Draper, Evan

Background: Pharmacist order verification is a critical step in ensuring medication safety for patients. While the second pharmacist verification (SPV) before dispensing anticancer therapies has been a longstanding practice, its continued necessity in the context of modern electronic health systems lacks robust evidence. Objective: This study aimed to assess the frequency of interventions performed by a second pharmacist to determine the ongoing effectiveness of the SPV process. Methods: This retrospective chart review was conducted at the Mayo Clinic, encompassing all anticancer therapy orders that necessitated an SPV. The study period extended from January 1, 2019, to June 30, 2021, and included inpatient and outpatient anticancer orders. The quantification and reporting of alterations made to discrete order fields subsequent to initial pharmacist verification of clinical significance were performed, utilizing the total number of anticancer therapy orders as the denominator. Results: Approximately 300 000 anticancer therapy orders were screened for inclusion criteria and 2.6% (N = 7634) of orders were modified on the SPV. Most changes were in the categories of rate (N = 1962), order start time (N = 1219), and pharmacy communication note (N = 777). Dosing changes greater than 10% accounted for 0.03% (N = 99) of the orders, with 10 anticancer therapies responsible for more than 50% of these changes. Conclusion and relevance: This study represents the largest report on the impact of SPV in a modern era. Our results suggest the SPV may be valuable for a small proportion of chemotherapy orders but raises questions about the necessity for broad application of this practice.

Abstract Introduction During the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), remdesivir was only approved for hospitalized patients. Our institution developed hospital‐based, outpatient infusion centers for selected hospitalized patients with COVID‐19 who had clinical improvement to allow for early dismissal. The outcomes of patients who transitioned to complete remdesivir in the outpatient setting were examined. Methods Retrospective study of all hospitalized adult patients with COVID‐19 who received at least one dose of remdesivir from November 6, 2020, to November 5, 2021, at one of the Mayo Clinic hospitals. Results Among 3029 hospitalized patients who received treatment with remdesivir for COVID‐19, the majority (89.5%) completed the recommended 5‐day course. Among them, 2169 (80%) patients completed treatment during hospitalization, whereas 542 (20.0%) patients were dismissed to complete remdesivir in outpatient infusion centers. Patients who completed the treatment in the outpatient setting had lower odds of death within 28 days (aOR 0.14, 95% CI 0.06–0.32, p < 0.001). However, their rate of subsequent hospital encounters within 30 days was higher (aHR 1.88, 95% CI 1.27–2.79, p = 0.002). Among patients treated with remdesivir only in the inpatient setting, the adjusted odds of death within 28 days were significantly higher among those who did not complete the 5‐day course of remdesivir (aOR 2.07, 95% CI 1.45–2.95, p < 0.001). Conclusions This study describes the clinical outcomes of a strategy of transitioning remdesivir therapy from inpatient to outpatient among selected patients. Mortality was lower among patients who completed the 5‐day course of remdesivir.

Abstract Purpose The intravenous (IV) medication compounding workflow has long been associated with preventable medication errors. This has led to the development of technologies designed to enhance the safety of IV compounding workflows. Digital image capture is a component of this technology about which there is relatively limited published literature. This study evaluates image capture implemented within an electronic health record’s existing first-party IV workflow solution. Methods A retrospective case-control study was conducted to measure IV preparation times before and after digital imaging implementation. Preparations during 3 periods (preimplementation, ≤1 month post implementation, and &gt;1 month post implementation) were matched for 5 variables. A less stringent analysis with matching for 2 variables, as well as an unmatched analysis, were performed post hoc. An employee survey assessed satisfaction with the digital imaging workflow, and revised orders were reviewed to identify new problems introduced by image capture. Results A total of 134,969 IV dispenses were available for analysis. Median preparation time in the preimplementation and &gt;1 month post implementation cohorts was unchanged in the 5-variable matched analysis (6.87 minutes vs 6.58 minutes, P = 0.14) and increased in the 2-variable matched analysis (6.98 minutes vs 7.35 minutes, P &lt; 0.001) and unmatched analysis (6.55 minutes vs 8.02 minutes, P &lt; 0.001). A large majority of survey respondents (92%) felt that image capture improved patient safety. Of the 105 postimplementation preparations identified as requiring revisions by the checking pharmacist, 24 (22.9%) required revisions directly related to camera functionality. Conclusion Implementation of digital image capture likely increased preparation times. Most IV room staff felt that image capture increased preparation times and were satisfied with how the technology improved patient safety. Image capture introduced camera-specific issues that led to preparations requiring revisions.

