmacists and nurses)., Intervention: Participants graded severity of clinical impact (5-point categorical scale) of 50 error and 55 optimisation cases., Main Outcome Measures: Case between and within profession-rater reliability and modal clinical impact grading., Methods: Between and within profession rater reliability analysis used linear mixed model and intraclass correlation, respectively., Results: The majority of error and optimisation cases (both 76%) had a modal clinical severity grade of moderate or higher. Error cases: doctors graded clinical impact significantly lower than pharmacists (-0.25; P < 0.001) and nurses (-0.53; P < 0.001), with nurses significantly higher than pharmacists (0.28; P < 0.001). Optimisation cases: doctors graded clinical impact significantly lower than nurses and pharmacists (-0.39 and -0.5; P < 0.001, respectively). Within profession reliability grading was excellent for pharmacists (0.88 and 0.89; P < 0.001) and doctors (0.79 and 0.83; P < 0.001) but only fair to good for nurses (0.43 and 0.74; P < 0.001), for optimisation and error cases, respectively., Conclusions: Representative clinical impact grades for over 100 common prescribing error and optimisation cases are reported for potential clinical practice and research application. The between professional variability highlights the importance of multidisciplinary perspectives in assessment of medication error and optimisation cases in clinical practice and research., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press in association with the International Society for Quality in Health Care. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com)

Objectives: Clinical pharmacist practice is well established in the safe and effective use of medicines in the critically ill patient. In the UK, independent pharmacist prescribers are generally recognised as a valuable and desirable resource. However, currently, there are only anecdotal reports of pharmacist-independent prescribing in critical care. The aim of this questionnaire was to determine the current and proposed future independent prescribing practice of UK clinical pharmacists working in adult critical care., Methods: The questionnaire was distributed electronically to UK Clinical Pharmacy Association members (closed August 2014)., Key Findings: There were 134 responses to the questionnaire (response rate at least 33%). Over a third of critical care pharmacists were practising independent prescribers in the specialty, and 70% intended to be prescribers within the next 3 years. Pharmacists with ≥5 years critical care experience (P < 0.001) or worked in a team (P = 0.005) were more likely to be practising independent prescribers. Pharmacists reported significant positives to the use of independent prescribing in critical care both in patient care and job satisfaction. Independently, prescribing was routine in: dose adjustment for multi-organ failure, change in route or formulation, correction prescribing errors, therapeutic drug monitoring and chronic medication. The majority of pharmacist prescribers reported they spent ≤5% of their clinical time prescribing and accounted for ≤5% of new prescriptions in critical care patients., Conclusions: Most critical care pharmacists intend to be practising as independent prescribers within the next 3 years. The extent and scope of critical care pharmacist prescribing appear to be of relatively low volume and within niche prescribing areas., (© 2015 Royal Pharmaceutical Society.)

In recent years a number of countries have extended prescribing rights to pharmacists in a variety of formats. The latter includes independent prescribing, which is a developing area of practice for pharmacists in secondary care. Potential opportunities presented by wide scale implementation of pharmacist prescribing in secondary care include improved prescribing safety, more efficient pharmacist medication reviews, increased scope of practice with greater pharmacist integration into acute patient care pathways and enhanced professional or job satisfaction. However, notable challenges remain and these need to be acknowledged and addressed if a pharmacist prescribing is to develop sufficiently within developing healthcare systems. These barriers can be broadly categorised as lack of support (financial and time resources), medical staff acceptance and the pharmacy profession itself (adoption, implementation strategy, research resources, second pharmacist clinical check). Larger multicentre studies that investigate the contribution of hospital-based pharmacist prescribers to medicines optimisation and patient-related outcomes are still needed. Furthermore, a strategic approach from the pharmacy profession and leadership is required to ensure that pharmacist prescribers are fully integrated into future healthcare service and workforce strategies.

