Characterization of Interventions to Reduce the Frequency of Critical Medication Doses Missed or Delayed During Perioperative and Unit-to-unit Patient Transfers
Evan Cole, Rosemary Duncan, Traci M Grucz, Ian Watt, Mariela Cardona Gonzalez, David Sugrue, Sierra McNew
{"title":"Characterization of Interventions to Reduce the Frequency of Critical Medication Doses Missed or Delayed During Perioperative and Unit-to-unit Patient Transfers","authors":"Evan Cole, Rosemary Duncan, Traci M Grucz, Ian Watt, Mariela Cardona Gonzalez, David Sugrue, Sierra McNew","doi":"10.1177/00185787241257416","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When medication administration record (MAR) “hold” capability is enabled in the electronic health record (EHR) during patient transfers, medication doses appear as “held” rather than due. We sought to quantify the incidence of delayed and missed doses of critical medications during MAR hold periods and to implement and evaluate interdisciplinary efforts and technical interventions to reduce missed medication doses during these periods. A list of critical medications was identified. MAR data were collected in patients with at least 1 critical medication dose due during the MAR hold period. MAR times were used to determine if delayed doses or missed doses occurred. Our interventions included: (1) implementation of a patient list indicator to retrospectively identify recently “held” medication doses, and (2) a report for operating room pharmacists to prospectively identify upcoming doses and ensure they were administered on time. Pre- and post-intervention period data were compared using a chi-squared test. During the pre-intervention study period, there were 1044 instances of delayed or missed doses during MAR hold. Most MAR times evaluated were on MAR hold during perioperative patient transfers. Delayed, missed, and multiple missed doses were defined in accordance with internal medication administration policies. There was no significant difference in the incidence of delayed and missed doses (69% vs 66%, P = .31), however, there was a significant reduction in the number of critical medication doses missed multiple times (0.8% vs 6.7%, P < .001) and all missed doses (35% vs 42%, P = .05) between the pre- and post-intervention period. As demonstrated across in both the pre- and post-intervention period of our study, MAR hold is commonly associated with dose delays and missed doses, which has potential negative consequences on patient outcomes. Future considerations will include implementation of a best practice alert (BPA) that directs users to a MAR tab highlighting doses held during transfers.","PeriodicalId":507598,"journal":{"name":"Hospital Pharmacy","volume":"22 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hospital Pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00185787241257416","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
When medication administration record (MAR) “hold” capability is enabled in the electronic health record (EHR) during patient transfers, medication doses appear as “held” rather than due. We sought to quantify the incidence of delayed and missed doses of critical medications during MAR hold periods and to implement and evaluate interdisciplinary efforts and technical interventions to reduce missed medication doses during these periods. A list of critical medications was identified. MAR data were collected in patients with at least 1 critical medication dose due during the MAR hold period. MAR times were used to determine if delayed doses or missed doses occurred. Our interventions included: (1) implementation of a patient list indicator to retrospectively identify recently “held” medication doses, and (2) a report for operating room pharmacists to prospectively identify upcoming doses and ensure they were administered on time. Pre- and post-intervention period data were compared using a chi-squared test. During the pre-intervention study period, there were 1044 instances of delayed or missed doses during MAR hold. Most MAR times evaluated were on MAR hold during perioperative patient transfers. Delayed, missed, and multiple missed doses were defined in accordance with internal medication administration policies. There was no significant difference in the incidence of delayed and missed doses (69% vs 66%, P = .31), however, there was a significant reduction in the number of critical medication doses missed multiple times (0.8% vs 6.7%, P < .001) and all missed doses (35% vs 42%, P = .05) between the pre- and post-intervention period. As demonstrated across in both the pre- and post-intervention period of our study, MAR hold is commonly associated with dose delays and missed doses, which has potential negative consequences on patient outcomes. Future considerations will include implementation of a best practice alert (BPA) that directs users to a MAR tab highlighting doses held during transfers.
在病人转院期间,如果电子病历(EHR)中启用了药物管理记录(MAR)"保留 "功能,药物剂量就会显示为 "保留 "而不是到期。我们试图量化 "搁置 "期间关键药物延迟和漏服的发生率,并实施和评估跨学科努力和技术干预措施,以减少这些期间的漏服药量。确定了一份关键药物清单。收集了在 MAR 保留期间至少有一次关键药物剂量到期的患者的 MAR 数据。通过 MAR 时间来确定是否发生了延迟给药或漏给药。我们的干预措施包括(1) 实施患者名单指标,以回顾性地确定最近 "保留 "的药物剂量;(2) 为手术室药剂师提供一份报告,以前瞻性地确定即将到来的药物剂量,并确保按时给药。采用卡方检验比较了干预前和干预后的数据。在干预前的研究期间,共有 1044 例在 MAR 保持期间延迟或错过给药的情况。所评估的大多数 MAR 时间都是在围手术期病人转运期间的 MAR 保持时间。延迟、漏服和多次漏服是根据内部用药管理政策定义的。延迟和漏服剂量的发生率没有明显差异(69% vs 66%,P = .31),但在干预前和干预后,多次漏服关键药物剂量(0.8% vs 6.7%,P < .001)和全部漏服剂量(35% vs 42%,P = .05)的数量明显减少。正如我们的研究在干预前和干预后所显示的那样,MAR hold 通常与剂量延迟和漏服有关,这对患者的治疗效果有潜在的负面影响。未来的考虑因素将包括实施最佳实践提醒(BPA),引导用户访问 MAR 标签,突出显示转运期间保留的剂量。