Ambulatory Medication Safety: Vaccination and Laboratory Screening for Patients on Immunomodulatory Therapies

Background: Immunomodulatory therapies improve the management of chronic diseases but can be associated with infectious risk. We examined the laboratory screening practices for Hepatitis B (HBV), Hepatitis C (HCV), and tuberculosis (TB) and rates of vaccination for pneumococcal and influenza in patients prescribed select immunosuppressive agents at our institution. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted to review patients who were prescribed a select immunosuppressive over three years. Data were extracted from electronic health records to identify rates of screening and vaccination prior initiation to or at any time. Logistic regression models were developed to identify predictors of screening and vaccination. Results: We identified 2,396 patients prescribed immunosuppressive medications by rheumatology (52.6%) and non-rheumatology specialties. Rates of screening at any time point were 84.5% (2025/2396) for HBV, 76.7% (1838/2396) for HCV and 71.8% (1720/2396) for TB. Patients who had either in-system primary care providers (PCPs) or rheumatologists were more likely to receive pneumococcal vaccinations (OR= 1.98, 95% CI [1.55, 2.54]; OR= 4.08, 95% [CI 2.76, 6.02] respectively). Patients with dermatologic (OR=1.67, 95% CI [1.14, 2.45]) or rheumatologic providers (OR=2.5, 95% CI [1.86, 3.36]) were more likely to be vaccinated for influenza. Conclusions: More than 70% of patients were screened for either HBV, HCV or TB at some point. Rates of pneumococcal vaccination were better than rates of influenza vaccination. Patients with in- system PCPs were more likely to be screened and vaccinated. Establishing and executing consistent processes for screening and vaccination prior to immunosuppressive treatment remains a priority in ambulatory settings

Abdominal Cross-sectional Imaging for Inpatients With Abnormal Liver Function Test Results

Background: Abdominal cross-sectional imaging is often performed to evaluate abnormal liver function test (LFT) results in hospitalized patients. However, few data are available regarding the yield and usefulness of imaging inpatients for the indication of abnormal LFT results, the process of requesting abdominal imaging studies, or the response to their findings. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed abdominal imaging scans that were obtained during a 27-month period. We matched the imaging studies done with the indication of abnormal LFT results; all scans were requested using computerized physician order entry. Reports were coded for interpretation and associated process step results. To determine the usefulness of the imaging studies, a random sample of patient charts with positively coded imaging studies were reviewed. Imaging examinations were considered useful if they provided new diagnostic information and/or changed subsequent patient care. Results: Of 6494 abdominal imaging studies, 856 were performed for the indication of abnormal LFT results and matched to both image reports and laboratory results. Report coding judged 37% of interpretations as clinically significant, including 27% with "positive" (abnormal results and explain the abnormal LFT results) examinations. Among the positive examinations, the most common diagnoses were biliary obstruction (25%), cholecystitis (21%), malignancy (20%), and cirrhosis (14%). Positively coded reports provided new clinical information in 63% of these studies and changed patient care in 42% of cases. Process measures assessed provision of additional information to and from radiologists (69% and 8%, respectively) and the frequency with which the findings of current abdominal imaging studies were compared with those of prior studies (59%). Conclusion: Abdominal cross-sectional imaging studies performed on inpatients with abnormal LFT results had a high diagnostic yield and frequently changed patient care

