The February 2011 issue of Annals of Emergency Medicine has an article that reveals that patients that come through the emergency department (ED) secondary to an adverse drug event (ADE) “had a higher risk of spending additional days in the hospital per month and higher rate of outpatient health care encounters. The adjusted median monthly cost of care was 1.90 times higher (Can $325 versus $96; 95% CI 1.18 to 3.08).” In other words people that suffer and ADE create a burden on the healthcare system.

The study was conducted in Canada, which by itself holds little significance. But I would wager a guess that most patients in Canada receive their prescriptions from a single primary care physician while patients in the US receive their medications from multiple physicians at the same time, i.e. patients in the US probably have a greater potential for ADEs.

Medication reconciliation across the healthcare continuum is probably the best weapon we have in the fight against ADEs in the outpatient setting. And who can better manage a patient’s medication reconciliation than pharmacists? Uh, no one. Getting a pharmacist involved sounds like a good investment to me.

 

Hohl CM, Nosyk B, Kuramoto L, et al. Outcomes of Emergency Department Patients Presenting With Adverse Drug Events. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2011

 

I’ve worked in several acute care hospitals during my career, from the small one horse operation that did little more than care for minor inconveniences, to larger, multi-pharmacy facilities that handled everything from pneumonia to severe trauma. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere on this blog each one of those pharmacies offered a slightly different way of doing things. Granted, some were variations on a similar approach, but they were all different.

However, one trend I’ve discovered across the range of facilities is that the smaller the hospital, the less automation and technology the pharmacy has. Why? It’s quite simple. Automation and technology is expensive. It’s also time consuming to plan for, implement and maintain. Of course another argument is that smaller hospitals - and therefore smaller pharmacies – need fewer technological advances. That doesn’t make much sense to me. I agree that a small 50 bed hospital pharmacy may not need a giant robot to fill their med carts, but they can certainly benefit from clinical decision support, pharmacy surveillance software, bar code medication administration (BCMA), computerized provider order entry (CPOE), automated dispensing cabinets (ADCs), smartpumps, mobile devices, so on and so forth. The problem is that much of this technology is expensive and takes a sizable chunk out of smaller budgets.
Continue reading »

 

Sound-Alike, Look-Alike Drugs (SALAD) have recently floated to the top of my attention with the release of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) recommended list of Tall Man Letters for look-alike drugs. I mentioned the new list on Twitter which resulted in a short, but interesting conversation with some colleagues.

SALADs have been problematic for quite some time and many solutions have been proposed, including Tall Man Lettering, physical separation of look-alike drugs, printing of both brand and generic names on packaging and storage bins, use of colorful warning labels, and so on and so forth. The problem with all these solutions is human involvement. Working in acute care pharmacy has taught me over and over again that all the above systems may decrease error, but certainly don’t eliminate them.
Continue reading »

 

The National Drug Code, or NDC number as it’s affectionately called in pharmacy, is a set of numbers used to uniquely identify “human drugs and biologicals“. Every pharmacist is familiar with the NDC number, but if you’re not it’s basically a  unique number assigned to each package of medication. It’s an 11 digit number in a 3-segment format, i.e. XXXXX-XXXX-XX.

The first segment consists of five digits and indicates the manufacturer of the drug. The second segment is four digits used to identify the medication and strength. And the final segment of two digits represents the package size.
Continue reading »

 

I was reading through the most recent issue of the ISMP Medication Safety Alert! and came across an incident where a CLINIMIX E solution was infused on a patient prior to being mixed, resulting in the patient receiving a concentrated dose of amino acids and electrolytes. Fortunately no harm was done.

CLINIMIX E is a dual chamber parenteral nutrition (PN) product consisting of two chambers separated by a seal. One chamber contains dextrose and calcium and the other chamber amino acids along with electrolytes. Simply bust the seal, mix the contents with some gentle agitation and hang it on the patient. Nothing could be easier. I loved these types of products when I used to work in the IV room. They don’t fit the bill for all patients, but when they do it sure makes life in the pharmacy simpler. Otherwise you have to make the PN from scratch which can be time consuming.

In the incident described in the ISMP article the CLINIMIX E bag was retrieved from the pharmacy after hours by nursing staff. This type of procedure is common in hospitals that don’t have a 24 hour pharmacy, i.e. small acute care hospitals. I think this type of system is dangerous, and certainly contributed to the mistake, but that’s not what stands out about this error.

