Paul M. Szumita

Delirium occurs in the intensive care unit and identification is often performed using a validated assessment tool such as the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) patients. The CAM-ICU has three ratings: positive, negative, and unable to assess (UTA). Patients may often be assigned UTA when it is inappropriate given the level of sedation or medical condition. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the rate of inappropriate UTA CAM-ICU documentations. A single-center prospective observational analysis was performed evaluating CAM-ICU documentations from October 27, 2014, to December 26, 2014. Patients admitted to the medical and surgical ICU were included and excluded if admitted to the ICU for less than 24 h. CAM-ICU assessments were performed per institutional guidelines using CAM-ICU scoring as validated in literature. CAM-ICU patient documentations were recorded as positive, negative, UTA, or not assessed. Patients with an appropriate UTA documentation were deeply sedated, non-English speaking, or not medically able to participate in the assessment. The major endpoint assessed rates of inappropriate UTA CAM-ICU documentations. Minor endpoints evaluated adherence to CAM-ICU documentations and use of pharmacologic agents for symptoms of delirium. Sixty-one patients were identified with 45 (74 %) medical, 16 (26 %) surgical, of which 27 (44.3 %) were mechanically ventilated. There were 116 UTA documentations with 35 (30.2 %) identified as inappropriate. Of the 906 identified CAM-ICU documentation opportunities, adherence was 439 (48.5 %). Overall, 18 (29.5 %) of the 61 patients were administered pharmacologic agents for delirium management and 5 (27.7 %) had a positive CAM-ICU documented within 24 h. Rates of inappropriate UTA CAM-ICU documentations may be significantly higher than reported in literature. Additional research is needed to identify an acceptable rate of inappropriate UTA CAM-ICU assessments and its clinical impact on delirium management.

Background: Brigham and Women’s Hospital implemented a dexmedetomidine stewardship program in October 2010 beginning with an institution-specific prescribing guideline. To ensure continued adherence to the prescribing guideline, a pharmacist-driven quality assurance program was implemented in November 2011. Objective: The primary objective of this study is to describe the role and impact of a dexmedetomidine stewardship program on dexmedetomidine use at a tertiary academic medical center. Methods: This is a prospective descriptive analysis of a dexmedetomidine stewardship program. Dexmedetomidine stewardship data were collected prospectively from January 2012 through June 2012, in all intensive care units (ICUs) at a single academic medical center. Adult patients (>18 years old) receiving dexmedetomidine therapy continuously for sedation and in the ICU were included in the analysis. Results: A total of 99 patients were identified during the study time frame, during which 71 (71.7%) were identified as compliant with the institutional guideline. The total number of patients receiving dexmedetomidine for greater than 24 hours was 13 (13.1%), of whom 10 (76.9%) received targeted interventions; 15 (15.2%) targeted interventions were made on all patients receiving dexmedetomidine during the study time frame. The total use of dexmedetomidine during the study period was 1310 vials, compared with 5404 vials during the equivalent time frame in 2010—a 76% reduction. Conclusions: A dexmedetomidine stewardship program, including an institution-specific prescribing guideline and a pharmacist-driven quality assurance program may ensure guideline compliance and decreased use of dexmedetomidine at an academic medical center.

Peer reviewed article authored by (Rocchio MA, Belisle CD, Greenwood BC, Cotugno MC, Szumita PM). Read article or submit your manuscript for publishing.

P>Background and objective: To identify the many roles of the hospital pharmacist in improving the health and outcomes for in-patients experiencing episodes of hyperglycaemia. Methods: Information for this article was selected from articles found on MEDLINE between 1998 and 2008 on the topics of hospital management of hyperglycaemia and type 2 diabetes. The article was further developed according to the clinical experiences of the author. Results: When discussing the identification and treatment of hyperglycaemia in hospitalized patients, it is important to include the many aspects of glycaemic control that can be provided by hospital pharmacists. These include tasks such as patient screening and identification, monitoring glycaemic parameters, documenting therapy and therapeutic end points, and evaluating prescribing habits. Risk evaluation, guideline implementation, and a coordinated multi-disciplinary approach to discharge planning can be used to improve diabetes management by incorporating the entire hospital health-care team in patient care and education. Conclusions: Hospital pharmacists should develop and implement protocolized care for the management of patients with hyperglycaemia throughout the institution in order to optimize the efficacy and safety of insulin therapy.

Introduction: While propofol is associated with an infusion syndrome (PRIS) that may cause death, the incidence of PRIS is unknown. Determining the incidence of PRIS and the frequency of PRIS-related clinical manifestations are key steps prior to the completion of any controlled studies investigating PRIS. This prospective, multicenter study sought to determine the incidence of PRIS and PRIS-related clinical manifestations in a large cohort of critically ill adults prescribed propofol. Methods: Critically ill adults from 11 academic medical centers administered an infusion of propofol for [>/=] 24 hours were monitored at baseline and then on a daily basis until propofol was discontinued for the presence of 11 different PRIS-associated clinical manifestations and risk factors derived from 83 published case reports of PRIS. Results: Among 1017 patients [medical (35%), neurosurgical (25%)], PRIS (defined as metabolic acidosis plus cardiac dysfunction and [>/=] 1 of: rhabdomyolysis, hypertriglyceridemia or renal failure occurring after the start of propofol therapy) developed in 11 (1.1%) patients an average of 3 (1-6) [median (range)] days after the start of propofol. While most (91%) of the patients who developed PRIS were receiving a vasopressor (80% initiated after the start of propofol therapy), few received a propofol dose >83 mcg/kg/min (18%) or died (18%). Compared to the 1006 patients who did not develop PRIS, the APACHE II score (25 +/- 6 vs 20 +/- 7, P = 0.01) was greater in patients with PRIS but both the duration of propofol use (P = 0.43) and ICU length of stay (P = 0.82) were similar. Conclusions: Despite using a conservative definition for PRIS, and only considering new-onset PRIS clinical manifestations, the incidence of PRIS slightly exceeds 1%. Future controlled studies focusing on evaluating whether propofol manifests the derangements of critical illness more frequently than other sedatives will need to be large. These studies should also investigate the mechanism(s) and risk factors for PRIS.

Purpose. A review highlighting the application of sedatives and analgesics in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting, with a focus on the use of dexmedetomidine, is presented.