Design of MARQUIS2: study protocol for a mentored implementation study of an evidence-based toolkit to improve patient safety through medication reconciliation.

BackgroundThe first Multi-center Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study (MARQUIS1) demonstrated that implementation of a medication reconciliation best practices toolkit decreased total unintentional medication discrepancies in five hospitals. We sought to implement the MARQUIS toolkit in more diverse hospitals, incorporating lessons learned from MARQUIS1.MethodsMARQUIS2 is a pragmatic, mentored implementation QI study which collected clinical and implementation outcomes. Sites implemented a revised toolkit, which included interventions from these domains: 1) best possible medication history (BPMH)-taking; 2) discharge medication reconciliation and patient/caregiver counseling; 3) identifying and defining clinician roles and responsibilities; 4) risk stratification; 5) health information technology improvements; 6) improved access to medication sources; 7) identification and correction of real-time discrepancies; and, 8) stakeholder engagement. Eight hospitalists mentored the sites via one site visit and monthly phone calls over the 18-month intervention period. Each site's local QI team assessed opportunities to improve, implemented at least one of the 17 toolkit components, and accessed a variety of resources (e.g. implementation manual, webinars, and workshops). Outcomes to be assessed will include unintentional medication discrepancies per patient.DiscussionA mentored multi-center medication reconciliation QI initiative using a best practices toolkit was successfully implemented across 18 medical centers. The 18 participating sites varied in size, teaching status, location, and electronic health record (EHR) platform. We introduce barriers to implementation and lessons learned from MARQUIS1, such as the importance of utilizing dedicated, trained medication history takers, simple EHR solutions, clarifying roles and responsibilities, and the input of patients and families when improving medication reconciliation

Biolimus-A9 polymer-free coated stent in high bleeding risk patients with acute coronary syndrome: a Leaders Free ACS sub-study.

Aims: Although a true clinical challenge, high bleeding risk patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have never been specifically studied. Leaders Free ACS, a pre-specified Leaders Free sub-study, determined efficacy, and safety of a combination of 1-month dual anti-platelet therapy (DAPT) with implantation of either a polymer-free Biolimus-A9-coated stent (BA9-DCS) or a bare-metal stent (BMS) in these patients. Methods and results: Leaders Free included 2466 patients undergoing PCI who had at least 1 of 13 pre-defined factors for an increased bleeding risk. Of these, 659 ACS patients were included in this analysis (BA9-DCS 330, BMS 329). At 12-month follow-up, treatment with the BA9-DCS was more effective (clinically driven target-lesion revascularization 3.9 vs. 9.0%, P = 0.009) and safer (cumulative incidence of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or definite or probable stent thrombosis 9.3 vs. 18.5%, P = 0.001), driven by significantly lower rates of cardiac mortality (3.4 vs. 6.9%, P = 0.049) and myocardial infarction (6.9 vs. 13.8%, P = 0.005). Conclusion: We believe that the results of this sub-analysis from the Leaders Free trial are likely to significantly impact clinical practice for high bleeding risk patients presenting with an ACS: the use of a BMS can, in our view, no longer be recommended, and, given the paucity of available data for second-generation DES with shortened DAPT in these patients, the BA9-DCS should currently be considered as the device with the strongest evidence to support its use for this indication

Gimme a Brekka!: Deciphering Authorization under the CFAA and How Employers Can Protect Their Data

Federal circuit courts offer conflicting interpretations of when an employee violates the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) by accessing an employer’s computer system without authorization. Enacted originally as an anti-hacker statute, the language of the CFAA proves ambiguous when courts attempt to apply its sanctions to individuals given access to a computer (such as an employee by an employer). Circuit Courts have interpreted the statute differently, generally applying one of two theories to reach their interpretations: (1) agency theory; or (2) looking to the plain language of the statute and the rule of lenity. These differing interpretations have resulted in varying outcomes when employers seek to sanction employees for violating the Act. Employers face tough questions about when and how to seek sanctions when employees potentially violate their rights of computer access. This Article takes an in-depth look at the varying interpretations among the circuits and considers a number of district court cases and their application of the CFAA

COFSL Resolution

Undated resolution of cooperation prepared for Kentucky university faculty senates by the Congress of Senate Faculty Leaders