The two things that really irritate me about this error are the physician’s directions and the nurses retrieving and starting a PN in the middle of the night. First and foremost, PN is never a life or death medication. Take a look at the ASPEN guidelines if you don’t believe me. PN is something that should only be used after serious consideration, and in a patient that has been NPO for several days. PN should never be used to adjust a patient’s electrolytes, temporarily augment a patients diet when they can eat solid food or to “stimulate appetite”. In this case if the patient needed PN it could have easily waited until morning. And second, the physician in this case wrote for the CLINIMIX E to be given “’if the patient does not eat at least 50% of breakfast.” For those of you that think this order is ok, raise your hand. Now everyone look around and find the people that raised their hands. Make a mental note to never allow them to treat you for anything serious. Again, PN is serious business and not something that should be started based on an “if, then” statement. Either start it or don’t, but don’t write orders for PN that may be interpreted more than one way depending on who’s looking at it.

Errors occur too frequently in hospitals now, we certainly don’t need to make committing them any easier.

 

It looks like MedKeeper is making a play in the therapeutic monitoring market by acquiring DoseResponse, a web-based outpatient anticoagulation management system from Keystone Therapeutics. The press release can be found here.

Outpatient anticoagulation therapy, i.e. warfarin management, became a big deal when JCAHO made it one of their national patient safety goals a few years back. I’m specifically referring to National Patient Safety Goal 3E: Reducing Harm from Anticoagulation Therapy. If you feel like giving yourself a headache you can read through the entire Abulatory Health Care National Patient Safety Goals (PDF). I wouldn’t recommend it.
Continue reading »

 

Recently I’ve heard of hospitals having problems with barcodes on pre-mixed IV bags. The problem isn’t related to the legibility or quality of the barcodes, but rather the location and/or the information contained within the barcode itself.
Continue reading »

 

Smartpumps are anything but smart. They provide an extra layer of safety to intravenously administered medications to be sure, but they can only do what we tell them. We build the “drug dictionaries” against which all infusions are measured and we ask those administering the medications to abide by the rules associated with programming and using the pumps. Unfortunately that leaves a lot of room for human error and outright flagrant disregard for processes and procedures. I digress, that’s a different post altogether.

Assuming that the provider responsible for setting up the pump follows the rules, and that the medication is correctly prepared by the pharmacy, then we may assume that the smartpump certainly has the potential to prevent errors that may have otherwise been missed. There are plenty of anecdotal reports out there from hospitals where smartpumps have prevented some pretty significant dosage errors associated with opioids and insulin. Not all these errors would have resulted in patient harm, but it’s eye-opening nonetheless.
Continue reading »

 

August 12, 2010 issue of the ISMO Medication Safety Alert the issue of : “We have received a number of reports about the labeling of Xactdose unit dose liquid containers from VistaPharm, Inc., of Birmingham, AL. The company recently changed the way the drug concentrations are expressed on their labels. An example is phenytoin oral suspension which went from emphasizing 100 mg/4 mL to listing 125 mg/5 mL. The company rightly notes that the 125 mg/5 mL container delivers 100 mg or 4 mL (due to the heavy liquid consistency of phenytoin suspension), but the message doesn’t necessarily translate to nurses who are confused by the new label and need to give an exact dose. The good news is, we learned last week that VistaPharm is returning to the old style label. That will no doubt lead to less confusion, but nurses should also know not to rinse the residual suspension from the cup. Doing so would approximate as much as a 25% overdose. The company said they expect to release products with revised labeling by the end of the month.”
Continue reading »

 

The June 17, 2010 issue of ISMP Medication Safety Alert I received has an interesting article on the unintended negative consequences of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) regulation requiring medications to be administered within 30 minutes of their scheduled dosing time. I’m sure that the CMS 30-minute rule was created with good intentions in mind, but in reality it creates a lot of anxiety and bad habits. According to the ISMP article, the CMS 30-minute rule “may be causing unintended consequences that adversely affect medication safety. While following the 30-minute rule may be important to hospitals, many nurses find it difficult to administer medications to all their assigned patients within the 30-minute timeframe. This sometimes causes nurses to drift into … unsafe work habits.” Those unsafe work habits include removing meds from automated dispensing cabinets (ADC) for multiple patients at once, removing meds ahead of time, falsifying documentation to meet the 30-minute rule and preparing doses ahead of time; all dangerous practices.
Continue reading »

© 2012 Jerry Fahrni Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha