Objective To describe communication between pharmacy staff and patients at the counter in outpatient pharmacies. Both content and communication style were investigated. Methods Pharmaceutical encounters in three outpatient pharmacies in the Netherlands were video-recorded. Videos were analyzed based on an observation protocol for the following information: content of encounter, initiator of a theme and pharmacy staff's communication style. Results In total, 119 encounters were recorded which concerned 42 first prescriptions, 16 first refill prescriptions and 61 follow-up refill prescriptions. During all encounters, discussion was mostly initiated by pharmacy staff (85%). In first prescription encounters topics most frequently discussed included instructions for use (83%) and dosage instructions (95%). In first refill encounters, patient experiences such as adverse effects (44%) and beneficial effects (38%) were regularly discussed in contrast to follow-up refills (7% and 5%). Patients’ opinion on medication was hardly discussed. Conclusion Pharmacy staff in outpatient pharmacies generally provide practical information, less frequently they discuss patients’ experiences and seldom discuss patients’ perceptions and preferences about prescribed medication. Practice implications This study shows there is room for improvement, as communication is still not according to professional guidelines. To implement professional guidelines successfully, it is necessary to identify underlying reasons for not following the guidelines.
LINK
As the population ages, more people will have comorbid disorders and polypharmacy. Medication should be reviewed regularly in order to avoid adverse drug reactions and medication-related hospital visits, but this is often not done. As part of our student-run clinic project, we investigated whether an interprofessional student-run medication review program (ISP) added to standard care at a geriatric outpatient clinic leads to better prescribing. In this controlled clinical trial, patients visiting a memory outpatient clinic were allocated to standard care (control group) or standard care plus the ISP team (intervention group). The medications of all patients were reviewed by a review panel (“gold standard”), resident, and in the intervention arm also by an ISP team consisting of a group of students from the medicine and pharmacy faculties and students from the higher education school of nursing for advanced nursing practice. For both groups, the number of STOPP/START-based medication changes mentioned in general practitioner (GP) correspondence and the implementation of these changes about 6 weeks after the outpatient visit were investigated. The data of 216 patients were analyzed (control group = 100, intervention group = 116). More recommendations for STOPP/STARTbased medication changes were made in the GP correspondence in the intervention group than in the control group (43% vs. 24%, P = < 0.001). After 6 weeks, a significantly higher proportion of these changes were implemented in the intervention group (19% vs. 9%, P = 0.001). The ISP team, in addition to standard care, is an effective intervention for optimizing pharmacotherapy and medication safety in a geriatric outpatient clinic.
MULTIFILE
ABSTRACT Background: We investigated if the addition of an inter-professional student-led medication review team (ISP-team) to standard care can increase the number of detected ADRs and reduce the number of ADRs 3 months after an outpatient visit. Research design and methods: In this controlled clinical trial, patients were allocated to standard care (control group) or standard care plus the ISP team (intervention group). The ISP team consisted of medical and pharmacy students and student nurse practitioners. The team performed a structured medication review and adjusted medication to reduce the number of ADRs. Three months after the outpatient visit, a clinical pharmacologist who was blinded for allocation performed a follow-up telephone interview to determine whether patients experienced ADRs. Results: During the outpatient clinic visit, significantly more (p < 0.001) ADRs were detected in the intervention group (n = 48) than in the control group (n = 10). In both groups, 60–63% of all detected ADRs were managed. Three months after the outpatient visit, significantly fewer (predominantly mild and moderately severe) ADRs related to benzodiazepine derivatives and antihypertensive causing dizziness were detected in the patients of the intervention group. Conclusions: An ISP team in addition to standard care increases the detection and management of ADRs in elderly patients resulting in fewer mild and moderately severe ADRs
MULTIFILE
Abstract Aims The involvement of an inter-professional healthcare student team in the review of medications used by geriatric patients could not only provide patients with optimized therapy but also provide students with a valuable inter-professional learning experience. We describe and evaluate the clinical and learning outcomes of an inter-professional student-run mediation review program (ISP). Subject and method A variable team consisting of students in medicine, pharmacy, master advanced nursing practice, and master physician assistant reviewed the medication lists of patients attending a specialized geriatric outpatient clinic. Results During 32 outpatient visits, 188 medications were reviewed. The students identified 14 medication-related problems, of which 4 were not recognized by healthcare professionals. The ISP team advised 95 medication changes, of which 68 (71.6%) were directly implemented. Students evaluated this pilot program positively and considered it educational (median score 4 out of 5) and thought it would contribute to their future inter-professional relationships. Conclusion An inter-professional team of healthcare students is an innovative healthcare improvement for (academic) hospitals to increase medication safety. Most formulated advices were directly incorporated in daily practice and could prevent future medication-related harm. The ISP also offers students a first opportunity to work in an inter-professional manner and get insight into the perspectives and qualities of their future colleagues.