National UK standards for critical care highlight the need for clinical pharmacists to practice at an advanced level and above. The aim of this research paper was to describe the views of UK critical care pharmacists on the current provision of Advanced Level Practice (ALP) education and accreditation. It sought to identify whether there is a need for a national or regional training programme. A questionnaire was delivered electronically targeting UK critical care pharmacists. Whilst the response rate was low at 40% (166/411); the views expressed were representative of UK practitioners with the majority of responders meeting the national specifications for clinical pharmacist staffing in critical care areas. The responses highlighted work-based learning as the main resource for developing ALP and a lack of suitable training packages. The vast majority of pharmacists identified that a national or regional training programme was required for ALP. The results also identified the main barriers to undertaking ALP accreditation were lack of time, uncertainty regarding the process and its professional benefits and a lack of education and training opportunities. In conclusion, the responses clearly indicated that, for the necessary progression of critical care pharmacists to ALP, a national or regional training programme is required.

Purpose: The purpose was to describe clinical pharmacist interventions across a range of critical care units (CCUs) throughout the United Kingdom, to identify CCU medication error rate and prescription optimization, and to identify the type and impact of each intervention in the prevention of harm and improvement of patient therapy., Materials and Methods: A prospective observational study was undertaken in 21 UK CCUs from November 5 to 18, 2012. A data collection web portal was designed where the specialist critical care pharmacist reported all interventions at their site. Each intervention was classified as medication error, optimization, or consult. In addition, a clinical impact scale was used to code the interventions. Interventions were scored as low impact, moderate impact, high impact, and life saving. The final coding was moderated by blinded independent multidisciplinary trialists., Results: A total of 20517 prescriptions were reviewed with 3294 interventions recorded during the weekdays. This resulted in an overall intervention rate of 16.1%: 6.8% were classified as medication errors, 8.3% optimizations, and 1.0% consults. The interventions were classified as low impact (34.0%), moderate impact (46.7%), and high impact (19.3%); and 1 case was life saving. Almost three quarters of interventions were to optimize the effectiveness of and improve safety of pharmacotherapy., Conclusions: This observational study demonstrated that both medication error resolution and pharmacist-led optimization rates were substantial. Almost 1 in 6 prescriptions required an intervention from the clinical pharmacist. The error rate was slightly lower than an earlier UK prescribing error study (EQUIP). Two thirds of the interventions were of moderate to high impact., (Crown Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Clinical pharmacists working in critical-care areas have a beneficial effect on a range of medication-related therapies including improving medication safety, patient outcomes and reducing medicines' expenditure. However, there remains a lack of data on specific factors that affect the reason for and type of interventions made by clinical pharmacists, such as unit speciality., Objective: To compare the type of proactive medicines-related interventions made by clinical pharmacists on different critical-care units within the same institution., Methods: A retrospective evaluation of proactive clinical pharmacist recommendations, made in three separate critical-care areas. Intervention data were analysed over 18 months (general units) and 2 weeks for the cardiac and neurological units. Assessment of potential patient harm related to the medication interventions were made in the neurological and cardiac units., Key Findings: Overall, 5623, 211 and 156 proactive recommendations were made; on average 2.2, 3.8 and 4.6 per patient from the general, neurological and cardiac units respectively. The recommendations acceptance rate by medical staff was approximately 90% for each unit. The median potential severity of patient harm averted by the interventions were 3.6 (3; 4.2) and 4 (3.2; 4.4) for the neurological and cardiac units (P = 0.059). The reasons for, types and drug classification of the medication recommendations demonstrated some significant differences between the units., Conclusions: Clinical pharmacists with critical-care training make important medication recommendations across general and specialist critical-care units. The patient case mix and admitting speciality have some bearing on the types of medication interventions made. Moreover, severity of patient illness, scope of regular/routine specialist pharmacist service and support systems provided also probably affect the reason for these interventions., (© 2013 Royal Pharmaceutical Society.)