Electronically Screening Discharge Summaries for Adverse Medical Events

Objective: Detecting adverse events is pivotal for measuring and improving medical safety, yet current techniques discourage routine screening. The authors hypothesized that discharge summaries would include information on adverse events, and they developed and evaluated an electronic method for screening medical discharge summaries for adverse events. Design: A cohort study including 424 randomly selected admissions to the medical services of an academic medical center was conducted between January and July 2000. The authors developed a computerized screening tool that searched free-text discharge summaries for trigger words representing possible adverse events. Measurements: All discharge summaries with a trigger word present underwent chart review by two independent physician reviewers. The presence of adverse events was assessed using structured implicit judgment. A random sample of discharge summaries without trigger words also was reviewed. Results: Fifty-nine percent (251 of 424) of the discharge summaries contained trigger words. Based on discharge summary review, 44.8% (327 of 730) of the alerted trigger words indicated a possible adverse event. After medical record review, the tool detected 131 adverse events. The sensitivity and specificity of the screening tool were 69% and 48%, respectively. The positive predictive value of the tool was 52%. Conclusion: Medical discharge summaries contain information regarding adverse events. Electronic screening of discharge summaries for adverse events using keyword searches is feasible but thus far has poor specificity. Nonetheless, computerized clinical narrative screening methods could potentially offer researchers and quality managers a means to routinely detect adverse events

Evaluation of ‘Definite’ anaphylaxis drug allergy alert overrides in inpatient and outpatient settings

NTRODUCTION: Drug-allergy interaction (DAI) alerts are generated when a known adverse sensitivity-inducing substance is prescribed. A recent study at our institution showed that providers overrode most DAI alerts, including those that warned against potentially life-threatening 'anaphylaxis'. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the rate of anaphylaxis overrides, the reasons for these overrides, whether the overrides were appropriate, and if harm occurred from overrides. METHODS: All DAI alerts, with a reaction of 'anaphylaxis', were analysed for inpatients and outpatients within our health system between January 2009 and December 2011. Only alerts that were triggered by 'definite' alerts (i.e. same ordered medication as documented allergen) were included. Patient charts were reviewed to assess the appropriateness of overrides and potential harm, according to a predetermined set of criteria. RESULTS: A total of 202 inpatient and 16 outpatient alerts met the inclusion criteria. The rate of overrides for 'definite' anaphylaxis DAI alerts was high (inpatient: n = 93, 46.0%; outpatient: n = 11, 68.8%) but appropriate for most overrides in the inpatient (n = 78, 83.9%) and outpatient settings (n = 11, 100%). The most common override reasons in the inpatient and outpatient settings were 'administer per desensitization protocol' (n = 64, 31.7%) and 'patient does not have this allergy' (n = 7, 63.6%), respectively. No harm was associated with overrides in either setting, particularly because many medications were not administered. CONCLUSIONS: Overrides of 'definite' anaphylaxis DAI alerts were common and often appropriate. Most overrides were due to desensitizations. Allergy reconciliation for patients could further improve critical decision support

The frequency of inappropriate nonformulary medication alert overrides in the inpatient setting

BACKGROUND: Experts suggest that formulary alerts at the time of medication order entry are the most effective form of clinical decision support to automate formulary management. OBJECTIVE: Our objectives were to quantify the frequency of inappropriate nonformulary medication (NFM) alert overrides in the inpatient setting and provide insight on how the design of formulary alerts could be improved. METHODS: Alert overrides of the top 11 (n = 206) most-utilized and highest-costing NFMs, from January 1 to December 31, 2012, were randomly selected for appropriateness evaluation. Using an empirically developed appropriateness algorithm, appropriateness of NFM alert overrides was assessed by 2 pharmacists via chart review. Appropriateness agreement of overrides was assessed with a Cohen's kappa. We also assessed which types of NFMs were most likely to be inappropriately overridden, the override reasons that were disproportionately provided in the inappropriate overrides, and the specific reasons the overrides were considered inappropriate. RESULTS: Approximately 17.2% (n = 35.4/206) of NFM alerts were inappropriately overridden. Non-oral NFM alerts were more likely to be inappropriately overridden compared to orals. Alerts overridden with "blank" reasons were more likely to be inappropriate. The failure to first try a formulary alternative was the most common reason for alerts being overridden inappropriately. CONCLUSION: Approximately 1 in 5 NFM alert overrides are overridden inappropriately. Future research should evaluate the impact of mandating a valid override reason and adding a list of formulary alternatives to each NFM alert; we speculate these NFM alert features may decrease the frequency of inappropriate overrides