Objectives: To comprehensively classify interventions performed by emergency medicine clinical pharmacists and quantify cost avoidance generated through their accepted interventions. Design: A multicenter, prospective, observational study was performed between August 2018 and January 2019. Setting: Community and academic hospitals in the United States. Participants: Emergency medicine clinical pharmacists. Interventions: Recommendations classified into one of 38 intervention categories associated with cost avoidance. Measurements and Main Results: Eighty-eight emergency medicine pharmacists at 49 centers performed 13,984 interventions during 917 shifts that were accepted on 8,602 patients and generated $7,531,862 of cost avoidance. The quantity of accepted interventions and cost avoidance generated in six established categories were as follows: adverse drug event prevention (1,631 interventions; $2,225,049 cost avoidance), resource utilization (628; $310,582), individualization of patient care (6,122; $1,787,170), prophylaxis (24; $22,804), hands-on care (3,533; $2,836,811), and administrative/supportive tasks (2,046; $342,881). Mean cost avoidance was $538.61 per intervention, $875.60 per patient, and $8,213.59 per emergency medicine pharmacist shift. The annualized cost avoidance from an emergency medicine pharmacist was $1,971,262. The monetary cost avoidance to pharmacist salary ratio was between $1.4:1 and $10.6:1. Conclusions: Pharmacist involvement in the care of patients presenting to the emergency department results in significant avoidance of healthcare costs, particularly in the areas of hands-on care and adverse drug event prevention. The potential monetary benefit-to-cost ratio for emergency medicine pharmacists is between $1.4:1 and $10.6:1.

Purpose: Poor sleep during hospitalization is common and implicated in worse patient outcomes. Despite implementation of non-pharmacologic techniques, medications are still frequently required. The study objective is to assess the frequency of new medications administered for sleep in hospitalized patients and to review literature evaluating these drug therapies in the inpatient setting. Methods: This retrospective study included adult inpatients if they received a new medication for sleep during a 5-day period. Patients were excluded if the medication was continued from home or if sleep was not the documented indication. For the literature review, a MEDLINE search was conducted to identify studies pertaining to pharmacotherapy for sleep in hospitalized patients. Results: Of 1,968 patient-days reviewed, a medication for sleep was given for 166 patient-days (8.4%) in 78 patients. Melatonin was most commonly received (70.5%), followed by benzodiazepines (9.6%). A review of antihistamines, benzodiazepines, melatonin, quetiapine, trazodone, and Z-drugs (non-benzodiazepine hypnotics) was conducted and 23 studies were included. Conclusions: Despite widespread use of pharmacotherapy for sleep, there is a paucity of data evaluating use in the inpatient setting. Although there is significant heterogeneity among studies, melatonin has the strongest evidence for use and is an attractive option given its lack of adverse reactions and drug interactions. Benzodiazepines and Z-drugs were also frequently utilized; however, their reduced clearance in the elderly and potential for compounded sedative effects should be weighed heavily against potential sleep benefits. Antipsychotic agents cannot be recommended for routine use due to limited data and the potential for significant adverse effects.

Objective: To review the clinical effects of nebulized heparin and N-acetylcysteine (NAC) in patients with smoke inhalation injury (IHI) and provide recommendations for use. Data Sources: A search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Scopus databases was completed from database inception through April 15, 2020, using terms: heparin, acetylcysteine, smoke inhalation injury, and burn injury. Study Selection and Data Extraction: All studies pertaining to efficacy and safety of nebulized heparin and/or NAC for IHI in adult patients were evaluated. Reference lists were reviewed for additional publications. Nonhuman studies, non-English, and case report publications were excluded. Data Synthesis: Eight studies were included. Four demonstrated positive outcomes, 3 demonstrated no benefit or possible harm, and 1 assessed safety. Supporting trials treated patients within 48 hours of injury with 10 000 units of nebulized heparin with NAC for 7 days or until extubation. Two trials with negative findings treated patients within 72 hours, or unspecified, with 5000 units of nebulized heparin with NAC for 7 days, while the third used 25 000 units within 36 hours but was grossly underpowered for analysis. Clinical findings include reduced duration of mechanical ventilation and improved lung function with possible increase risk of pneumonia and no evidence of increased bleeding risk. Conclusions: Nebulized heparin may improve oxygenation and reduce duration of mechanical ventilation in IHI. If nebulized heparin is used, 10 000 units every 4 hours alternating with NAC and albuterol at 4-hour intervals is recommended. Sterile technique should be emphasized. Monitoring for bronchospasm or new-onset pneumonia should be considered.

Background: Dexmedetomidine is a commonly used sedative in the intensive care unit (ICU), however the use of higher, off label dosing has yet to be elucidated. A dose limitation protocol was implemented at our institution allowing for comparison of dexmedetomidine doses. Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate time spent within goal Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) range with standard-dosing of dexmedetomidine ≤1 mcg/kg/hour (SD group) compared to high-dose >1 mcg/kg/hour (HD group). Secondary outcomes included days requiring mechanical ventilation, concomitant sedation, and incidence of hypotension or bradycardia. Methods: This retrospective chart review of adult ICU patients at a single academic medical center included patients who required at least 24 hours of mechanical ventilation and received dexmedetomidine monotherapy for at least 4 hours. Patients were excluded for intubations at an outside hospital, continuous neuromuscular blocking infusions, or Glasgow Coma Score ≤4. Results: A total of 144 patients met inclusion criteria (n = 121 SD group and n = 23 HD group). The SD group spent a greater time within goal RASS range compared to the HD group (84.5% [IQR 47–100] vs 45.5% [IQR 30.1–85.4], P = .013). The SD group also had shorter durations of both dexmedetomidine infusion and mechanical ventilation, and required less concomitant sedation. There was no difference in hypotension or bradycardia. Conclusion: This study further adds to the literature that administration of high-dose dexmedetomidine does not appear to confer additional benefit over standard doses for ICU patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Application of this data may support lower institutional maximum doses.

IntroductionIntensive care unit (ICU) pharmacists are integral members of the interdisciplinary health care team. Pharmacy staffing models vary by ICU and hospital, and clinical pharmacists may cover one ICU service or multiple services. It is presently unknown how covering or rounding on multiple services relative to one service impacts the quantity of interventions made or the acceptance rate of those interventions.MethodsExploratory analysis of the PHarmacist Avoidance or Reductions in Medical costs in CRITically ill adults (PHARM‐CRIT) study, a multicenter, prospective, observational study was performed between August 2018 and January 2019 in academic medical centers and community hospitals throughout the United States. ICU pharmacists documented recommendations and accepted interventions. Pharmacists that covered one service were compared to those who covered two or more services or no services.Results218 ICU pharmacists participated across 85 centers. There were 2905 shifts and the primary rounding structure was one service (n = 1766, 60.8%) compared to covering two or more services (n = 822, 28.3%), and no rounding (n = 317, 10.9%). The percent of pharmacists with accepted interventions was higher with one service compared to the other groups: one service (45.7% ± 1.8) vs. no rounding (12.7% ± 1) (odds ratio [OR] 4.92 [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.19–5.78]) and one service vs. two or more services (31.6% ± 1.6) (OR 1.81 [95% CI 1.67–1.95]). This was also observed when comparing two or more services to no rounding (OR 2.73 [95% CI 2.32–3.2]). The probability of an intervention being accepted was highest in pharmacists rounding on one service, followed by two or more services, and least likely without rounding. Increasing the patient load of the pharmacist in any of the rounding structures resulted in a decline in interventions being accepted.ConclusionsICU pharmacists rounding with one service relative to two or more or none had more interventions attempted and accepted.