MULTIFILE
Abstract Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has challenged healthcare globally. An acute increase in the number of hospitalized patients has neces‑ sitated a rigorous reorganization of hospital care, thereby creating circumstances that previously have been identifed as facilitating prescribing errors (PEs), e.g. a demanding work environment, a high turnover of doctors, and prescrib‑ ing beyond expertise. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients may be at risk of PEs, potentially resulting in patient harm. We determined the prevalence, severity, and risk factors for PEs in post–COVID-19 patients, hospitalized during the frst wave of COVID-19 in the Netherlands, 3months after discharge. Methods: This prospective observational cohort study recruited patients who visited a post-COVID-19 outpatient clinic of an academic hospital in the Netherlands, 3months after COVID-19 hospitalization, between June 1 and October 1 2020. All patients with appointments were eligible for inclusion. The prevalence and severity of PEs were assessed in a multidisciplinary consensus meeting. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated by univariate and multivariate analysis to identify independent risk factors for PEs. Results: Ninety-eight patients were included, of whom 92% had ≥1 PE and 8% experienced medication-related harm requiring an immediate change in medication therapy to prevent detoriation. Overall, 68% of all identifed PEs were made during or after the COVID-19 related hospitalization. Multivariate analyses identifed ICU admission (OR 6.08, 95% CI 2.16–17.09) and a medical history of COPD / asthma (OR 5.36, 95% CI 1.34–21.5) as independent risk fac‑ tors for PEs. Conclusions: PEs occurred frequently during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Patients admitted to an ICU during COVID19 hospitalization or who had a medical history of COPD / asthma were at risk of PEs. These risk factors can be used to identify high-risk patients and to implement targeted interventions. Awareness of prescribing safely is crucial to prevent harm in this new patient population.
MULTIFILE
Treatment guidelines difer signifcantly, not only between Europe and North America but also among European countries [1–4]. Reasons for these diferences include antimicrobial resistance patterns, accessibility to and reimbursement policies for medicines, and culturally and historically determined prescribing attitudes. The European Association of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics’ Education Working Group has launched several initiatives to improve and harmonize European pharmacotherapy education, but international diferences have proven to be a major barrier to these eforts [5–7]. While we have taken steps to chart these diferences [6, 8], it will probably not be possible to fully resolve them. Rather than viewing these diferences as a barrier, we should perhaps see them as an opportunity for intercultural learning by providing students and teachers a valuable lesson in the context-dependent nature of prescribing medication and the diferent interpretations of evidence-based medicine. Here, we extend our experience with interprofessional student-run clinics [9, 10], to report on our first experiences with the “International and Interprofessional Student-run Clinic.” We organized three successful video meetings with medical and pharmacy students of the Amsterdam UMC, location VU University (the Netherlands), and the University of Bologna (Italy). During these meetings, one of the students presented a real-life case of a patient on polypharmacy. Then, in a 45-min session, the students split into smaller groups (break-out rooms) to review the patient’s medication, using the prescribing optimization method and STOPP/ START criteria [11, 12]. The teachers rotated between the diferent rooms and assisted the students when necessary. Teachers and students reconvened for 60 min for debriefng, with students presenting their fndings and suggestions to revise the medication list and teachers stimulating discussion and indicating how they would alter the medication list. Participation was voluntary, and the meetings were held in the evenings to accommodate students in clinical rotations. Third-to-fnal-year medical and pharmacy students participated in the three meetings (n=17, n=20, n=12, respectively). They reported learning a lot from each other, gaining an international and interprofessional perspective. Moreover, they learned to always consider the patient’s perspective, that evidence-based medicine is context-dependent, and that guidelines should be adapted to the patient’s situation.
MULTIFILE
Abstract Background: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of the estimated 11–25 years reduced life expectancy for persons with serious mental illness (SMI). This excess cardiovascular mortality is primarily attributable to obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia. Obesity is associated with a sedentary lifestyle, limited physical activity and an unhealthy diet. Lifestyle interventions for persons with SMI seem promising in reducing weight and cardiovascular risk. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention among persons with SMI in an outpatient treatment setting. Methods: The Serious Mental Illness Lifestyle Evaluation (SMILE) study is a cluster-randomized controlled trial including an economic evaluation in approximately 18 Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) teams in the Netherlands. The intervention aims at a healthy diet and increased physical activity. Randomisation takes place at the level of participating FACT-teams. We aim to include 260 outpatients with SMI and a body mass index of 27 or higher who will either receive the lifestyle intervention or usual care. The intervention will last 12 months and consists of weekly 2-h group meetings delivered over the first 6 months. The next 6 months will include monthly group meetings, supplemented with regular individual contacts. Primary outcome is weight loss. Secondary outcomes are metabolic parameters (waist circumference, lipids, blood pressure, glucose), quality of life and health related self-efficacy. Costs will be measured from a societal perspective and include costs of the lifestyle program, health care utilization, medication and lost productivity. Measurements will be performed at baseline and 3, 6 and 12 months. Discussion: The SMILE intervention for persons with SMI will provide important information on the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, feasibility and delivery of a group-based lifestyle intervention in a Dutch outpatient treatment setting. Trial registration: Dutch Trial Registration NL6660, registration date: 16 November 2017.
