Insertion dans les soins après une première hospitalisation dans un secteur pour psychose [Linkage to care after first hospitalisation for psychosis]

BACKGROUND: First hospitalisation for a psychotic episode causes intense distress to patients and families, but offers an opportunity to make a diagnosis and start treatment. However, linkage to outpatient psychiatric care remains a notoriously difficult step for young psychotic patients, who frequently interrupt treatment after hospitalisation. Persistence of symptoms, and untreated psychosis may therefore remain a problem despite hospitalisation and proper diagnosis. With persisting psychotic symptoms, numerous complications may arise: breakdown in relationships, loss of family and social support, loss of employment or study interruption, denial of disease, depression, suicide, substance abuse and violence. Understanding mechanisms that might promote linkage to outpatient psychiatric care is therefore a critical issue, especially in early intervention in psychotic disorders. OBJECTIVE: To study which factors hinder or promote linkage of young psychotic patients to outpatient psychiatric care after a first hospitalisation, in the absence of a vertically integrated program for early psychosis. Method. File audit study of all patients aged 18 to 30 who were admitted for the first time to the psychiatric University Hospital of Lausanne in the year 2000. For statistical analysis, chi2 tests were used for categorical variables and t-test for dimensional variables; p<0.05 was considered as statistically significant. RESULTS: 230 patients aged 18 to 30 were admitted to the Lausanne University psychiatric hospital for the first time during the year 2000, 52 of them with a diagnosis of psychosis (23%). Patients with psychosis were mostly male (83%) when compared with non-psychosis patients (49%). Furthermore, they had (1) 10 days longer mean duration of stay (24 vs 14 days), (2) a higher rate of compulsory admissions (53% vs 22%) and (3) were more often hospitalised by a psychiatrist rather than by a general practitioner (83% vs 53%). Other socio-demographic and clinical features at admission were similar in the two groups. Among the 52 psychotic patients, 10 did not stay in the catchment area for subsequent treatment. Among the 42 psychotic patients who remained in the catchment area after discharge, 20 (48%) did not attend the scheduled or rescheduled outpatient appointment. None of the socio demographic characteristics were associated with attendance to outpatient appointments. On the other hand, voluntary admission and suicidal ideation before admission were significantly related to attending the initial appointment. Moreover, some elements of treatment seemed to be associated with higher likelihood to attend outpatient treatment: (1) provision of information to the patient regarding diagnosis, (2) discussion about the treatment plan between in- and outpatient staff, (3) involvement of outpatient team during hospitalisation, and (4) elaboration of concrete strategies to face basic needs, organise daily activities or education and reach for help in case of need. CONCLUSION: As in other studies, half of the patients admitted for a first psychotic episode failed to link to outpatient psychiatric care. Our study suggests that treatment rather than patient's characteristics play a critical role in this phenomenon. Development of a partnership and involvement of patients in the decision process, provision of good information regarding the illness, clear definition of the treatment plan, development of concrete strategies to cope with the illness and its potential complications, and involvement of the outpatient treating team already during hospitalisation, all came out as critical strategies to facilitate adherence to outpatient care. While the current rate of disengagement after admission is highly concerning, our finding are encouraging since they constitute strategies that can easily be implemented. An open approach to psychosis, the development of partnership with patients and a better coordination between inpatient and outpatient teams should therefore be among the targets of early intervention programs. These observations might help setting up priorities when conceptualising new programs and facilitate the implementation of services that facilitate engagement of patients in treatment during the critical initial phase of psychotic disorders.

Outpatient treatment of pulmonary embolism.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is traditionally treated in hospital. Growing evidence from non randomized prospective studies suggests that a substantial proportion of patients with non-massive PE might be safely treated in the outpatient setting using low molecular weight heparins. Based on this evidence, professional societies started to recommend outpatient care for selected patients with non-massive PE. Despite these recommendations, outpatient treatment of non-massive PE appears to be uncommon in clinical practice. The major barriers to PE outpatient care are, firstly, the uncertainty as how to identify low risk patients with PE who are candidates for outpatient care and secondly the lack of high quality evidence from randomized trials demonstrating the safety of PE outpatient care compared to traditional inpatient management. Also, although clinical prognostic models, echocardiography and cardiac biomarkers accurately identify low risk patients with PE in prospective studies, the benefit of risk stratification strategies based on these instruments should be demonstrated in prospective management studies and clinical trials before they can be implemented as decision aids to guide PE outpatient treatment. Before high quality evidence documenting the safety of an outpatient treatment approach is published, outpatient management of non-massive PE cannot be generally recommended.

