Medication regimen complexity vs patient acuity for predicting critical care pharmacist interventions

• Published in: American journal of health-system pharmacy 2022-04, Vol.79 (8), p.651-655
• Main Authors: Smith, Susan E, Shelley, Rachel, Sikora, Andrea
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Critical Care; Critical Illness; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Patient Acuity; Pharmacists; Practice Research Reports; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
• ISSN: 1079-2082; 1535-2900; 1535-2900
• DOI: 10.1093/ajhp/zxab460

Abstract Purpose Quantifying and predicting critical care pharmacist (CCP) workload has significant ramifications for expanding CCP services that improve patient outcomes. Medication regimen complexity has been proposed as an objective, pharmacist-oriented metric that demonstrates relationships to patient outcomes and pharmacist interventions. The purpose of this evaluation was to compare the relationship of medication regimen complexity versus a traditional patient acuity metric for evaluating pharmacist interventions. Summary This was a post hoc analysis of a previously completed prospective, observational study. Pharmacist interventions were prospectively collected and tabulated at 24 hours, 48 hours, and intensive care unit (ICU) discharge, and the electronic medical record was reviewed to collect patient demographics, medication data, and outcomes. The primary outcome was the relationship between medication regimen complexity–intensive care unit (MRC-ICU) score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, and pharmacist interventions at 24 hours, 48 hours, and ICU discharge. These relationships were determined by Spearman rank-order correlation (rS) and confirmed by calculating the beta coefficient (β) via multiple linear regression adjusting for patient age, gender, and admission type. Data on 100 patients admitted to a mixed medical/surgical ICU were retrospectively evaluated. Both MRC-ICU and APACHE II scores were correlated with ICU interventions at all 3 time points (at 24 hours, rS = 0.370 [P < 0.001] for MRC-ICU score and rS = 0.283 [P = 0.004] for APACHE II score); however, this relationship was not sustained for APACHE II in the adjusted analysis (at 24 hours, β = 0.099 [P = 0.001] for MRC-ICU and β = 0.031 [P = 0.085] for APACHE II score). Conclusion A pharmacist-oriented score had a stronger relationship with pharmacist interventions as compared to patient acuity. As pharmacists have demonstrated value across the continuum of patient care, these findings support that pharmacist-oriented workload predictions require tailored metrics, beyond that of patient acuity.