DOCUMENT
Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the Boston University Approach to Psychiatric Rehabilitation (BPR) compared to an active control condition (ACC) to increase the social participation (in competitive employment, unpaid work, education, and meaningful daily activities) of individuals with severe mental illnesses (SMIs). ACC can be described as treatment as usual but with an active component, namely the explicit assignment of providing support with rehabilitation goals in the area of social participation. Method: In a randomized clinical trial with 188 individuals with SMIs, BPR (n = 98) was compared to ACC (n=90). Costs were assessed with the Treatment Inventory of Costs in Patients with psychiatric disorders (TIC-P). Outcome measures for the cost-effectiveness analysis were incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) and incremental cost per proportional change in social participation. Budget Impact was investigated using four implementation scenarios and two costing variants. Results: Total costs per participant at 12-month follow-up were e 12,886 in BPR and e 12,012 in ACC, a non-significant difference. There were no differences with regard to social participation or QALYs. Therefore, BPR was not cost-effective compared to ACC. Types of expenditure with the highest costs were in order of magnitude: supported and sheltered housing, inpatient care, outpatient care, and organized activities. Estimated budget impact of wide BPR implementation ranged from cost savings to e190 million, depending on assumptions regarding uptake. There were no differences between the two costing variants meaning that from a health insurer perspective, there would be no additional costs if BPR was implemented on a wider scale in mental health care institutions. Conclusions: This was the first study to investigate BPR cost-effectiveness and budget impact. The results showed that BPR was not cost-effective compared to ACC. When interpreting the results, one must keep in mind that the cost-effectiveness of BPR was investigated in the area of social participation, while BPR was designed to offer support in all rehabilitation areas. Therefore, more studies are needed before definite conclusions can be drawn on the cost-effectiveness of the method as a whole.
DOCUMENT
Abstract Managing adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is a challenge, especially because most healthcare professionals are insufficiently trained for this task. Since context-based clinical pharmacovigilance training has proven effective, we assessed the feasibility and effect of a creating a team of Junior-Adverse Drug Event Managers (J-ADEMs). The J-ADEM team consisted of medical students (1st–6th year) tasked with managing and reporting ADRs in hospitalized patients. Feasibility was evaluated using questionnaires. Student competence in reporting ADRs was evaluated using a case-control design and questionnaires before and after J-ADEM program participation. From Augustus 2018 to Augustus 2019, 41 students participated in a J-ADEM team and screened 136 patients and submitted 65 ADRs reports to the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Center Lareb. Almost all patients (n = 61) found it important that “their” ADR was reported, and all (n = 62) patients felt they were taken seriously by the J-ADEM team. Although attending physicians agreed that the ADRs should have been reported, they did not do so themselves mainly because of a “lack of knowledge and attitudes” (50%) and “excuses made by healthcare professionals” (49%). J-ADEM team students were significantly more competent than control students in managing ADRs and correctly applying all steps for diagnosing ADRs (control group 38.5% vs. intervention group 83.3%, p < 0.001). The J-ADEM team is a feasible approach for detecting and managing ADRs in hospital. Patients were satisfied with the care provided, physicians were supported in their ADR reporting obligations, and students acquired relevant basic and clinical pharmacovigilance skills and knowledge, making it a win-win-win intervention.
MULTIFILE
Background: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) demonstrate reduced levels of daily physical activity (DPA) compared to healthy controls. This results in a higher risk of hospital admission and shorter survival. Performing regular DPA reduces these risks. Objective: To develop an eHealth intervention that will support patients with COPD to improve or maintain their DPA after pulmonary rehabilitation. Methods: The design process consisted of literature research and the iterative developing and piloting phases of the Medical Research Council (MRC) model for complex clinical interventions and the involvement of end users. Participants were healthy adults and persons with COPD. Results: The mobile phone interface met all the set requirements. Participants found that the app was stimulating and that reaching their DPA goals was rewarding. The mean (SD) scores on a 7-point scale for usability, ease of use, ease of learning, and contentment were 3.8 (1.8), 5.1 (1.1), 6.0 (1.6), and 4.8 (1.3), respectively. The mean (SD) correlation between the mobile phone and a validated accelerometer was 0.88 (0.12) in the final test. The idea of providing their health care professional with their DPA data caused no privacy issues in the participants. Battery life lasted for an entire day with the final version, and readability and comprehensibility of text and colors were favorable. Conclusions: By employing a user-centered design approach, a mobile phone was found to be an adequate and feasible interface for an eHealth intervention. The mobile phone and app are easy to learn and use by patients with COPD. In the final test, the accuracy of the DPA measurement was good. The final version of the eHealth intervention is presently being tested by our group for efficacy in a randomized controlled trial in COPD patients.
LINK