Disease identification based on ambulatory drugs dispensation and in-hospital ICD-10 diagnoses: a comparison.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacy-based case mix measures are an alternative source of information to the relatively scarce outpatient diagnoses data. But most published tools use national drug nomenclatures and offer no head-to-head comparisons between drugs-related and diagnoses-based categories. The objective of the study was to test the accuracy of drugs-based morbidity groups derived from the World Health Organization Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification of drugs by checking them against diagnoses-based groups. METHODS: We compared drugs-based categories with their diagnoses-based analogues using anonymous data on 108,915 individuals insured with one of four companies. They were followed throughout 2005 and 2006 and hospitalized at least once during this period. The agreement between the two approaches was measured by weighted kappa coefficients. The reproducibility of the drugs-based morbidity measure over the 2 years was assessed for all enrollees. RESULTS: Eighty percent used a drug associated with at least one of the 60 morbidity categories derived from drugs dispensation. After accounting for inpatient under-coding, fifteen conditions agreed sufficiently with their diagnoses-based counterparts to be considered alternative strategies to diagnoses. In addition, they exhibited good reproducibility and allowed prevalence estimates in accordance with national estimates. For 22 conditions, drugs-based information identified accurately a subset of the population defined by diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Most categories provide insurers with health status information that could be exploited for healthcare expenditure prediction or ambulatory cost control, especially when ambulatory diagnoses are not available. However, due to insufficient concordance with their diagnoses-based analogues, their use for morbidity indicators is limited.

Predicting adverse events in children with fever and chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: the prospective multicenter SPOG 2003 FN study.

PURPOSE To develop a score predicting the risk of adverse events (AEs) in pediatric patients with cancer who experience fever and neutropenia (FN) and to evaluate its performance. PATIENTS AND METHODS Pediatric patients with cancer presenting with FN induced by nonmyeloablative chemotherapy were observed in a prospective multicenter study. A score predicting the risk of future AEs (ie, serious medical complication, microbiologically defined infection, radiologically confirmed pneumonia) was developed from a multivariate mixed logistic regression model. Its cross-validated predictive performance was compared with that of published risk prediction rules. Results An AE was reported in 122 (29%) of 423 FN episodes. In 57 episodes (13%), the first AE was known only after reassessment after 8 to 24 hours of inpatient management. Predicting AE at reassessment was better than prediction at presentation with FN. A differential leukocyte count did not increase the predictive performance. The score predicting future AE in 358 episodes without known AE at reassessment used the following four variables: preceding chemotherapy more intensive than acute lymphoblastic leukemia maintenance (weight = 4), hemoglobin > or = 90 g/L (weight = 5), leukocyte count less than 0.3 G/L (weight = 3), and platelet count less than 50 G/L (weight = 3). A score (sum of weights) > or = 9 predicted future AEs. The cross-validated performance of this score exceeded the performance of published risk prediction rules. At an overall sensitivity of 92%, 35% of the episodes were classified as low risk, with a specificity of 45% and a negative predictive value of 93%. CONCLUSION This score, based on four routinely accessible characteristics, accurately identifies pediatric patients with cancer with FN at risk for AEs after reassessment.