Abstract Background URIs are the most common indication for outpatient antibiotic prescribing. Given high rates of unnecessary prescribing, these indications have been identified as a high-priority target for outpatient antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP). Our primary objective was to evaluate the impact of a system-wide, multifaceted, outpatient ASP intervention bundle on unnecessary antibiotic prescribing for URI. Methods This quasi-experimental study was conducted from 2019 to 2021. ICD-10 codes for URIs were grouped into 3 tiers (i.e., tier I = antibiotics always indicated, tier II = sometimes, tier III = never). Encounters from 5 care specialties (i.e., family medicine, community internal medicine, express care, pediatrics, and emergency department) with a tier III URI primary ICD-10 code but without a secondary tier I or tier II code were included. COVID-19 ICD-10 codes were excluded. Interventions included construction of a prescribing data model, dissemination of clinician prescribing data and education, promotion of symptom management strategies, a patient-facing commitment poster, and a pre-populated URI order panel. Tools were designed at a system level and implemented by regional champions beginning in the 3rd quarter of 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of antibiotic prescribing, and the secondary outcome and counterbalance measure was the rate of repeat URI-related healthcare contact within 14 days. Outcomes were analyzed with chi-square with an α level of 0.05. Results A total of 147403 encounters were included. The overall antibiotic prescribing rate decreased from 24.1% to 12.3% between 2019 and 2021 (p&lt; 0.01). Significant reductions in tier III antibiotic prescribing were demonstrated for each region, care specialty, and syndrome evaluated (Table 1). A reduction in repeat healthcare contact was seen across the total cohort (9.5% in 2019 vs. 8.3% in 2021, p&lt; 0.01); decreases in repeat contact rates were observed in those not initially receiving an antibiotic (10.3% vs. 8.6%, p&lt; 0.01), but not in those who initially received an antibiotic (6.8% vs. 6.8%, p = 0.94). Tier III URI encounter level antimicrobial prescribing rates by region, care specialty, and syndrome Conclusion A multifaceted, outpatient ASP intervention bundle decreased rates of unnecessary antimicrobial prescribing without increasing rates of 14-day repeat URI-related healthcare contact. Disclosures Paschalis Vergidis, MD, AbbVie: DSMB|Cidara: Grant/Research Support|Scynexis: Grant/Research Support Evan Draper, PharmD, Gilead Foundation: Grant/Research Support Sara Ausman, PharmD, Gilead: Honoraria Christina G. Rivera, PharmD, Gilead: Grant/Research Support|Gilead: Honoraria|Insmed: Honoraria.

Introduction: During the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), remdesivir was only approved for hospitalized patients. Our institution developed hospital-based, outpatient infusion centers for selected hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who had clinical improvement to allow for early dismissal. The outcomes of patients who transitioned to complete remdesivir in the outpatient setting were examined. Methods: Retrospective study of all hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 who received at least one dose of remdesivir from 11/6/2020 to 11/5/2021 at one of the Mayo Clinic hospitals. Results: Among 3,029 hospitalized patients who received treatment with remdesivir for COVID-19, the majority (89.5%) completed the recommended the five-day course. Among them, 2,169 (80%) completed treatment during hospitalization, while 542 (20.0%) patients were dismissed to complete remdesivir in outpatient infusion centers. Patients who completed the treatment in the outpatient setting had lower odds of death within 28 days (aOR 0.14, 95% CI 0.06-0.32, p<0.001). However, their rate of subsequent hospital encounters within 30 days was higher (aHR 1.88, 95% CI 1.27-2.79, p=0.002). Among patients treated with remdesivir only in the inpatient setting, the adjusted odds of death within 28 days were significantly higher among those who did not complete the 5-day course of remdesivir (aOR 2.07, 95% CI 1.45-2.95, p<0.001). Conclusions: This study describes the clinical outcomes of a strategy of transitioning remdesivir therapy from inpatient to outpatient among selected patients. Mortality was lower among patients who completed the 5-day course of remdesivir.

Abstract Background Lyme disease, the most common tickborne disease in the United States, may be prevented by taking a single 200-mg dose of oral doxycycline after a high-risk bite from a blacklegged tick. Currently, it is not known how Lyme disease post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) might vary by region and healthcare system. We identified single-dose doxycycline medication orders in three healthcare systems in states with high incidence of Lyme disease and compared associated patient and provider characteristics. Methods Electronic health record data during 2012 – 2016 were obtained from three healthcare systems: Geisinger (Pennsylvania), Marshfield Clinic (Wisconsin), and Mayo Clinic (Minnesota/Wisconsin). Creation of analytic variables and analysis were harmonized across the three sites. Medication orders for single-dose doxycycline ≤200 mg that were accompanied by specific key words or diagnostic codes (e.g., tick bite; Lyme disease prevention) were considered evidence of PEP. Manual chart review was performed from a random subset to evaluate the algorithms used to identify PEP. Results Among 2,937,585 patients with at least one medication order or clinical encounter during the study period, 14,102 single-dose doxycycline orders for Lyme disease PEP for 13,172 unique patients were identified. The typical patient receiving PEP was older (mean age 51 – 58 years), male (56 – 59%), and non-Hispanic White (81 – 98%). The annual seasonality of medication orders was bimodal, with peaks occurring during April – July and October – November. The most common encounter setting was an outpatient clinic or urgent care center (80 – 91%); medication orders after patient phone calls in the absence of an in-person visit occurred frequently (14 – 19%) in two health systems. Chart abstractions (n=600) revealed instances of PEP prescribed inappropriately (e.g., bite from a non-blacklegged tick; patient with symptoms of acute Lyme disease). Conclusion Lyme disease PEP with a single dose of doxycycline was frequently prescribed in healthcare systems where there is a high incidence of Lyme disease. PEP was most commonly prescribed to non-Hispanic Whites over the age of 50 years. Public health initiatives for tickborne disease prevention should include clinician education on the appropriate use of Lyme disease PEP. Disclosures Anna M. Schotthoefer, PhD, HelixBind (Other Financial or Material Support, salary support) John Zeuli, PharmD, INSMED (Other Financial or Material Support, honoraria for educational speaking)

AbstractHuman antimicrobial consumption largely occurs in the ambulatory setting, with inappropriate or unnecessary antimicrobial prescribing well documented in the literature. In 2020, The Joint Commission implemented a regulatory standard requiring the development and implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) in those institutions surveyed under the ambulatory accreditation standard. While experience with inpatient antimicrobial stewardship has continued to increase, ambulatory ASPs are programmatically distinct and can present unique challenges with regards to operationalizing regulatory components. Herein, we lay a framework for addressing the task of developing an ambulatory ASP for a large health system by reviewing the regulatory requirements, examining relevant recent publications, and describing our institutional experience.