(911) EXaminaTion of cRitical cAre PHArmacist pRoductivity MetricS (EXTRA-PHARMS)

Introduction: Critical care pharmacists (CCPs) are well-established, valuable members of the ICU interprofessional team and have unique training to perform comprehensive medication management for the complex critically ill patient. However, there is currently no established standardized method by which CCPs demonstrate their benefit or track their value. The objective of this study was to survey CCPs and determine what productivity metrics are captured at their individual institutions, their perceived value of productivity metrics, and the methods by which metrics are documented and tracked.

Methods: An electronic survey was distributed to CCP members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology (CPP) Section and the American College of Clinical Pharmacy Critical Care Practice Research Network between July and November 2022. Participation was voluntary. The survey included 23 questions to assess institution demographics, individual respondent demographics, institution practices, and individual respondent perceptions about the value of critical care pharmacist productivity metrics. The survey was reviewed by the Augusta University Institutional Review Board and determined to be exempt. This project was reviewed and approved by the SCCM CPP leadership and considered to be a CPP Section work product.

Results: A total of 204 CCPs responded to the survey between July and November 2022. Institutional metrics captured by more than 50% of the respondents’ institutions included order verification rate/number of orders verified (60%), number of clinical interventions (57%), and intravenous to oral product interchanges (52%). Of these metrics, critical care pharmacists perceived strong value in capturing the number of clinical interventions, were indifferent regarding the value of intravenous to oral product interchanges, and perceived minimal value in capturing order verification rate/number of orders verified metrics as markers of clinical productivity.

Conclusions: Significant discrepancy exists between what institutions are capturing and what CCPs perceive as valuable metrics of their productivity. Standardizing the optimal productivity metrics for CCPs is needed.