Pediatric drug-related problems: a multicenter study in four French-speaking countries.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric intensive care patients represent a population at high risk for drug-related problems. There are few studies that compare the activity of clinical pharmacists between countries. OBJECTIVE: To describe the drug-related problems identified and interventions by four pharmacists in a pediatric cardiac and intensive care unit. SETTING: Four pediatric centers in France, Quebec, Switzerland and Belgium. METHOD: This was a six-month multicenter, descriptive and prospective study conducted from August 1, 2009 to January 31, 2010. Drug-related problems and clinical interventions were compiled from four pediatric centers in France, Quebec, Switzerland and Belgium. Data on patients, drugs, intervention, documentation, approval and estimated impact were compiled. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Number and type of drug-related problems encountered in a large pediatric inpatient population. RESULTS: A total of 996 interventions were recorded: 238 (24 %) in France, 278 (28 %) in Quebec, 351 (35 %) in Switzerland and 129 (13 %) in Belgium. These interventions targeted 270 patients (median 21 months old, 53 % male): 88 (33 %) in France, 56 (21 %) in Quebec, 57 (21 %) in Switzerland and 69 (26 %) in Belgium. The main drug-related problems were inappropriate administration technique (29 %), untreated indication (25 %) and supra-therapeutic dose (11 %). The pharmacists' interventions were mostly optimizing the mode of administration (22 %), dose adjustment (20 %) and therapeutic monitoring (16 %). The two major drug classes that led to interventions were anti-infectives for systemic use (23 %) and digestive system and metabolism drugs (22 %). Interventions mainly involved residents and all clinical staff (21 %). Among the 878 (88 %) proposed interventions requiring physician approval, 860 (98 %) were accepted. CONCLUSION: This descriptive study illustrates drug-related problems and the ability of clinical pharmacists to identify and resolve them in pediatric intensive care units in four French-speaking countries.

Comparing potentially avoidable hospitalization rates related to ambulatory care sensitive conditions in Switzerland: the need to refine the definition of health conditions and to adjust for population health status.

BACKGROUND: Regional rates of hospitalization for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC) are used to compare the availability and quality of ambulatory care but the risk adjustment for population health status is often minimal. The objectives of the study was to examine the impact of more extensive risk adjustment on regional comparisons and to investigate the relationship between various area-level factors and the properly adjusted rates. METHODS: Our study is an observational study based on routine data of 2 million anonymous insured in 26 Swiss cantons followed over one or two years. A binomial negative regression was modeled with increasingly detailed information on health status (age and gender only, inpatient diagnoses, outpatient conditions inferred from dispensed drugs and frequency of physician visits). Hospitalizations for ACSC were identified from principal diagnoses detecting 19 conditions, with an updated list of ICD-10 diagnostic codes. Co-morbidities and surgical procedures were used as exclusion criteria to improve the specificity of the detection of potentially avoidable hospitalizations. The impact of the adjustment approaches was measured by changes in the standardized ratios calculated with and without other data besides age and gender. RESULTS: 25% of cases identified by inpatient main diagnoses were removed by applying exclusion criteria. Cantonal ACSC hospitalizations rates varied from to 1.4 to 8.9 per 1,000 insured, per year. Morbidity inferred from diagnoses and drugs dramatically increased the predictive performance, the greatest effect found for conditions linked to an ACSC. More visits were associated with fewer PAH although very high users were at greater risk and subjects who had not consulted at negligible risk. By maximizing health status adjustment, two thirds of the cantons changed their adjusted ratio by more than 10 percent. Cantonal variations remained substantial but unexplained by supply or demand. CONCLUSION: Additional adjustment for health status is required when using ACSC to monitor ambulatory care. Drug-inferred morbidities are a promising approach.

Medication incidents in primary care medicine: protocol of a study by the Swiss Federal Sentinel Reporting System.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: Patient safety is a major concern in healthcare systems worldwide. Although most safety research has been conducted in the inpatient setting, evidence indicates that medical errors and adverse events are a threat to patients in the primary care setting as well. Since information about the frequency and outcomes of safety incidents in primary care is required, the goals of this study are to describe the type, frequency, seasonal and regional distribution of medication incidents in primary care in Switzerland and to elucidate possible risk factors for medication incidents. Label="METHODS AND ANALYSIS" ="METHODS"/> <AbstractText STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We will conduct a prospective surveillance study to identify cases of medication incidents among primary care patients in Switzerland over the course of the year 2015. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing drug treatment by 167 general practitioners or paediatricians reporting to the Swiss Federal Sentinel Reporting System. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Any erroneous event, as defined by the physician, related to the medication process and interfering with normal treatment course. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Lack of treatment effect, adverse drug reactions or drug-drug or drug-disease interactions without detectable treatment error. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Medication incidents. RISK FACTORS: Age, gender, polymedication, morbidity, care dependency, hospitalisation. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics to assess type, frequency, seasonal and regional distribution of medication incidents and logistic regression to assess their association with potential risk factors. Estimated sample size: 500 medication incidents. LIMITATIONS: We will take into account under-reporting and selective reporting among others as potential sources of bias or imprecision when interpreting the results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No formal request was necessary because of fully anonymised data. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT0229537.