PSHP 2026 Residency Conference

 To compare PACU recovery time, opioid use, and postoperative outcomes in adults undergoing general laparoscopic/robotic surgery managed with dexmedetomidine versus standard therapy without dexmedetomidine.


This is a retrospective cohort study conducted at Penn Medicine Princeton Medical Center. Medical records of adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing laparoscopic/robotic procedures in the surgery center between July 1, 2024, and June 30, 2025. General laparoscopic/robotic surgeries were predominantly abdominal and gastrointestinal cases. Patients were stratified by dexmedetomidine use in the anesthesia care plan. Primary outcome was total PACU recovery time from admission to discharge. Secondary outcomes included postoperative nausea/vomiting occurrence, opioid administration converted to morphine milligram equivalents (MME), and postoperative pain scores. Data collected included demographic, comorbidities, and anesthetic details including anesthesia minutes, use of inhaled gases and sedatives. Statistical analyses applied were independent t-tests for independent variables and Chi-square tests for categorical outcomes. 


A total of 1,475 patients were included (222 dexmedetomidine; 1,253 control). Median PACU length of stay was not statistically significant with dexmedetomidine (98.4 minutes [IQR 77.5-129.5] versus 92.1 minutes [IQR 81.9-117.8]), along with the median anesthesia duration (158 minutes vs 174.3 minutes). Reduced sevoflurane exposure was statistically significant (68.1 minutes vs 109.8 minutes). Although not statistically significant, the median opioid requirements were lower in the dexmedetomidine group compared to control (MME 7.5mg versus 11.8mg) but had more PACU opioid use (57.7% versus 50.8%), with moderate-to-severe pain being less frequent in the dexmedetomidine group with a median of 2 patients vs 7 patients.


In this retrospective study, dexmedetomidine use in general laparoscopic/robotic procedures did not significantly improve PACU recovery time compared to standard anesthesia. However, it reduced anesthesia exposure and sevoflurane use. Patients receiving dexmedetomidine reported lower rates of moderate-to-severe postoperative pain and required less total opioid use, suggesting a reasonable addition to standard of care with comparable outcomes.

Purpose
The primary objective of this study is to assess Pennsylvania Community pharmacist awareness of SOC regulatory models. The secondary objective is to determine pharmacist perception on SOC regulation change in Pennsylvania.


Methods
This mixed-methods study will explore pharmacists’ awareness and perceptions of SOC using survey questions guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).
The survey will be conducted via Qualtrics. Eligible participants include pharmacists who are licensed and practicing in a community pharmacy in Pennsylvania. A flyer for the research project survey was distributed to pharmacies via email, in-person, and direct messaging.
Each qualifying participant will have the option to enter a drawing. Participant responses to the survey will not be linked to their raffle entry. Twenty (20) participants will be randomly selected to each receive a $50 gift card. Survey results will be exported, and descriptive statistics will be utilized to assess results of both the primary and secondary objectives.


Results
Findings presented represent ongoing preliminary data from 32 respondents as of 4/15/26. Respondents were across chain (36%), grocery/mass merchant (55%), and independent (9%) settings. Most reported limited familiarity with SOC (48% slightly familiar, 33% not at all). Following educational material, respondents viewed SOC favorably. 85% agreed it would improve patient satisfaction, 85% supported updating the current regulatory model, and 81% considered SOC an important initiative. Most expressed confidence in their ability to follow SOC guidelines (88%) and their willingness to advocate for it (72%). Top barriers included workflow constraints and staffing requirements (50% each), policymakers (47%), and training requirements (44%).


Conclusions
Preliminary findings suggest strong pharmacist support for SOC regulatory models, with most recognizing their importance and potential to improve patient care. Key barriers reflect systemic challenges requiring stakeholder collaboration. As data collection continues, these trends may inform targeted strategies to advance pharmacist-led SOC advocacy and adoption.


Approved by Temple University Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Purpose: Uninsured patients face long hospital stays for IV antibiotics. This study evaluated cost savings and length of stay for patients discharged after receiving dalbavancin via patient assistance programs compared to standard IV antibiotics.


Methods: The patient population included those who received a dose of inpatient dalbavancin from a patient assistance program for treatment of a gram-positive infection. De-identified data in this retrospective evaluation were collected from the electronic medical record and included demographics, microbiological results, admission/discharge dates, and inpatient antibiotic therapies. The analysis compared actual length of hospital stay prior to dalbavancin administration with projected inpatient duration with a full course of standard IV antibiotics. Estimates for prolonged inpatient stay were derived from treatment plans and antimicrobial practice guidelines. Hospital costs were calculated with cost-per-day estimations and drug costs for inpatient antibiotics. Investigators evaluated cost impact of dalbavancin compared to standard antibiotics and assessed potential implications for expanding access to patients with limited insurance coverage.


Results: Twelve patients were included in the study population. Actual length of hospital stay prior to dalbavancin was compared to the projected inpatient duration had the patient received a full course of standard antibiotics. Length of stay (LOS) cost was determined using an approximation of $800 per day. The early discharges saved a cumulative 355 inpatient days, with cost savings of $284,000.00. The cost of inpatient antibiotic therapy was estimated using hospital acquisition costs. Dalbavancin was acquired at no cost through the patient assistance program. Total projected cost of standard therapy was $5,229.00, compared to actual cost of $3,665.00 with early discharge. The total cost savings afforded to the hospital amounted to $349,877.46.


Conclusion: Compared to standard inpatient IV antibiotics, early discharge with dalbavancin resulted in reduced costs and shortened length of stay. Through patient assistance programs, access to outpatient IV antibiotics can be expanded to include patients without insurance coverage or with high out-of-pocket costs. The significant cost savings and benefits of early discharge support the value of incorporating dalbavancin into clinical practice.


IRB Approval: The IRB reviewed your project and determined that it is not human subjects research per the federal 
regulations found at 45 CFR 46.102(l).