Comparison of the traditional pharmaceutical validation method versus an assisted pharmaceutical validation in hospitalized patients

Objective: To analyze pharmaceutical interventions that have been carried out with the support of an automated system for validation of treatments vs. the traditional method without computer support. Method: The automated program, ALTOMEDICAMENTOS® version 0, has 925 052 data with information regarding approximately 20 000 medicines, analyzing doses, administration routes, number of days with such a treatment, dosing in renal and liver failure, interactions control, similar drugs, and enteral medicines. During eight days, in four different hospitals (high complexity with over 1 000 beds, 400-bed intermediate, geriatric and monographic), the same patients and treatments were analyzed using both systems. Results: 3,490 patients were analyzed, with 42 155 different treatments. 238 interventions were performed using the traditional system (interventions 0.56% / possible interventions) vs. 580 (1.38%) with the automated one. Very significant pharmaceutical interventions were 0.14% vs. 0.46%; significant was 0.38% vs. 0.90%; non-significant was 0.05% vs. 0.01%, respectively. If both systems are simultaneously used, interventions are performed in 1.85% vs. 0.56% with just the traditional system. Using only the traditional model, 30.5% of the possible interventions are detected, whereas without manual review and only the automated one, 84% of the possible interventions are detected. Conclusions: The automated system increases pharmaceutical interventions between 2.43 to 3.64 times. According to the results of this study the traditional validation system needs to be revised relying on automated systems. The automated program works correctly in different hospitals.

Transcultural adaptation and validation of the Celiac Dietary Adherence Test: a simple questionnaire to measure adherence to a gluten-free diet

Background and aims: A gluten-free diet is to date the only treatment available to celiac disease sufferers. However, systematic reviews indicate that, depending on the method of evaluation used, only 42% to 91% of patients adhere to the diet strictly. Transculturally adapted tools that evaluate adherence beyond simple self-informed questions or invasive analyses are, therefore, of importance. The aim is to obtain a Spanish transcultural adaption and validation of Leffler's Celiac Dietary Adherence Test. Methods: A two-stage observational transversal study: translation and back translation by four qualified translators followed by a validation stage in which the questionnaire was administered to 306 celiac disease patients aged between 12 and 72 years and resident in Aragon. Factorial structure, criteria validity and internal consistency were evaluated. Results: The Spanish version maintained the 7 items in a 3-factor structure. Feasibility was very high in all the questions answered and the floor and ceiling effects were very low (4.3% and 1%, respectively). The Spearman correlation with the self-efficacy and life quality scales and the self-informed question were statistically significant (p < 0.01). According to the questionnaire criteria, adherence was 72.3%. Conclusion: The Spanish version of the Celiac Dietary Adherence Test shows appropriate psychometric properties and is, therefore, suitable for studying adherence to a gluten-free diet in clinical and research environments.

Management of the clinical issue of constipation with abdominal complaints in adults: a national survey of Primary Care physicians and gastroenterologists

Irritable bowel syndrome and functional constipation represent a relevant and common health issue. However, real-world clinical practice includes patients with constipation who may or may not have other abdominal complaints (pain, bloating, abdominal discomfort) with variable frequency. The goal of the present study was to obtain information on the workload entailed by patients with constipation and associated abdominal complaints, predominant clinical behaviors, education needs, and potential daily practice aids both in Primary Care and gastroenterology settings. The clinical behavior of doctors is generally similar at both levels, despite differences in healthcare approach: use of empiric therapies and clinically guided diagnostic tests, with some differences in colonoscopy use (not always directly accessible from Primary Care). Regarding perceptions, general support and osmotic laxatives are most valued by PC doctors, whereas osmotic laxatives, combined laxatives, and linaclotide are most valued by GE specialists. Furthermore, over half of respondents considered differentiating both diagnoses as challenging. Finally, considerable education needs are self-acknowledged at both levels, as is a demand for guidelines and protocols to help in managing this issue in clinical practice. A strength of this study is its providing a joint photograph of the medical approach and the perceptions of constipation with abdominal discomfort from a medical standpoint. Weaknesses include self-declaration (no formal validation) and a response rate potentially biased by professional motivation.