Objective:To determine which drug references Utah pharmacists use most frequently. To determine which types of drug information questions are most commonly asked, and whether Utah pharmacists have access to adequate references to respond to these questions.Methods:A 19-question survey was created using Qualtrics, LLC (Provo, Utah) software. An electronic survey link was sent to 1,431 pharmacists with a valid e-mail address listed in the Department of Professional Licensing database. Questions focused on available references in the participant’s pharmacy, how current the references are, and the participant’s use of the references. Surveys were analyzed for participants practicing in either community or hospital pharmacies in the state of Utah.Results:A total of 147 responses were included in the analysis. Approximately 44% of respondents practiced in the community, and 56% practiced in a hospital setting. The most commonly used references by Utah pharmacists are Micromedex, Lexicomp, UpToDate, Clinical Pharmacology, and Drug Facts & Comparisons. Pharmacists in the community frequently receive questions related to adverse drug reactions, drug interactions, and over-the-counter medications. Pharmacists in the hospital frequently receive questions relating to dosage and administration, drug interactions, and adverse drug reactions. About 89% of community pharmacists and 96% of hospital pharmacists feel available references are adequate to answer the questions they receive.Conclusions:Utah pharmacists generally use large reference suites to answer drug information questions. The majority of pharmacists consider the references available to them to be adequate to answer the questions they receive.

The 3 reasons for nonvaccination were vaccination not being addressed, misclassification of high-risk patients as low-risk patients for infection, and documented patient refusal. Providers overlooked vaccination more often in patients with asthma and cigarette use than in patients with diabetes. Patients seeing pharmacists were most likely to be vaccinated, whereas patients seeing physician assistants were least likely to be vaccinated. Pharmacists see patients to provide medication management and preventive care, whereas other providers treat more urgent conditions. Because indications are often overlooked and not addressed, pharmacists can play a larger role in identifying and vaccinating high-risk patients.

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. Purpose The purpose of this process improvement project was to implement features in the electronic health record to help reduce inappropriate drug waste and Medicare billing noncompliance for injectable drugs in single-dose vials in outpatient settings. Methods The pharmacy department mapped processes from order entry to dose administration and claims processing. They used the process map to identify gaps that could lead to inappropriate drug waste. The organization then chose 3 drugs they believed to be at high risk of excess waste and possible billing noncompliance after cross-referencing drug cost, volume of use, and previous Medicare audits in outpatient settings. They tested a grouper and dose rounding on these drugs and compared 3 months of claims before and after implementation to assess the impact on waste and billing compliance. Results This study evaluated 826 claims before implementation and 1,075 claims after implementation. A total of 455 of 826 (55.1%) preimplementation claims included drug waste compared to 224 of 1,075 (20.8%) postimplementation claims. Twenty-three claims before implementation included an amount of waste exceeding the smallest vial size, putting the institution at risk of billing noncompliance. No claims had excess waste in the postimplementation period. The approximate cost of total drug waste before implementation was $1,397,437, with approximately $23,730 from inappropriate carfilzomib claims. The approximate cost of waste after implementation was $569,041. This equated to a reduction in drug waste of approximately $828,396 for bevacizumab-bvzr, carfilzomib, and ipilimumab. Conclusion Using a grouper and implementing dose rounding, the institution reduced drug waste, saved money, and reduced the incidence of claims noncompliant with Medicare Part B billing requirements.