These data suggest differences in perceived and actual sedation practice in the US, as well as underutilization of evidence-based interventions. Most notable was the limited use of sedation treatment algorithms, daily interruption of sedation, and monitoring for delirium. Individual sedation and delirium protocols should be evaluated and updated based on evidence-based recommendations.

Background: Accurate medication reconciliation in trauma patients is essential but difficult.Currently there is no established clinical method of detecting direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in trauma patients. We hypothesized that a liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LCMS) based assay can be used to accurately detect DOACs in trauma patients upon hospital arrival.Methods: Plasma samples were collected from 356 patients who provided informed consent including-10 healthy controls, 19 known positive or negative controls and 327 trauma patients over 65 years of age who were evaluated at our large, urban Level 1 Trauma Center. The assay methodology was developed in healthy and known controls to detect apixaban, rivaroxaban and dabigatran using LCMS and then applied to 327 samples from trauma patients. Standard medication reconciliation processes in the electronic medical record documenting DOAC usage was compared with LCMS results to determine overall accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) of the assay.Results: Of 356 patients, 39 were on DOACs (10.96%): 21 were on Apixaban, 14 on rivaroxaban and 4 on dabigatran. The overall accuracy of the assay for detecting any DOAC was 98.60%, with a sensitivity of 94.87% and specificity of 99.06%, (PPV 92.50% and NPV 99.37%). The assay detected apixaban with a sensitivity of 90.48% and specificity of 99.11% (PPV 86.36% and NPV 99.40%). There were three false positive results and two false negative LCMS results for apixaban.Dabigatran and rivaroxaban were detected with 100% sensitivity and specificity.

Background Medication errors account for the most common adverse events and a significant cause of mortality in the USA. The Joint Commission has required medication reconciliation since 2006. We aimed to survey the literature and determine the challenges and effectiveness of medication reconciliation in the trauma patient population. Materials and methods We conducted a systematic review of the literature to determine the effectiveness of medication reconciliation in trauma patients. English language articles were retrieved from PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, and Cochrane Review databases with search terms “trauma OR injury, AND medication reconciliation OR med rec OR med rek, AND effectiveness OR errors OR intervention OR improvements.” Results The search resulted in 82 articles. After screening for relevance and duplicates, the 43 remaining were further reviewed, and only four articles, which presented results on medication reconciliation in 3041 trauma patients, were included. Two were retrospective and two were prospective. Two showed only 4% accuracy at time of admission with 48% of medication reconciliations having at least one medication discrepancy. There were major differences across the studies prohibiting comparative statistical analysis. Conclusions Trauma medication reconciliation is important because of the potential for adverse outcomes given the emergent nature of the illness. The few articles published at this time on medication reconciliation in trauma suggest poor accuracy. Numerous strategies have been implemented in general medicine to improve its accuracy, but these have not yet been studied in trauma. This topic is an important but unrecognized area of research in this field.

Word Count: 275