
Editorial
Select search scope: search across all journals or within the current journal


These medication errors have occurred in health care facilities at least once. They will happen again—perhaps where you work. Through education and alertness of personnel and procedural safeguards, they can be avoided. You should consider publishing accounts of errors in your newsletters and/or presenting them at your inservice training programs.
Your assistance is required to continue this feature. The reports described here were received through the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) Medication Errors Reporting Program. Any reports published by ISMP will be anonymous. Comments are also invited; the writers’ names will be published if desired. ISMP may be contacted at the address shown below.
Errors, close calls, or hazardous conditions may be reported directly to ISMP through the ISMP Web site (www.ismp.org), by calling 800-FAIL-SAFE, or via e-mail at
The purpose of this feature is to heighten awareness of specific adverse drug reactions (ADRs), discuss methods of prevention, and promote reporting of ADRs to the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) MedWatch program (800-FDA-1088). If you have reported an interesting, preventable ADR to MedWatch, please consider sharing the account with our readers.
For patients with atrial fibrillation, anticoagulant therapy is essential to reduce the risk of ischemic stroke that is associated with this arrhythmia. Historically, warfarin has been the preferred treatment for patients at moderate to high risk despite many potential limitations. With the development of newer oral anticoagulants, clinicians now have 3 additional options: dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban. Although these agents clearly offer some advantages over warfarin, they may not be appropriate for all patients. This article will discuss factors that should be considered when selecting among these various anticoagulants.
The complexity of cancer chemotherapy requires pharmacists be familiar with the complicated regimens and highly toxic agents used. This column reviews various issues related to preparation, dispensing, and administration of antineoplastic therapy, and the agents, both commercially available and investigational, used to treat malignant diseases.
This
The prevalence and cost of hospital readmissions have gained attention. The ability to identify patients at high risk for hospital readmission has implications for quality and costs of care. Medication errors have been shown to increase the risk for readmission.
To study the impact of a pharmacist-based predischarge medication reconciliation and counseling program on 30-day readmission rates and determine whether polypharmacy and problem medications are important screening criteria.
A prospective, nonrandomized cohort study performed at a single medical-surgical unit with telemetry capability at a single academic medical center. The participants were 729 patients, aged 18 years and older, who were discharged between July 1 and October 29, 2010. The intervention was pharmacist medication reconciliation and counseling based on a screening tool. The primary outcome was 30-day readmission rate. Secondary outcomes were the presence of polypharmacy and problem medications and their relationship with observed 30-day readmission rate, including calculation of a problem med/polypharmacy score.
The pharmacy review group (n = 537) had a lower 30-day readmission rate than the group receiving usual care (n = 192) (16.8% vs 26.0%; odds ratio [OR] 0.572; 95% CI, 0.387-0.852;
Medication reconciliation and counseling by a pharmacist reduced the 30-day readmission rate. Polypharmacy and problem medications appear to have value individually and together. A pharmacist, guided by a screening tool in predischarge medication reconciliation, is one option to effectively reduce 30-day readmissions.
While the activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) is the most widely used assay to monitor unfractionated heparin (UFH), providing a general measure of the extent of anticoagulation, it does not reliably correlate with the blood concentration of heparin or its antithrombotic effect. While cost and availability have limited the widespread use of UFH in hospitals, monitoring UFH with heparin levels has been shown to reduce both the number of monitoring tests and the time to a therapeutic range.
To compare outcomes in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated with weight-based UFH monitored with anti-Xa concentrations versus aPTT.
A retrospective chart review was completed in patients admitted with high-risk ACS and compared to the UFH arm of the SYNERGY trial. The primary outcome included the clinical endpoint of all-cause death or non-fatal myocardial infarction until time of hospital discharge. Safety endpoints evaluated included incidence of stroke and major bleeding.
The primary endpoint occurred in 6.3% of patients in the study cohort compared to 6.5% of patients in the heparin arm of the SYNERGY trial at 48 hours (
Outcomes for high-risk ACS patients receiving heparin monitored by anti-Xa concentrations are noninferior to heparin monitored by aPTT.
Hyperglycemia is common among hospitalized patients, affecting approximately 40% of patients at the time of hospital admission, despite the fact that 1 in every 8 patients has no previous diagnosis of diabetes. Hyperglycemia has been associated with poor patient outcomes, including higher rates of morbidity and mortality across a range of conditions. This review discusses options for the effective management of hyperglycemia with a focus on the use of disposable insulin pens in the hospital.
Literature, including guidelines for hospital management of hyperglycemia, and information regarding methods of insulin administration were reviewed
Appropriate glucose control via administration of insulin within hospitals has been acknowledged as an important goal and is consistent with achieving patient safety. Insulin may be administered subcutaneously using a pen or vial and syringe or infused intravenously. Levels of patient and provider satisfaction are higher with pen administration than with vial and syringe. Insulin pens have many safety and convenience features including enhanced dose accuracy and autocover/autoshield pen needles.
Use of insulin pens instead of vials and syringes can provide several advantages for hospitalized patients, including greater satisfaction among them and health care providers, improved safety, and reduced costs. These advantages can continue following patient discharge.
Large-scale diversion of controlled substances (CS) from within a hospital or heath system pharmacy is a rare but growing problem. It is the responsibility of pharmacy leadership to scrutinize control processes to expose weaknesses. This article reviews examples of large-scale diversion incidents and diversion techniques and provides practical strategies to stimulate enhanced CS security within the pharmacy staff. Large-scale diversion from within a pharmacy department can be averted by a pharmacist-in-charge who is informed and proactive in taking effective countermeasures.
Each month, subscribers to
This monthly feature will help readers keep current on new drugs, new indications, dosage forms, and safety-related changes in labeling or use. Efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this information; however, if there are any questions, please let me know at
The
Mobile health (mHealth) pushes forward and provides an active area for research. We briefly review 2 mHealth research articles and discuss the implications of their findings for hospital pharmacists.