Mercer, Kevin

ABSTRACT Clinical pharmacists are increasingly recognized as vital contributors to acute stroke care, yet their role remains inconsistently defined and underutilized across health care systems. This consensus statement explores the expanding presence of clinical pharmacists within interdisciplinary stroke teams, particularly in the management of both acute ischemic stroke ( AIS ) and hemorrhagic stroke. This consensus statement panel was composed of clinical pharmacists, emergency medicine physicians, and a vascular neurologist. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation ( GRADE ) approach was used to assess the level of certainty and strength of recommendations. We focused on two questions regarding the clinical pharmacist's role in caring for adult patients presenting to the emergency department ( ED ) with AIS or hemorrhagic stroke. Despite the very low level of evidence, a consensus was reached for the following recommendations: (1) clinical pharmacist involvement in AIS care for adult patients presenting to the ED and (2) clinical pharmacist involvement in hemorrhagic stroke care for adult patients presenting to the ED . Based on the available literature, we believe optimizing the clinical pharmacist role is a critical factor in improving time‐sensitive treatment and equity in care delivery.

ABSTRACT As emergency department (ED) crowding and patient boarding reach critical levels nationwide, the role of the emergency medicine pharmacist (EMP) must be both defined and safeguarded. While EMPs are increasingly valued for their contributions to acute care, their responsibilities often unintentionally expand during periods of operational strain, particularly when admitted patients remain in the ED for prolonged durations. EMPs should ideally be resourced to remain focused on time‐sensitive, high‐risk medication management where their expertise is most impactful and not be used as default providers for all pharmacotherapy needs during ED boarding. This perspective outlines our position on the ideal scope of EMP practice during times of congestion, advocating for clearly defined role boundaries, strategic collaboration with other pharmacy team members, and system‐level support to prevent dilution of emergency care. EMPs must be empowered to prioritize critical ED workflows, support resuscitations, and lead initiatives in education, protocol development, and patient safety, without being overextended by responsibilities that can be absorbed by other team members.

ABSTRACT Background Intracranial and extracranial hemorrhages are significant causes of morbidity and mortality. Emergency medicine pharmacists (EMPs) can play a crucial role in anticoagulation reversal by identifying patients on anticoagulation, selecting the optimal anticoagulation reversal agent, and ensuring adequate dosing and prompt administration. The goal of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to determine the impact EMPs have on time to anticoagulation reversal and patient outcomes in anticoagulation‐associated hemorrhages. Methods A medical librarian performed a literature search in EBSCO CINAHL, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection from inception to January 2025 for all types of oral anticoagulants and for life‐threatening bleeding that required emergent reversal. Newcastle‐Ottawa was used to assess the risk of bias, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the level of certainty of the evidence. Random effects models estimating mean differences and 95% confidence intervals are reported. Results There were 2445 titles and abstracts screened, with 44 undergoing full‐text evaluation. Six observational studies including 219 patients who received an anticoagulation reversal agent with the presence of an EMP and 198 patients who received a reversal agent without an EMP were included. Time from emergency department (ED) presentation to anticoagulation reversal agent administration (75.60 min, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −101.7 to −49.5) and time from medication order to administration were faster with an EMP (−18.7 min, 95% CI: −23.5 to −14.0). There was no difference in short‐term mortality. The included studies had a high risk of bias and were deemed very low quality of evidence. Conclusion EMP involvement in patient care during anticoagulation reversal of acute hemorrhages improved time to anticoagulation reversal agent administration. Larger scale, higher‐quality studies are necessary to assess the value of EMPs in improving patient‐centered outcomes.