Avoid Verbal Orders

A mixed‐methods needs assessment to identify pharmacology education objectives for emergency medicine residents

Objectives

Medication errors represent a significant threat to patient safety. Pharmacotherapy is one of the 23 Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education milestones for emergency medicine, yet there is minimal understanding of what content should be prioritized during training. The study aim was to develop objectives for a patient‐safety focused pharmacology curriculum for emergency medicine residents.

Methods

We incorporated data from a de‐identified safety event database and survey responses of 30 faculty and clinical pharmacists at a single‐site suburban university hospital with 24‐hour emergency medicine pharmacists and an annual volume of approximately 70,000. We reviewed the database to quantify types and severity of medication errors over a 5‐year period for a total of 370 errors. Anonymous surveys included categorical items that we analyzed with descriptive statistics and short answer questions that underwent thematic analysis by 2 coders. We summarized all data sources to identify curriculum gaps.

Results

Common medication errors reported in our database were wrong dose (43%) and computer order entry errors (14%). Knowledge gaps were medication cost (63%), pregnancy risk information (60%), antibiotic stewardship (53%), interactions (47%), and side effects (47%). Qualitative analysis revealed the need to optimize computer order entry, understand the scope of critical medications, use references, and consult pharmacists. Integration of data suggested specific medications should be covered in curricular efforts, including antibiotics, analgesics, sedatives, and insulin.

Conclusion

We developed objectives of pharmacology topics to prioritize during emergency medicine training to enhance prescribing safety. This study is limited due to its small sample and single institution source of data. Future studies should investigate the impact of pharmacology curriculum on minimizing clinical errors.

A review of verbal order policies in acute care hospitals

BACKGROUND

Although verbal and telephone orders (VOs) are commonly used in the patient care process, there has been little examination of the strategies and tactics used to ensure their appropriate use or how to ensure that they are accurately communicated, correctly understood, initially documented, and subsequently transcribed into the medical record and ultimately carried out as intended. A systematic review was conducted of hospital verbal and telephone order policies in acute care settings.

METHODS

A stratified random sample of hospital verbal and telephone order policy documents were abstracted from critical access, rural, rural referral, and urban hospitals located in Iowa and Missouri and from academic medical centers from across the United States.

FINDINGS

Substantial differences were found across 40 acute care settings in terms of who is authorized to give (including nonlicensed personnel) and take VOs and in terms of time allowed for the prescriber to cosign the VO. When a nonphysician or other licensed prescriber was allowed to communicate VOs, there was no discussion of the process to review the VO before it was communicated in turn to the hospital personnel receiving the order. Policies within several of the same hospitals were inconsistent in terms of the periods specified for prescriber cosignature. Few hospitals required authentication of the identity of the person making telephone VOs, nor the use of practices to improve communication reliability.

CONCLUSION

Careful review and updating of hospital VO policies is necessary to ensure that they are internally consistent and optimize patient safety. The implementation of computerized medical records and ordering systems can reduce but not eliminate the need for VOs.

The outcomes of emergency pharmacist participation during acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend door-to-balloon times of 90 min or less for patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

OBJECTIVES

To determine if a clinical pharmacist for the ED (EPh) is associated with decreased door/diagnosis-to-cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) time and decreased door-to-balloon time.

METHODS

A retrospective observational cohort study of ED patients with STEMI requiring urgent cardiac catheterization was conducted. Blinded data collection included timing of ED and CCL arrival, diagnostic electrocardiogram (ECG), and balloon angioplasty. For cases diagnosed after ED arrival, diagnosis time was substituted for door time. Diagnosis was the time ST elevations were evident on serial ECG. EPh present and not-present groups were compared. During the study period there were two EPhs and presence was determined by their scheduled time in the ED. Univariate and multivariate analyses was used to detect differences.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis of 120 patients, controlled for CCL staff presence and arrival by pre-hospital services, determined that EPh presence is associated with a mean 13.1-min (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.5-21.9) and 11.5-min (95% CI 3.9-21.5) decrease in door/diagnosis-to-CCL and door-to-balloon times, respectively. Patients were more likely to achieve a door/diagnosis-to-CCL time≤ 30 min (odds ratio [OR] 3.1, 95% CI 1.3-7.8) and≤ 45 min (OR 2.9, 95% CI-1.0, 8.5) and a door-to-balloon time≤ 90 min (OR 1.9, 95% CI 0.7-5.5) more likely when the EPh was present.

CONCLUSIONS

EPh presence during STEMI presentation to the ED is independently associated with a decrease in door/diagnosis-to-CCL and door-to-balloon times.