Residency trained clinical informatics pharmacist and veteran implementation leader with four major end-to-end Epic EHR go-lives completed at Mayo Clinic. Clinically informed across the continuum of care - from the intensive care unit to the emergency department and primary care clinics. Seven years of full-time Epic Willow certified working experience. Results-oriented clinical and technical liaison, translating clinician needs to technical solutions. Proven ability to manage concurrent projects and personnel while providing effective leadership in decision-making and strategic planning under high stress, fast-paced environments. Experienced in working with cross-functional teams at the highest levels of organizational leadership to build consensus and drive decisions. Currently tasked with designing and implementing digital transformation strategies across the Mayo Clinic pharmacy enterprise.
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Master of Business Administration (MBA) • January 2020 - December 2021 (Expected)
University of Florida
Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) • August 2009 - May 2013
University of Florida
Bachelor of Science, Nutritional Sciences • August 2005 - May 2009
Clinical Informatics Pharmacist • July 2015 - Present
The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center
PGY-2 Pharmacy Informatics Resident • July 2014 - June 2015
Indiana University Health
PGY-1 Pharmacy Resident • June 2013 - June 2014
Detection of adverse drug events using an electronic trigger tool
Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2016 Sep 1;73(17 Suppl 4):S112-20 • September 1, 2016
Purpose: Implementation and refinement of an integrated electronic "trigger tool" for detecting adverse drug events (ADEs) is described.
Methods: A three-month prospective study was conducted at a large medical center to test and improve the positive predictive value (PPV) of an electronic health record-based tool for detecting ADEs associated with use of four "trigger drugs": the reversal agents flumazenil, naloxone, phytonadione, and protamine. On administration of a trigger drug to an adult patient, an electronic message was transmitted to two pharmacists, who reviewed cases in near real time (typically, on the same day) to detect actual or potential ADEs. In phase 1 of the study, any use of a trigger drug resulted in an alert message; in subsequent phases, the alerting criteria were narrowed on the basis of clinical criteria and laboratory data with the goal of refining the trigger tool's PPV.
Results: A total of 87 drug administrations were reviewed during the three-month study period, with 27 ADEs detected. PPV values in phases 1, 2, and 3 were 0.33, 0.21, and 0.36, respectively. The relatively low overall PPV of the trigger tool was largely attributable to false-positive trigger messages associated with phytonadione use (such messages were reduced from 35 in phase 1 to 7 in phase 3).
Conclusion: Evaluation and refinement of an electronic trigger tool based on detecting the use of the reversal agents flumazenil, naloxone, phytonadione, and protamine found an overall PPV of 0.31 during a three-month study period.
Harmonization of technology across an integrated delivery network
Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2018 Jul 15;75(14):1073-1078 • July 15, 2018
Summary: Whether to strive for standardization (use of the same vendors and equipment) versus harmonization (use of various technologies to meet patient-specific needs and organizational stability requirements) and how to coordinate activities across IDNs consisting of 3-30 or more hospitals are common questions due to consolidations in the healthcare industry. For most IDNs with legacy systems, harmonization may be the better option. Large-scale harmonization initiatives require significant planning and coordination involving all affected parties. Detailed project plans should include the compiling of all associated harmonization costs that involve human resources, information on ongoing services and equipment, and program schedules for multiple concurrent projects in order to provide a framework for planning and coordination. Part of the planning process for harmonization efforts should include an extensive current-state analysis that includes review of contracts and vendors. Final harmonization decisions should be based on a mix of vendor recommendations, best practices, and accommodation of current practices that result in the lowest complexity of system redesign with regard to existing systems. When harmonizing existing technologies, planning must also consider the impact of the change to both the organization and individual users.