Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

Introduction: Indianapolis Coalition for Patient Safety, Inc. (ICPS) identified practice variation across participating health-systems related to intravenous Patient-Controlled Analgesia (PCA) in 2018. No evidence-based published recommendations were available to provide optimization for the medication use process during this evaluation, leading to development of an ad hoc interdisciplinary group to address gaps.Objectives: Primary objectives were to operationalize safe use of PCA and evaluate implementation of ICPS PCA consensus recommendations at an academic medical center by assessing PCA prescribing patterns following policy and electronic health record (EHR) changes. Secondary objectives focused on markers of adoption changes and employee engagement.Methods: ICPS formed an interdisciplinary, diverse group of content experts representing six health-systems to review current PCA processes. Significant variations were identified, and a gap-analysis was completed to develop consensus recommendations. To evaluate implementation of these recommendations, a retrospective pre-/post-analysis was completed of patients at a safety-net, academic medical center from March 2021 to July 2022 who received an order for PCA. Prescribing patterns and electronic documentation were analyzed.Results: The ICPS PCA Safety Summit developed 45 consensus recommendations addressing the following PCA medication use processes: ordering, patient assessment, administration, EHR design, documentation tools, smart pump drug library settings, policies, adverse event monitoring, and education. Evaluation included a total of 155 patients. The ordered total number of morphine milligram equivalent (MME) potentially available per day to a patient from PCA, electronic documentation of opioid tolerance, and PCA smart infusion pump review all significantly improved post-implementation.Conclusion: City-wide standardization and development of PCA consensus guidelines filled a gap in practice to provide direction and optimization for the medication use process surrounding these high-alert medications. Organizational results following implementation provide evidence that using new EHR order sets and incorporating opioid tolerance resulted in more intentional PCA prescribing and more thorough electronic nursing documentation.

PURPOSE:Infusion pump data, which describe compliance to dose-error reduction software among other metrics, are retrievable from infusion pump vendor software, electronic health record (EHR) systems, and regional and national data repositories such as the Regenstrief National Center for Medical Device Informatics (REMEDI). Smart infusion pump and EHR interoperability has added to the granularity and complexity of data collected, and clinicians are challenged with efficiently comprehending and interpreting the data and reports available.SUMMARY:Collaborative partnerships between the Indianapolis Coalition for Patient Safety and the Regenstrief Center for Healthcare Engineering allowed for clinicians, informaticists, researchers, and engineers to compare the information gained and strengths of using smart infusion pumps, EHR, and REMEDI to assess hospital medication safety in a setting of interoperability. Seven reporting capabilities were used to compare available reports, and 2 hypothetical scenarios were developed to highlight these processes. Infusion pump vendor-provided software and reports were found to provide the most usable information for detailed infusion reporting, while the EHR was strongly usable for interoperability compliance and REMEDI excelled in benchmarking capabilities.CONCLUSION:While infusion analytics needs may differ across health systems, a better understanding of the strengths of infusion pump data and EHR data may help provide structure and direction in the infusion analytics process. Infusion data repositories such as REMEDI are useful tools to obtain information in a way not delivered by smart pump data.

Purpose. Results of a questionnaire-based study to evaluate smart infusion pump end users' perceptions and understanding of the drug library update process are reported. Methods. The Indianapolis Coalition for Patient Safety, Inc., in partnership with the Regenstrief Center for Healthcare Engineering, conducted a 33-item electronic, cross-sectional survey across 5 Indiana health systems from May through November 2017. Interdisciplinary participants identified for survey distribution included nurses, pharmacists, biomedical engineers, administrators, and medication safety officers. The survey assessed the following domains: patient safety, the drug library update process, knowledge of drug libraries and the update process, and end-user perceptions. Results. A total of 778 submitted surveys were included in the data analysis, with a large majority of responses (90.2%) provided by nurses. The use of drug libraries for ensuring patient safety was deemed extremely important or important by 88% of respondents, but 36% indicated that they were unsure of whether drug libraries are updated on a routine basis in their health system. Approximately two-thirds agreed that the current update process improves quality of care (65.0%) and patient safety (68.1%). Moreover, 53.3% agreed that the current drug library update process was effective. However, less than 10% responded correctly when asked about the steps required to update the drug library. Furthermore, only 18% correctly indicated that when a pump is on it may not necessarily contain the most up-to-date version of the drug library. Conclusion. A survey of 5 health systems in Indianapolis identified several end-user knowledge gaps related to smart pump drug library updates. The results suggest that these gaps were most likely due to a combination of the 2-step update process and the fact that the current drug library version is not easy to find and/or user-friendly and it is unclear when an update is pending.

