PURPOSE: We investigated changes in ARDS severity and associations with outcome in COVID-19 ARDS patients.METHODS: We compared outcomes in patients with ARDS classified as 'mild', 'moderate' or 'severe' at calendar day 1, and after reclassification at calendar day 2. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. We also identified which ventilatory parameters had an association with presence of severe ARDS at day 2. We repeated the analysis for reclassification at calendar day 4.RESULTS: Of 895 patients, 8.5%, 60.1% and 31.4% had mild, moderate and severe ARDS at day 1. These proportions were 13.5%, 72.6% and 13.9% at day 2. 28-day mortality was 25.3%, 31.3% and 32.0% in patients with mild, moderate and severe ARDS at day 1 (p = 0.537), compared to 28.6%, 29.2% and 44.3% in patients reclassified at day 2 (p = 0.005). No ventilatory parameter had an independent association with presence of severe ARDS at day 2. Findings were not different reclassifying at day 4.CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of COVID-19 patients, ARDS severity and mortality between severity classes changed substantially over the first 4 days of ventilation. These findings are important, as reclassification could help identify target patients that may benefit from alternative approaches.
MULTIFILE
BACKGROUND: During transitions from hospital to home, up to half of all patients experience medication-related problems, such as adverse drug events. To reduce these problems, knowledge of patient experiences with medication use during this transition is needed. This study aims to identify the perspectives of patients on barriers and facilitators with medication use, during the transition from hospital to home.METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted in 2017 among patients discharged from two hospitals using a semi-structured interview guide. Patients were asked to identify all barriers they experienced with medication use during transitions from hospital to home, and facilitators needed to overcome those barriers. Data were analyzed following thematic content analysis and visualized using an "Ishikawa" diagram.RESULTS: In total, three focus groups were conducted with 19 patients (mean age: 70.8 (SD 9.3) years, 63% female). Three barriers were identified; lack of personalized care in the care continuum, insufficient information transfer (e.g. regarding changes in pharmacotherapy), and problems in care organization (e.g. medication substitution). Facilitators to overcome these barriers included a personal medication-counselor in the care continuum to guide patients with medication use and overcome communication barriers, and post-discharge follow-up care (e.g. home visits from healthcare providers).CONCLUSIONS: During transitions from hospital to home patients experience individual-, healthcare provider- and organization level barriers. Future research should focus on personal-medication counselors in the care continuum and post-discharge follow-up care as it may overcome communication, emotional, information and organization barriers with medication use.
Rational prescribing is essential for the quality of health care. However, many final-year medical students and junior doctors lack prescribing competence to perform this task. The availability of a list of medicines that a junior doctor working in Europe should be able to independently prescribe safely and effectively without supervision could support and harmonize teaching and training in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CPT) in Europe. Therefore, our aim was to achieve consensus on such a list of medicines that are widely accessible in Europe. For this, we used a modified Delphi study method consisting of three parts. In part one, we created an initial list based on a literature search. In part two, a group of 64 coordinators in CPT education, selected via the Network of Teachers in Pharmacotherapy of the European Association for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, evaluated the accessibility of each medicine in his or her country, and provided a diverse group of experts willing to participate in the Delphi part. In part three, 463 experts from 24 European countries were invited to participate in a 2-round Delphi study. In total, 187 experts (40%) from 24 countries completed both rounds and evaluated 416 medicines, 98 of which were included in the final list. The top three Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical code groups were (1) cardiovascular system (n = 23), (2) anti-infective (n = 21), and (3) musculoskeletal system (n = 11). This European List of Key Medicines for Medical Education could be a starting point for country-specific lists and could be used for the training and assessment of CPT.