Quality sleep is a problem for the critically ill who are cared for in an environment where interventions night and day are common, staff members are constantly present in relatively high numbers, and treatment is accompanied by a range of changing warning tones and alarms and lights. These critical care units are generally designed without a focus on patient comfort, sleep, and rest and often lack access to appropriate natural daylight. To add to this problem, critical illness, particularly sepsis, disrupts circadian rhythms and sleep patterns, and disruption of circadian rhythms, in turn, impairs immunity and contributes to delirium. In a randomized controlled trial in the previous issue of Critical Care, Van Rompaey and colleagues have intervened to reduce noise, which is a key factor in this disruption, by having patients use earplugs at night. Delirium was assessed by using the NEECHAM (Neelon and Champagne) confusion scale, and sleep perception was assessed by patients' responses to a set of five questions. After the first night, patients reported a better sleep perception and the occurrence of delirium was reduced (hazard ratio of 0.47 for the development of delirium) or was delayed. The study did not quantify adequacy of pain control in post-surgical patients and used patient reporting to assess sleep. Whether patients were receiving respiratory or other organ support was not reported. The potential benefit of earplugs is an important practical finding that could be implemented in most intensive care units.

Background: Specific data on the actual clinical practice of United Kingdom pharmacists in Critical Care are limited. Within the general critical care units of Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, clinical pharmacists have the facility to electronically document, communicate and follow-up proactive recommendations using a Pharmacy Review Form via the Clinical Information System, MetaVision(®)., Objective: The objective of the service evaluation was to describe the acceptance rate by medical staff of pharmacist proactive medication recommendations; including data on the types of recommendations and reasons thereof, for general intensive care patients of a UK teaching hospital trust., Setting: Sheffield Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust with 20 intensive care beds located on two hospital sites admitting Level 3 and 2 mixed general medical, surgical, trauma, burns and haematology/ oncology patients., Method: Retrospective analysis of pharmacist proactive recommendations recorded electronically from January 2009 to July 2011 in general intensive care unit patients. Main outcome 5,623 electronic medication recommendations were documented, providing an average of 2.2 proactive recommendations per patient admitted to intensive care from January 2009 to July 2011. 5,101 (90.7%) of the recommendations were accepted and acted upon by medical staff., Results: The most common recommendations were Add Drug 1,862 (28.2%); Dose Review 1,707 (25.8%); Discontinue Drug 1,185 (17.9%); Alternative Drug 903 (13.7%); Alternative Route 770 (11.7%). The most common reasons for the proactive medication recommendations were related to changes in gastrointestinal absorption 951 (15.6%); compliance with medication guidelines 857 (14.1%); sedation/delirium/agitation management 764 (12.6%); dose adjustment for renal dysfunction or continuous renal replacement therapies 756 (12.4%); and medication reconciliation 612 (10.1%). The majority of medication recommendations involved drugs in Gastrointestinal, Central Nervous System, Cardiovascular, Infection, Nutrition and Blood classes (British National Formulary)., Conclusion: There was a high acceptance rate for proactive medication-related recommendations made by critical care pharmacists via the electronic review form. The majority of pharmacist recommendations were related to adding or refining currently prescribed medication. Ten percent of recommendations related to medication reconciliation of patients' pre-admission medication.

Objective: To identify the input of specialist critical care pharmacists into patient care, promoting safe and effective medication therapy by quantifying medicines related interventions on a Neurocritical Care Unit. Setting UK 19-bedded Neurocritical Care Unit providing a tertiary referral service for Neurosurgical and Neurology patients., Method: Prospective observational study of clinical pharmacist interventions conducted over a 2 week period in July 2010. Interventions were recorded, categorised and independently assessed by a panel of 5 healthcare professionals for potential patient harm if the intervention had not been made., Main Outcome Measure: Quantity and potential severity of clinical pharmacist interventions recorded., Results: 246 interventions were made in 55 patients over the 10 day observational period. A median of 7.0 (1.5; 12.0) and 2.0 (1.0; 4.0) interventions were made in Level 3 and 2 patients respectively. Mean potential severity of patient harm per intervention was 3.7 (1.12); range 0.8-7.0. Central Nervous System medicines comprised the most common therapeutic group affected (37.8%). Medication errors accounted for 87 of the 246 interventions (35.4%)., Conclusion: The results of the clinical pharmacist intervention evaluation demonstrated an important role for critical care pharmacists in the safe and effective use of medicines in a UK Neurocritical care unit.

