Associations between patient factors and medication adherence: a Jordanian experience

Objective: To explore the effect of patient characteristics and health beliefs on their medication adherence. Methods: Patients (n=167) with chronic conditions (mean age 58.9; SD=13.54, 53% males) were recruited from March 2009- to March 2010 using a cross sectional study design. Data collected included patients’ demographics, medical conditions, medications therapeutic regimen, frequency of physician visits and health beliefs. Patient self-reported adherence to medications was assessed by the researcher using a validated and published scale. Treatment related problems (TRPs) were evaluated for each patient by competent clinical pharmacists. Associations between patient characteristics/health beliefs with adherence were explored. Results: About half of the patients (46.1%) were non-adherent. A significant association was found between lower adherence and higher number of disease states (p<0.001), higher number of medications (p=0.001), and higher number of identified TRPs (p = 0.003). Patient adherence was positively affected by older age, higher educational level, and higher number of physician visits per month, while it was negatively affected by reporting difficulties with getting prescription refills on time. Conclusion: This study identified different factors that may negatively affect adherence, including higher number of medications and disease states, higher number of identified TRPs and inability to getting prescription refills on time. Hence, more care needs to be provided to patients with complex therapeutic regimens in order to enhance adherence.

One-year follow-up of the nutritional status of patients undergoing liver transplantation

Background: Choosing the method of nutritional assessment is essential for proper follow-up of the nutritional status of patients undergoing liver transplantation. Objectives: Evaluate and compare the nutritional status of cirrhotic patients before and after liver transplantation over a year by different methods of nutritional assessment. Methods: Patients undergoing liver transplantation were assessed in five phases: pre-transplant, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after transplantation at the hospital Santa Casa de Misericordia de Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil. The methods used for nutritional assessment were anthropometry, grip strength of the non-dominant hand (HGS) by dynamometry, thickness of the adductor pollicis muscle (APM) and phase angle (PA) by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). In all evaluations, the same measurements were taken. Results: Evaluations were performed in 22 patients. Methods that showed a higher prevalence of malnourished patients before transplantation were PA by BIA (25%), arm muscle circumference (AMC) (21.9%) and arm circumference (AC) (18.8%). When comparing the nutritional status of patients during follow-up, there was a significant difference only in the evaluation methods AC, triceps skinfold thickness and PA by BIA. At the end, the methods of nutritional assessment were compared again. They showed a significant statistical difference, with HGS being the best method for detecting malnutrition. Conclusions: In conclusion, it is suggested that the method PA by BIA could be widely used with this population since the results are consistent with other findings in the literature and they are significant, reliable, and reproducible.

Inclusion of salt form on prescription medication labeling as a source of patient confusion: a pilot study

Background: It has been estimated that 10,000 patient injuries occur in the US annually due to confusion involving drug names. An unexplored source of patient misunderstandings may be medication salt forms. Objective: The objective of this study was to assess patient knowledge and comprehension regarding the salt forms of medications as a potential source of medication errors. Methods: A 12 item questionnaire which assessed patient knowledge of medication names on prescription labels was administered to a convenience sample of patients presenting to a family practice clinic. Descriptive statistics were calculated and multivariate analyses were performed. Results: There were 308 responses. Overall, 41% of patients agreed they find their medication names confusing. Participants correctly answered to salt form questions between 12.1% and 56.9% of the time. Taking more prescription medications and higher education level were positively associated with providing more correct answers to 3 medication salt form knowledge questions, while age was negatively associated. Conclusions: Patient misconceptions about medication salt forms are common. These findings support recommendations to standardize the inclusion or exclusion of salt forms. Increasing patient education is another possible approach to reducing confusion.

Medication reconciliation at patient admission: a randomized controlled trial

Objective: To measure length of hospital stay (LHS) in patients receiving medication reconciliation. Secondary characteristics included analysis of number of preadmission medications, medications prescribed at admission, number of discrepancies, and pharmacists interventions done and accepted by the attending physician. Methods: A 6 month, randomized, controlled trial conducted at a public teaching hospital in southern Brazil. Patients admitted to general wards were randomized to receive usual care or medication reconciliation, performed within the first 72 hours of hospital admission. Results: The randomization process assigned 68 patients to UC and 65 to MR. LHS was 10±15 days in usual care and 9±16 days in medication reconciliation (p=0.620). The total number of discrepancies was 327 in the medication reconciliation group, comprising 52.6% of unintentional discrepancies. Physicians accepted approximately 75.0% of the interventions. Conclusion: These results highlight weakness at patient transition care levels in a public teaching hospital. LHS, the primary outcome, should be further investigated in larger studies. Medication reconciliation was well accepted by physicians and it is a useful tool to find and correct discrepancies, minimizing the risk of adverse drug events and improving patient safety.