Richard S. Bourne

Clinical review: Sleep measurement in critical care patients: research and clinical implications

Sleep disturbances are common in critically ill patients and have been characterised by numerous studies using polysomnography. Issues regarding patient populations, monitoring duration and timing (nocturnal versus continuous), as well as practical problems encountered in critical care studies using polysomnography are considered with regard to future interventional studies on sleep. Polysomnography is the gold standard in objectively measuring the quality and quantity of sleep. However, it is difficult to undertake, particularly in patients recovering from critical illness in an acute-care area. Therefore, other objective (actigraphy and bispectral index) and subjective (nurse or patient assessment) methods have been used in other critical care studies. Each of these techniques has its own particular advantages and disadvantages. We use data from an interventional study to compare agreement between four of these alternative techniques in the measurement of nocturnal sleep quantity. Recommendations for further developments in sleep monitoring techniques for research and clinical application are made. Also, methodological problems in studies validating various sleep measurement techniques are explored.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47578325.

Drug treatment of delirium: Past, present and future

OBJECTIVE The aim of this review was to summarize and critically evaluate the current literature regarding the safety and efficacy of drug therapy in delirium. We also identified recent research developments and highlighted some ongoing clinical trials to explore future directions in drug treatment and prevention of delirium. METHODS We conducted a literature search of Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, and Cochrane Review databases, which included both prospective and retrospective clinical trials and case studies on delirium and drug therapy in adult patients up to March 2008. Abstracts from recent topical conferences were also reviewed. Ongoing delirium drug studies were identified via the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal, accessed March 12, 2008. RESULTS The evidence base for effective drug treatment of delirium is restricted by limitations in many of the studies conducted to date. However, there has been an increase in the quantity and quality of delirium drug studies in recent years; preliminary reports and ongoing studies add to this trend. Although efficacy rates between typical and atypical antipsychotic agents are similar, the latter are associated with fewer extrapyramidal side effects. Prophylactic interventions with antipsychotic and cholinesterase inhibitors in high-risk patients provide an opportunity to improve postoperative patient care. Alternative techniques and medication opportunities could be explored in attempts to minimize drug induced delirium potential. CONCLUSIONS Appropriate drug therapy should be considered part of systematic approaches to delirium treatment and prevention. There is a need for well-designed randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trials investigating the drug management of various aspects of delirium, including delineating treatment by delirium subtype, dose ranging studies, and optimal duration of therapy.

Designing clinical trials for the treatment of delirium

There is a large body of empirical evidence for the usefulness of pharmacological treatment of delirium though there is a relative dearth of double-blind randomized clinical trials and few that are placebo controlled. There are no registration quality double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials that evaluate efficacy and safety, nor is there a regulatory body in any country that has approved a drug with an indication to treat delirium. Reasons include inadequate training for design and implementation of clinical trials, too few patients at a given research site to adequately power a study, confounding variables such as dementia, multifactorial underlying etiologies that are difficult to control, inadequate understanding of the neuropathophysiology of delirium that could theoretically guide a choice of drugs, referral populations where the primary physician may not be the one interested in pursuing the research, confounding factors for attribution of safety signals, and lack of funding for an adequately powered trial outside of the pharmaceutical industry. This article provides basic information aimed at educating physicians and other clinicians about design and implementation considerations to conduct an adequately powered double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial to evaluate a drugs efficacy in delirium.

Pharmacist proactive medication recommendations using electronic documentation in a UK general critical care unit.

Background Specific data on the actual clinical practice of United Kingdom pharmacists in Critical Care are limited. Within the general critical care units of Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, clinical pharmacists have the facility to electronically document, communicate and follow-up proactive recommendations using a Pharmacy Review Form via the Clinical Information System, MetaVision®. Objective The objective of the service evaluation was to describe the acceptance rate by medical staff of pharmacist proactive medication recommendations; including data on the types of recommendations and reasons thereof, for general intensive care patients of a UK teaching hospital trust. Setting Sheffield Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust with 20 intensive care beds located on two hospital sites admitting Level 3 and 2 mixed general medical, surgical, trauma, burns and haematology/ oncology patients. Method Retrospective analysis of pharmacist proactive recommendations recorded electronically from January 2009 to July 2011 in general intensive care unit patients. Main outcome 5,623 electronic medication recommendations were documented, providing an average of 2.2 proactive recommendations per patient admitted to intensive care from January 2009 to July 2011. 5,101 (90.7%) of the recommendations were accepted and acted upon by medical staff. Results The most common recommendations were Add Drug 1,862 (28.2%); Dose Review 1,707 (25.8%); Discontinue Drug 1,185 (17.9%); Alternative Drug 903 (13.7%); Alternative Route 770 (11.7%). The most common reasons for the proactive medication recommendations were related to changes in gastrointestinal absorption 951 (15.6%); compliance with medication guidelines 857 (14.1%); sedation/delirium/agitation management 764 (12.6%); dose adjustment for renal dysfunction or continuous renal replacement therapies 756 (12.4%); and medication reconciliation 612 (10.1%). The majority of medication recommendations involved drugs in Gastrointestinal, Central Nervous System, Cardiovascular, Infection, Nutrition and Blood classes (British National Formulary). Conclusion There was a high acceptance rate for proactive medication-related recommendations made by critical care pharmacists via the electronic review form. The majority of pharmacist recommendations were related to adding or refining currently prescribed medication. Ten percent of recommendations related to medication reconciliation of patients’ pre-admission medication.