Purpose. Development and implementation of an interprofessional consensus-driven process for review and optimization of smart-pump drug libraries and dosing limits are described. Summary. The Indianapolis Coalition for Patient Safety (ICPS), which represents 6 Indianapolis-area health systems, identified an opportunity to reduce clinically insignificant alerts that smart infusion pumps present to end users. Through a consensus-driven process, ICPS aimed to identify best practices to implement at individual hospitals in order to establish specific action items for smart-pump drug library optimization. A work group of pharmacists, nurses, and industrial engineers met to evaluate variability within and lack of scrutiny of smart-pump drug libraries. The work group used Lean Six Sigma methodologies to generate a list of key needs and barriers to be addressed in process standardization. The group reviewed targets for smart-pump drug library optimization, including dosing limits, types of alerts reviewed, policies, and safety best practices. The work group also analyzed existing processes at each site to develop a final consensus statement outlining a model process for reviewing alerts and managing smart-pump data. Analysis of the total number of alerts per device across ICPS-affiliated health systems over a 4-year period indicated a 50% decrease (from 7.2 to 3.6 alerts per device per month) after implementation of the model by ICPS member organizations. Conclusion. Through implementation of a standardized, consensus-driven process for smart-pump drug library optimization, ICPS member health systems reduced clinically insignificant smart-pump alerts.

The Joint Commission recommended the Pasero Opioid-induced Sedation Scale (POSS) to minimize opioid-induced respiratory depression. However, there is a paucity of data describing its impact on patient safety. This study assessed the impact of POSS implementation or reeducation on naloxone use in patients receiving hydromorphone. This retrospective, Institutional Review Board-approved study performed with the Indianapolis Coalition for Patient Safety was conducted in two phases, 3 months before and after intervention. The intervention was POSS implementation or reeducation at six sites in a variety of practice settings. A total of 212 patients were evaluated. For the primary endpoint, naloxone use occurred in 1.9% of patients in each group and occurred in 3.1 versus 3.5 patients per 1,000 patient days pre- versus postintervention (p = .902). For secondary endpoints, POSS documentation increased post- versus preintervention, 78.1% versus 26.4% (p < .001). More patients experienced unintended sedation based on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale or POSS post- versus preintervention, 12.2% versus 3.8% (p = .04). When the POSS was used, unintended sedation was likely detected before respiratory depression occurred and before naloxone was required. The lack of change in naloxone use and increased sedation postintervention may reflect that a POSS score 3 or 4 is a better marker of unintended sedation and should be considered as an endpoint instead of naloxone in future studies. The implementation or reeducation of the POSS at six area health-systems resulted in increased documentation of POSS and opioid-induced unintended sedation detection with no change in naloxone use.

PURPOSE:A multidisciplinary, consensus-driven initiative to promote the use of standardized medication concentrations for adult drug infusions across the state of Indiana is described.METHODS:To accomplish development of the Indiana Standard Concentrations of Adult Drug Infusions List ("the Indiana List"), several available lists of i.v. concentrations were compiled, consolidated, and compared. Lists of adult standardized i.v. concentrations were primarily drawn from Indiana regional patient safety coalitions, published literature, and publicly available lists of recommended i.v. concentrations. The standardization project, which expanded initial work completed by the Indianapolis Coalition for Patient Safety, was conducted in conjunction with Purdue University's Center for Medication Safety Advancement, the Indiana Hospital Association, and the 11 regional patient safety coalitions across the state.RESULTS:After a review of 9 existing lists of standard i.v. concentrations, an initial list of 69 concentrations representing a total of 37 medications was derived; 34 of those concentrations were represented on at least 1 of the 3 evaluated Indiana regional patient safety coalition lists. A statewide interdisciplinary work group of representatives of regional patient safety coalitions and 9 health systems representing a total of 81 hospitals ranging from academic medical centers to critical access hospitals assembled to develop consensus on a final list of standard medication concentrations for adult i.v. infusions.CONCLUSION:A final list of 28 concentrations of 26 medications was identified for the recommended Indiana List by an interdisciplinary work group. A checklist of considerations for implementation was also developed.

Indianapolis Coalition for Patient Safety, Inc engaged a citywide effort to reduce hospital readmissions of patients diagnosed with heart failure within 30 days of discharge. An innovative collaboration among interdisciplinary representatives of hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home care agencies resulted in reduction in readmissions for patients with heart failure.