No abstract

In ICU patients clinically important GI bleeding is rare, and acid suppressants are frequently used. Co-existing diseases, liver failure, coagulopathy and organ failures are the main risk factors for GI bleeding. Clinically important GI bleeding was not associated with increased adjusted 90-day mortality, which largely can be explained by severity of comorbidity, other organ failures and age.

BackgroundCritically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) are at risk of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, and acid suppressants are frequently used prophylactically. However, stress ulcer prophylaxis may increase the risk of serious adverse events and, additionally, the quantity and quality of evidence supporting the use of stress ulcer prophylaxis is low. The aim of the SUP-ICU trial is to assess the benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis with a proton pump inhibitor in adult patients in the ICU. We hypothesise that stress ulcer prophylaxis reduces the rate of gastrointestinal bleeding, but increases rates of nosocomial infections and myocardial ischaemia. The overall effect on mortality is unpredictable.Methods/designThe SUP-ICU trial is an investigator-initiated, pragmatic, international, multicentre, randomised, blinded, parallel-group trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis with a proton pump inhibitor versus placebo (saline) in 3350 acutely ill ICU patients at risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. The primary outcome measure is 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes include the proportion of patients with clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection or myocardial ischaemia, days alive without life support in the 90-day period, serious adverse reactions, 1-year mortality, and health economic analyses.The sample size will enable us to detect a 20 % relative risk difference (5 % absolute risk difference) in 90-day mortality assuming a 25 % event rate with a risk of type I error of 5 % and power of 90 %. The trial will be externally monitored according to Good Clinical Practice standards. Interim analyses will be performed after 1650 and 2500 patients.ConclusionThe SUP-ICU trial will provide high-quality data on the benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis with a proton pump inhibitor in critically ill adult patients admitted in the ICU.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02467621.

In this international survey, most participating ICUs reported using SUP, primarily proton pump inhibitors, but many did not have a guideline; indications varied considerably and concern existed about infectious complications.

PURPOSE.To describe clinical pharmacist interventions across a range of critical care units (CCUs) throughout the United Kingdom (UK). To identify CCU medication error rate, prescription optimisation and to identify the type and impact of each intervention in the prevention of harm and improvement of patient therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS.A prospective observational study was undertaken in 21 UK CCUs from [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] th Nov 2012. A data collection web portal was designed where the specialist critical care pharmacist (SCCP) reported all interventions at their site. Each intervention was classified as either: medication error, optimisation or consult. In addition, a clinical impact scale was used to code the interventions. Interventions were scored as low, moderate, high impact and life saving. The final coding was moderated by blinded independent multidisciplinary trialists. RESULTS. 20,517 prescriptions were reviewed with 3,294 interventions recorded during the weekdays. This resulted in an overall intervention rate of 16.1%: 6.8% were classified as medication errors, 8.3 % optimisations and 1.0% consults. The interventions were classified as: low impact (34.0%), moderate impact (46.7%) high impact (19.3%) and one case was life saving. Almost three-quarters of interventions were to optimise the effectiveness of and improve safety of pharmacotherapy. CONCLUSIONS. This observational study demonstrated that both medication error resolution and pharmacist led optimisation rates were substantial. Almost 1 in 6 prescriptions required an intervention from the clinical pharmacist. The error rate was slightly lower than an earlier UK prescribing error study (EQUIP). Two thirds of the interventions were of moderate to high impact. Key wordsCritical care, interventions, specialist critical care pharmacist, medication errors, optimisations, impact coding IntroductionThe critically ill patient is at risk of medicines-related adverse events [1], drug interactions and on some occasions inadequate therapy [2]. This risk can be exacerbated by the presence of organ failure or by supportive therapies such as renal replacement therapy. Consequently, interventions to reduce medication errors and optimise therapy are an essential component of patient care. These include electronic prescribing, smart infusion pumps, medicines reconciliation, clinical guidelines and services normally led by a specialist critical care pharmacist (SCCP) [3]. Improving the safety and efficacy of medication therapy in critical care patients is the cornerstone of SCCP activity. Since the first reports of clinical pharmacist interventions in critical care in the mid-1980s [4], there has been a gradual progression from those focused on financial savings in medicine use, to reducing medication errors and more recently to the optimisation of medication therapy [5]. Clinical pharmacists have been reported to improve medicines-related patient outcomes in the use of sedation [6], antimicrobial therapy [7], therapeutic drug m...

No abstract

Background: Co-administration of multiple intravenous (IV) medicines down the same lumen of an IV catheter is often necessary in the intensive care unit (ICU) while ensuring medicine compatibility.Aims and objectives: This study explores ICU nurses' views on the everyday practice surrounding co-administration of multiple IV medicines down the same lumen.Design: Qualitative study using focus group interviews.Methods: Three focus groups were conducted with 20 ICU nurses across two hospitals in the Thames Valley Critical Care Network, England. Participants' experience of co-administration down the same lumen and means of assessing compatibility were explored. All focus groups were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic analysis. Functional Resonance Analysis Method was used to provide a visual representation of the co-administration process. Results:Two key themes were identified as essential during the process of co-administration, namely, venous access and resources. Most nurses described insufficient venous access and lack of compatibility data for commonly used medicines (eg, analgesics and antibiotics) as particular challenges. Strategies such as obtaining additional venous access, prioritizing infusions, and swapping line of infusion were used to manage IV administration problems where medicines were incompatible, or of unknown or variable compatibility.Conclusions: Nurses use several workarounds to manage commonly encountered medication compatibility problems that may lead to delays in therapy. Organizations should review and tailor compatibility resources towards commonly administered medicines using an interdisciplinary approach. Developing a clinical decision-making pathway to minimise variability while promoting safe co-administration practice should be prioritised.Relevance to clinical practice: This study highlights several ways ICU nurses are able to manage challenges associated with co-administration and the need for the development of a more robust and comprehensive compatibility resource that is relevant to everyday practice through collaboration between nurses and pharmacists.

Objectives Clinical pharmacist practice is well established in the safe and effective use of medicines in the critically ill patient. In the UK, independent pharmacist prescribers are generally recognised as a valuable and desirable resource. However, currently, there are only anecdotal reports of pharmacist-independent prescribing in critical care. The aim of this questionnaire was to determine the current and proposed future independent prescribing practice of UK clinical pharmacists working in adult critical care. Methods The questionnaire was distributed electronically to UK Clinical Pharmacy Association members (closed August 2014).Key findings There were 134 responses to the questionnaire (response rate at least 33%). Over a third of critical care pharmacists were practising independent prescribers in the specialty, and 70% intended to be prescribers within the next 3 years. Pharmacists with ≥5 years critical care experience (P < 0.001) or worked in a team (P = 0.005) were more likely to be practising independent prescribers. Pharmacists reported significant positives to the use of independent prescribing in critical care both in patient care and job satisfaction. Independently, prescribing was routine in: dose adjustment for multi-organ failure, change in route or formulation, correction prescribing errors, therapeutic drug monitoring and chronic medication. The majority of pharmacist prescribers reported they spent ≤5% of their clinical time prescribing and accounted for ≤5% of new prescriptions in critical care patients. Conclusions Most critical care pharmacists intend to be practising as independent prescribers within the next 3 years. The extent and scope of critical care pharmacist prescribing appear to be of relatively low volume and within niche prescribing areas.