Objective: The aim of this review was to summarize and critically evaluate the current literature regarding the safety and efficacy of drug therapy in delirium. We also identified recent research developments and highlighted some ongoing clinical trials to explore future directions in drug treatment and prevention of delirium., Methods: We conducted a literature search of Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, and Cochrane Review databases, which included both prospective and retrospective clinical trials and case studies on delirium and drug therapy in adult patients up to March 2008. Abstracts from recent topical conferences were also reviewed. Ongoing delirium drug studies were identified via the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal, accessed March 12, 2008., Results: The evidence base for effective drug treatment of delirium is restricted by limitations in many of the studies conducted to date. However, there has been an increase in the quantity and quality of delirium drug studies in recent years; preliminary reports and ongoing studies add to this trend. Although efficacy rates between typical and atypical antipsychotic agents are similar, the latter are associated with fewer extrapyramidal side effects. Prophylactic interventions with antipsychotic and cholinesterase inhibitors in high-risk patients provide an opportunity to improve postoperative patient care. Alternative techniques and medication opportunities could be explored in attempts to minimize drug induced delirium potential., Conclusions: Appropriate drug therapy should be considered part of systematic approaches to delirium treatment and prevention. There is a need for well-designed randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trials investigating the drug management of various aspects of delirium, including delineating treatment by delirium subtype, dose ranging studies, and optimal duration of therapy.

Introduction: Sleep disturbances are common in critically ill patients and when sleep does occur it traverses the day-night periods. The reduction in plasma melatonin levels and loss of circadian rhythm observed in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation may contribute to this irregular sleep-wake pattern. We sought to evaluate the effect of exogenous melatonin on nocturnal sleep quantity in these patients and, furthermore, to describe the kinetics of melatonin after oral administration in this patient population, thereby guiding future dosing schedules., Methods: We conducted a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial in 24 patients who had undergone a tracheostomy to aid weaning from mechanical ventilation. Oral melatonin 10 mg or placebo was administered at 9 p.m. for four nights. Nocturnal sleep was monitored using the bispectral index (BIS) and was expressed in terms of sleep efficiency index (SEI) and area under the curve (AUC). Secondary endpoints were SEI measured by actigraphy and nurse and patient assessments. Plasma melatonin concentrations were measured in nine patients in the melatonin group on the first night., Results: Nocturnal sleep time was 2.5 hours in the placebo group (mean SEI = 0.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17 to 0.36). Melatonin use was associated with a 1-hour increase in nocturnal sleep (SEI difference = 0.12, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.27; P = 0.09) and a decrease in BIS AUC indicating 'better' sleep (AUC difference = -54.23, 95% CI -104.47 to -3.98; P = 0.04). Results from the additional sleep measurement methods were inconclusive. Melatonin appeared to be rapidly absorbed from the oral solution, producing higher plasma concentrations relative to similar doses reported in healthy individuals. Plasma concentrations declined biexponentially, but morning (8 a.m.) plasma levels remained supraphysiological., Conclusion: In our patients, nocturnal sleep quantity was severely compromised and melatonin use was associated with increased nocturnal sleep efficiency. Although these promising findings need to be confirmed by a larger randomised clinical trial, they do suggest a possible future role for melatonin in the routine care of critically ill patients. Our pharmacokinetic analysis suggests that the 10-mg dose used in this study is too high in these patients and may lead to carryover of effects into the next morning. Reduced doses of 1 to 2 mg could be used in future studies., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47578325.

Unlabelled: Sleep disturbances are common in critically ill patients and have been characterised by numerous studies using polysomnography. Issues regarding patient populations, monitoring duration and timing (nocturnal versus continuous), as well as practical problems encountered in critical care studies using polysomnography are considered with regard to future interventional studies on sleep. Polysomnography is the gold standard in objectively measuring the quality and quantity of sleep. However, it is difficult to undertake, particularly in patients recovering from critical illness in an acute-care area. Therefore, other objective (actigraphy and bispectral index) and subjective (nurse or patient assessment) methods have been used in other critical care studies. Each of these techniques has its own particular advantages and disadvantages. We use data from an interventional study to compare agreement between four of these alternative techniques in the measurement of nocturnal sleep quantity. Recommendations for further developments in sleep monitoring techniques for research and clinical application are made. Also, methodological problems in studies validating various sleep measurement techniques are explored., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47578325.

