Abstract Purpose Knowledge of clinical pharmacotherapy is essential for all who prescribe medication. The aims of this study were to investigate differences in the pharmacotherapy and polypharmacy knowledge of medical and surgical residents and consultants and whether this knowledge can be improved by following an online course. Methods Design: A before-and-after-measurement. Setting: An online course available for Dutch residents and consultants working in hospitals. Study population: Dutch residents and consultants from different disciplines who voluntarily followed an online course on geriatric care. Intervention An online 6-week course on geriatric care, with 1 week dedicated to clinical pharmacotherapy and polypharmacy. Variables, such as medical vs surgical specialty, consultant vs resident, age, and sex, that could predict the level of knowledge. The effects of the online course were studied using repeated measures ANOVA. The study was approved by the National Ethics Review Board of Medical Education (NERB dossier number 996). Results A total of 394 residents and 270 consultants, 220 from surgical and 444 from medical specialties, completed the online course in 2016 and 2017. Residents had higher test scores than consultants for pharmacotherapy (73% vs 70%, p<0.02) and polypharmacy (75% vs 72%, p<0.02). The learning effect did not differ. Medical residents/consultants had a better knowledge of pharmacotherapy (74% vs 68%, p<0.001) and polypharmacy (77% vs 66%, p<0.001) than surgical residents/consultants, but the learning effect was the same. Conclusions Residents and consultants had a similar learning curve for acquiring knowledge, but residents outperformed consultants on all measures. In addition, surgical and medical residents/consultants had similar learning curves, but medical residents/consultants had higher test scores on all measures.
MULTIFILE
Aims: Prescribing medication is a complex process that, when done inappropriately, can lead to adverse drug events, resulting in patient harm and hospital admissions. Worldwide cost is estimated at 42 billion USD each year. Despite several efforts in the past years, medication-related harm has not declined. The aim was to determine whether a prescriber-focussed participatory action intervention, initiated by a multidisciplinary pharmacotherapy team, is able to reduce the number of in-hospital prescriptions containing ≥1 prescribing error (PE), by identifying and reducing challenges in appropriate prescribing. Methods: A prospective single-centre before- and after study was conducted in an academic hospital in the Netherlands. Twelve clinical wards (medical, surgical, mixed and paediatric) were recruited. Results: Overall, 321 patients with a total of 2978 prescriptions at baseline were compared with 201 patients with 2438 prescriptions postintervention. Of these, m456 prescriptions contained ≥1 PE (15.3%) at baseline and 357 prescriptions contained ≥1 PEs (14.6%) postintervention. PEs were determined in multidisciplinary consensus. On some study wards, a trend toward a decreasing number of PEs was observed. The intervention was associated with a nonsignificant difference in PEs (incidence rate ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.83–1.10), which was unaltered after correction. The most important identified challenges were insufficient knowledge beyond own expertise, unawareness of guidelines and a heavy workload. Conclusion: The tailored interventions developed with and implemented by stakeholders led to a statistically nonsignificant reduction in inappropriate in-hospital prescribing after a 6-month intervention period. Our prescriber-focussed participatory action intervention identified challenges in appropriate in-hospital prescribing on prescriber- and organizational level.
MULTIFILE
Abstract: This case study examines the use of an eHealth application for improving preoperative rehabilitation (prehabilitation). We have analysed healthcare professionals' motivators and drivers for adopting eHealth for a surgical procedure at academic medical facilities. The research focused on when and why healthcare professionals are inclined to adopt eHealth applications in their way of working? For this qualitative study, we selected 12 professionals involved in all levels of the organisation and stages of the medical process and conducted semi-structured interviews. Kotter’s transformational change model and the Technology Acceptance Model were used as analytical frameworks for the identification of the motivation of eHealth adoption. The findings suggest that contrary to Kotter’s change model, which argues that adoption of change is based on perceptions and feelings, the healthcare drivers are rational when it comes to deciding whether or not to adopt eHealth apps. This study further elaborates the observation made by the Dutch expertise centre on eHealth, Nictiz, that when the value of an eHealth pplication is clear for a stakeholder, the adoption process accelerates. Analysis of the motivations and drivers of the healthcare professionals show a strong relationship with an evidence-based grounding of usefulness and the responsibility these professionals have towards their patients. We found that healthcare professionals respond to the primary goal of improving healthcare. This is true if the eHealth application will innovate their work, but mainly when the application will improve the patient care they are responsible for. When eHealth applications are implemented, rational facts need to be collected in a study before deployment of eHealth applications on how these applications will improve the patient's health or wellbeing throughout their so-called medical journey for their treatment. Furthermore, the preference to learn about new eHealth applications from someone who speaks from authority through expertise on the subject matter, suggests adoption by healthcare professionals may be accelerated through peers. The result of this study may provide healthcare management with a different approach to their eHealth strategy. Future research is needed to validate the findings in different medical organisational settings such as regional healthcare facilities or for-profit centers which do not necessarily have an innovation focus but are driven by other strategic drivers.
DOCUMENT
