ABSTRACT Purpose: Polypharmacy is a known risk factor for potentially inappropriate prescribing. Recently there is an increasing interest in clinical decision support systems (CDSS) to improve prescribing. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a CDSS, with the START-STOPP criteria as main content in the setting of a geriatric ward. Endpoints were 1) appropriateness of prescribing and 2) acceptance rate of recommendations. Methods: This prospective study comparing the use of a CDSS with usual care involved patients admitted to geriatric wards in two teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were included from January to May 2017. The medications of 64 patients in the first six weeks was assessed according to the current standard, whereas the medications of 61 patients in the second six weeks were also assessed by using a CDSS. Medication appropriateness was assessed with the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI). Results: The medications of 125 patients (median age 83 years) were reviewed. In both the usual care group and the intervention group MAI scores decreased significantly from admission to discharge (within group analyses, p<0.001). This effect was significantly larger in the intervention group (p<0.05). MAI scores at discharge in the usual care group and the intervention group were respectively 9.95±6.70 and 7.26±5.07. The CDSS generated 193 recommendations, of which 71 concerned START criteria, 45 STOPP criteria, and 77 potential interactions. Overall, 31.6% of the recommendations were accepted. Conclusion: This study shows that a CDSS to improve prescribing has additional value in the setting of a geriatric ward. Almost one third of the software-generated recommendations were interpreted as clinically relevant and accepted, on average one per patient.
MULTIFILE
Interprofessional communication and collaboration during hospitalisation is critically important to provide safe and effective care. Clinical rounds are an essential interprofessional process in which the clinical problems of patients are discussed on a daily basis. The objective of this exploratory study was to identify healthcare professionals’ perspectives on the “ideal” interprofessional round for patients in a university teaching hospital. Three focus groups with medical residents, registered nurses, medical specialists, and quality improvement officers were held. We used a descriptive method of content analysis. The findings indicate that it is important for professionals to consider how team members and patients are involved in the decision-making process during the clinical round and how current social and spatial structures can affect communication and collaboration between the healthcare team and the patient. Specific aspects of communication and collaboration are identified for improving effective interprofessional communication and collaboration during rounds.
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