There is increasing interest in the hormone melatonin in postoperative and critically ill patients. The roles of melatonin in the regulation of the sleep-wake cycle, resetting of circadian rhythm disturbances and its extensive antioxidant activity have potential applications in these patient groups. The interaction between melatonin and the stresses of surgery and critical illness are explored in the context of circadian rhythms, sleep disorders and delirium. The antioxidant activity is discussed in terms of the reduction of ischaemic reperfusion injury, prevention of multi-organ failure and treatment of sepsis. Unfortunately, there is currently insufficient evidence that exogenous melatonin is effective in preventing or treating postoperative delirium. Similarly, in the critically ill patient, sleep disorders are associated with disrupted melatonin circadian secretion, but there is a paucity of data to support routine exogenous melatonin supplementation. More clinical evidence to confirm the potential benefits of melatonin therapy is required before it can be routinely used in the postoperative or critically ill patient.

Background: A standardized top-down costing method is not currently available internationally. An internally validated method developed in the UK was modified for use in critical care in different countries. Costs could then be compared using the World Health Organization's Purchasing Power Parities (WHO PPPs)., Methods: This was an observational, retrospective, cross-sectional, multicentre study set in four European countries: France, UK, Germany and Hungary. A total of 329 adult intensive care units (ICUs) participated in the study., Results: The costs are reported in international dollars ($) derived from the WHO PPP programme. The results show significant differences in resource use and costs of ICUs over the four countries. On the basis of the sum of the means for the major components, the average cost per patient day in UK hospitals was $1512, in French hospitals $934, in German hospitals $726 and in Hungarian hospitals $280., Conclusions: The reasons for such differences are poorly understood but warrant further investigation. This information will allow us to better adjust our measures of international ICU costs.

Sleep disturbances are common in critically ill patients and contribute to morbidity. Environmental factors, patient care activities and acute illness are all potential causes of disrupted sleep. Additionally, it is important to consider drug therapy as a contributing factor to this adverse experience, which patients perceive as particularly stressful. Sedative and analgesic combinations used to facilitate mechanical ventilation are among the most sleep disruptive drugs. Cardiovascular, gastric protection, anti-asthma, anti-infective, antidepressant and anticonvulsant drugs have also been reported to cause a variety of sleep disorders. Withdrawal reactions to prescribed and occasionally recreational drugs should also be considered as possible triggers for sleep disruption. Tricyclic antidepressants and benzodiazepines are commonly prescribed in the treatment of sleep disorders, but have problems with decreasing slow wave and rapid eye movement sleep phases. Newer non-benzodiazepine hypnotics offer little practical advantage. Melatonin and atypical antipsychotics require further investigation before their routine use can be recommended.

Drug acquisition costs are only a proportion of the total costs associated with drug therapy. The relevance of these costs are often not appreciated. However, they impact on the Intensive Care Unit via resources and quality of care. Increased indirect care by medical and nursing staff has the potential to adversely affect patient outcome. Redirecting staff to their primary role and reducing indirect patient activities will increase quality and allow more patients to be treated. Costs and resources are increasingly important in health care provision.

Recently, there has been renewed interest in corticosteroid therapy for patients with septic shock. The cortisol response to a tetracosactide stimulation test, otherwise known as a short synacthen test, may identify which patients are most likely to benefit from corticosteroid replacement. Controversy over interpretation of the cortisol response and the correct tetracosactide dose remains. We retrospectively analysed all septic shock patients who had full cortisol results following a 1- micro g short synacthen test. All cortisol results were re-evaluated by three common ways of interpreting the cortisol response to a short synacthen test. The thresholds were a cortisol rise >/= 250 nmol x l(-1), a peak cortisol >/= 550 nmol x l(-1) and a peak cortisol >/= 700 nmol x l(-1). We found a significant relationship between the peak cortisol results and haemodynamic improvement in patients given corticosteroids. There was no association between a cortisol rise >/= 250 nmol x l(-1) and haemodynamic improvement after corticosteroids. A postal questionnaire was sent to adult intensive care units in the United Kingdom to assess national practice. Sixty per cent of intensive care units use corticosteroids in septic shock patients, but only 22% use a short synacthen test to guide therapy.