Pharmacist's review and outcomes: Treatment-enhancing contributions tallied, evaluated, and documented (PROTECTED-UK)

PURPOSE The purpose was to describe clinical pharmacist interventions across a range of critical care units (CCUs) throughout the United Kingdom, to identify CCU medication error rate and prescription optimization, 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 November 5 to 18, 2012. A data collection web portal was designed where the specialist critical care pharmacist reported all interventions at their site. Each intervention was classified as medication error, optimization, or consult. In addition, a clinical impact scale was used to code the interventions. Interventions were scored as low impact, moderate impact, high impact, and life saving. The final coding was moderated by blinded independent multidisciplinary trialists. RESULTS A total of 20517 prescriptions were reviewed with 3294 interventions recorded during the weekdays. This resulted in an overall intervention rate of 16.1%: 6.8% were classified as medication errors, 8.3% optimizations, and 1.0% consults. The interventions were classified as low impact (34.0%), moderate impact (46.7%), and high impact (19.3%); and 1 case was life saving. Almost three quarters of interventions were to optimize the effectiveness of and improve safety of pharmacotherapy. CONCLUSIONS This observational study demonstrated that both medication error resolution and pharmacist-led optimization 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.

Pharmacist independent prescribing in secondary care: opportunities and challenges

In recent years a number of countries have extended prescribing rights to pharmacists in a variety of formats. The latter includes independent prescribing, which is a developing area of practice for pharmacists in secondary care. Potential opportunities presented by wide scale implementation of pharmacist prescribing in secondary care include improved prescribing safety, more efficient pharmacist medication reviews, increased scope of practice with greater pharmacist integration into acute patient care pathways and enhanced professional or job satisfaction. However, notable challenges remain and these need to be acknowledged and addressed if a pharmacist prescribing is to develop sufficiently within developing healthcare systems. These barriers can be broadly categorised as lack of support (financial and time resources), medical staff acceptance and the pharmacy profession itself (adoption, implementation strategy, research resources, second pharmacist clinical check). Larger multicentre studies that investigate the contribution of hospital-based pharmacist prescribers to medicines optimisation and patient-related outcomes are still needed. Furthermore, a strategic approach from the pharmacy profession and leadership is required to ensure that pharmacist prescribers are fully integrated into future healthcare service and workforce strategies.

Pharmacist independent prescribing in critical care: results of a national questionnaire to establish the 2014 UK position.

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.

Critical care pharmacy workforce: UK deployment and characteristics in 2015

Clinical pharmacists reduce medication errors and optimize the use of medication in critically ill patients, although actual staffing level and deployment of UK pharmacists is unknown. The primary aim was to investigate the UK deployment of the clinical pharmacy workforce in critical care and compare this with published standards.

Pharmacist prescribing in critical care: an evaluation of the introduction of pharmacist prescribing in a single large UK teaching hospital

Objectives To evaluate the introduction of pharmacist independent prescribing activity across three general critical care units within a single large UK teaching hospital. To identify the prescribing demographics including total of all prescriptions, number prescribed by pharmacists, reason for pharmacist prescription, range of medications prescribed, pharmacist prescribing error rate and the extent of pharmacist second ‘clinical check’. Methods Retrospective evaluation of e-prescribing across all general critical care units of a single large UK teaching hospital. All prescribing data were downloaded over a 1-month period (May to June 2016) with analysis of pharmacist prescribing activity including rate, indication, therapeutic class and error rate. Results In total, 5374 medicines were prescribed in 193 patients during the evaluated period. Prescribing pharmacists were available on the units on 60.4% (58/96) of days, during their working hours and accounted for 576/5374 (10.7%) of medicines prescribed in 65.2% (126/193) of patients. The majority (342/576) of pharmacist prescriptions were for new medicines. Infections, central nervous system, and nutrition/blood were the top three British National Formulary (BNF) therapeutic categories, accounting for 63.4% (349/576) of all pharmacist prescriptions. The critical care pharmacist prescribing error rate was 0.18% (1/550). Conclusions Pharmacist independent prescribers demonstrated a high degree and wide-ranging scope of prescribing activity in general critical care patients. Pharmacists contributed a significant proportion of total prescribing, despite less than full service coverage. Prescribing activity was also safe with a very low error rate recorded.

PROTECTED-UK – Clinical pharmacist interventions in the UK critical care unit: exploration of relationship between intervention, service characteristics and experience level

Clinical pharmacist (CP) interventions from the PROTECTED‐UK cohort, a multi‐site critical care interventions study, were further analysed to assess effects of: time on critical care, number of interventions, CP expertise and days of week, on impact of intervention and ultimately contribution to patient care.