Contaminated blood cultures result in a significant waste of healthcare resources and can lead to inappropriate antibiotic therapy. Practitioners have taken measures to reduce contamination rates. These include thorough skin disinfection, effective hand decontamination, introduction of a standardised approach to collection, and the introduction of blood culture collection packs (BCCP). This study aims to assess the impact of introducing BCCP and staff training on the rate of contamination. The study demonstrated that contamination rates are greatest in high patient throughput units where practitioners are under most pressure. The introduction of blood culture packs and staff training has reduced contamination rate significantly from 43% to 25% of the total number of positives, equating to an overall reduction of 42%. Thus, there is a demonstrable benefit in the purchase of commercially produced blood culture packs and the investment in staff training.

Background and Objectives: While root cause analysis (RCA) is used to analyze medical errors with a systems approach, evidence demonstrating its effectiveness in reducing patient harm remains sparse. The heterogeneity of the RCA methodology at different health care organizations has posed challenges to studying its value. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has an established and standardized RCA approach, making it an ideal context to study RCA's impact. This review assessed whether implemented interventions recommended by RCAs were effective in mitigating preventable adverse events at the VA. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL and Business Source were searched for studies on RCAs performed at the VA that evaluated effectiveness of interventions and were published between 2010 and 2020. The Appraisal Tool for Cross-sectional Studies (AXIS) was used to assess bias of bias. Results: The majority of studies eliminated during our eligibility process reported on RCAs without attention to their specific impact on patient safety. Ten retrospective studies met inclusion criteria and were part of the final review. Studies were grouped into adverse events related to incorrect surgical/invasive procedures, suicides, falls with injury, and all-cause adverse events. Six studies reported on effectiveness by demonstrating quantitative changes in adverse events over time or by location following a specific intervention. Four studies reported on the effectiveness of implemented interventions using a facility-based rating of “much better” or “better.” Conclusions: Of the studies included in this review, all reported improvements following interventions implemented after RCAs, but with variability in study definitions and methodology to assess effectiveness. Increased reporting of outcomes following RCAs, with an emphasis on quantitative patient-related outcome measures, is needed to demonstrate the impact and value of the RCA.

Purpose: To evaluate the impact of an inpatient pharmacy consult on discharge medications following bariatric surgery. Methods: A pharmacy consult for discharge medication review for bariatric surgery patients was instituted at an academic medical center. The intervention included conducting a medication history, reviewing home medications for updates post-bariatric surgery, creating and documenting a discharge medication plan, and providing patient education. The impact of the intervention was evaluated by comparing medication classes, doses, and formulations prescribed during the intervention relative to a historical control group. Results: The study included 85 patients who received pharmacist intervention and 167 patients who did not receive pharmacist intervention following bariatric surgery. The prescription of an extended-release medication at discharge in the intervention group was reduced by 19.3% (28.7% vs. 9.4%, p = 0.0005). For patients on hypertension medications, 94.0% had their regimen reduced in the intervention group compared with 37.5% of patients in the control group (p < 0.001). Of patients on insulin at baseline, 87.5% of patients in the intervention group had dose reductions at discharge vs. 66.7% of patients in the control group (p = 0.37). No patients in the intervention group were discharged with oral antihyperglycemic medications or non-insulin injectable medications vs. 33.3% (p = 0.12) and 20.0% (p = 0.47), respectively, in the control group. Readmission rates at 30 days were insignificantly lower in the intervention group (3.5% vs. 4.2%, p = 1). Conclusions: Clinical pharmacist involvement in the discharge medication reconciliation process for bariatric surgery patients reduced prescribing of unadjusted medication classes, doses, and drug formulations.

No abstract