12 resultados para General practitioners
em CentAUR: Central Archive University of Reading - UK
Resumo:
Objective: To describe the use of a multifaceted strategy for recruiting general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists to talk about medication errors which have resulted in preventable drug-related admissions to hospital. This is a potentially sensitive subject with medicolegal implications. Setting: Four primary care trusts and one teaching hospital in the UK. Method: Letters were mailed to community pharmacists and general practitioners asking for provisional consent to be interviewed and permission to contact them again should a patient be admitted to hospital as a result of a medication error. In addition, GPs were asked for permission to approach their patients should they be admitted to hospital. A multifaceted approach to recruitment was used including gaining support for the study from professional defence agencies and local champions. Key findings: Eighty-five percent (310/385) of GPs and 62% (93/149) of community pharmacists responded to the letters. Eighty-five percent (266/310) of GPs who responded and 81% (75/93) of community pharmacists who responded gave provisional consent to participate in interviews. All GPs (14 out of 14) and community pharmacists (10 out of 10) who were subsequently asked to participate, when patients were admitted to hospital, agreed to be interviewed. Conclusion: The multifaceted approach to recruitment was associated with an impressive response when asking healthcare professionals to be interviewed about medication errors which have resulted in preventable drug-related morbidity.
Resumo:
Objective To undertake a process evaluation of pharmacists' recommendations arising in the context of a complex IT-enabled pharmacist-delivered randomised controlled trial (PINCER trial) to reduce the risk of hazardous medicines management in general practices. Methods PINCER pharmacists manually recorded patients’ demographics, details of interventions recommended, actions undertaken by practice staff and time taken to manage individual cases of hazardous medicines management. Data were coded and double entered into SPSS v15, and then summarised using percentages for categorical data (with 95% CI) and, as appropriate, means (SD) or medians (IQR) for continuous data. Key findings Pharmacists spent a median of 20 minutes (IQR 10, 30) reviewing medical records, recommending interventions and completing actions in each case of hazardous medicines management. Pharmacists judged 72% (95%CI 70, 74) (1463/2026) of cases of hazardous medicines management to be clinically relevant. Pharmacists recommended 2105 interventions in 74% (95%CI 73, 76) (1516/2038) of cases and 1685 actions were taken in 61% (95%CI 59, 63) (1246/2038) of cases; 66% (95%CI 64, 68) (1383/2105) of interventions recommended by pharmacists were completed and 5% (95%CI 4, 6) (104/2105) of recommendations were accepted by general practitioners (GPs), but not completed at the end of the pharmacists’ placement; the remaining recommendations were rejected or considered not relevant by GPs. Conclusions The outcome measures were used to target pharmacist activity in general practice towards patients at risk from hazardous medicines management. Recommendations from trained PINCER pharmacists were found to be broadly acceptable to GPs and led to ameliorative action in the majority of cases. It seems likely that the approach used by the PINCER pharmacists could be employed by other practice pharmacists following appropriate training.
Resumo:
Objective To determine the prevalence and nature of prescribing and monitoring errors in general practices in England. Design Retrospective case note review of unique medication items prescribed over a 12 month period to a 2% random sample of patients. Mixed effects logistic regression was used to analyse the data. Setting Fifteen general practices across three primary care trusts in England. Data sources Examination of 6048 unique prescription items prescribed over the previous 12 months for 1777 patients. Main outcome measures Prevalence of prescribing and monitoring errors, and severity of errors, using validated definitions. Results Prescribing and/or monitoring errors were detected in 4.9% (296/6048) of all prescription items (95% confidence interval 4.4 - 5.5%). The vast majority of errors were of mild to moderate severity, with 0.2% (11/6048) of items having a severe error. After adjusting for covariates, patient-related factors associated with an increased risk of prescribing and/or monitoring errors were: age less than 15 (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.87, 1.19 to 2.94, p=0.006) or greater than 64 years (OR 1.68, 1.04 to 2.73, p=0.035), and higher numbers of unique medication items prescribed (OR 1.16, 1.12 to 1.19, p<0.001). Conclusion Prescribing and monitoring errors are common in English general practice, although severe errors are unusual. Many factors increase the risk of error. Having identified the most common and important errors, and the factors associated with these, strategies to prevent future errors should be developed based on the study findings.
Resumo:
Aim: To examine the causes of prescribing and monitoring errors in English general practices and provide recommendations for how they may be overcome. Design: Qualitative interview and focus group study with purposive sampling and thematic analysis informed by Reason’s accident causation model. Participants: General practice staff participated in a combination of semi-structured interviews (n=34) and six focus groups (n=46). Setting: Fifteen general practices across three primary care trusts in England. Results: We identified seven categories of high-level error-producing conditions: the prescriber, the patient, the team, the task, the working environment, the computer system, and the primary-secondary care interface. Each of these was further broken down to reveal various error-producing conditions. The prescriber’s therapeutic training, drug knowledge and experience, knowledge of the patient, perception of risk, and their physical and emotional health, were all identified as possible causes. The patient’s characteristics and the complexity of the individual clinical case were also found to have contributed to prescribing errors. The importance of feeling comfortable within the practice team was highlighted, as well as the safety of general practitioners (GPs) in signing prescriptions generated by nurses when they had not seen the patient for themselves. The working environment with its high workload, time pressures, and interruptions, and computer related issues associated with mis-selecting drugs from electronic pick-lists and overriding alerts, were all highlighted as possible causes of prescribing errors and often interconnected. Conclusion: This study has highlighted the complex underlying causes of prescribing and monitoring errors in general practices, several of which are amenable to intervention.
Resumo:
Objectives: To determine the incidence and clinical relevance of newly diagnosed cases of prostate cancer in a group of men who had an elevated PSA and benign prostate biopsy 7 years previously. Patients and Method: Patients under the age of 80 years with an elevated PSA who had had a benign prostate biopsy in the 12 months between March 1, 1994 and February 28, 1995 were studied. One hundred and sixty four patients with a mean age of 66.8 years (range 47-79 years) were identified. The mean PSA for this group was 10.3 ng/ml (range 4.1-81 ng/ml). One hundred and fifty nine of the 164 (97%) hospital records were available for review and all but 21 (12.8%) of the General Practitioners were contacted. Results: Eighteen (11%) of the original 164 patients were subsequently diagnosed with prostate cancer, 2 died from their disease. Conclusions: In a population where the follow-up of patients with a benign biopsy was arranged on clinical grounds alone, 11% of the study group were diagnosed with prostate cancer during a seven-year follow-up. Although some of these cancers appear to be slow growing, most of those diagnosed in the initial follow-up period were deemed to be clinically significant and a small proportion progressed rapidly to metastases. All patients who have an elevated PSA, but benign biopsy, should undergo a period of PSA monitoring until it is clear that their PSA is not rising. We propose an initial intensive monitoring period to avoid missing those with clinically aggressive disease. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Resumo:
Objective: To explore the causes of preventable drug-related admissions (PDRAs) to hospital. Design: Qualitative case studies using semi-structured interviews and medical record review; data analysed using a framework derived from Reason's model of organisational accidents and cascade analysis. Participants: 62 participants, including 18 patients, 8 informal carers, 17 general practitioners, 12 community pharmacists, 3 practice nurses and 4 other members of healthcare staff, involved in events leading up to the patients' hospital admissions. Setting: Nottingham, UK. Results: PDRAs are associated with problems at multiple stages in the medication use process, including prescribing, dispensing, administration, monitoring and help seeking. The main causes of these problems are communication failures ( between patients and healthcare professionals and different groups of healthcare professionals) and knowledge gaps ( about drugs and patients' medical and medication histories). The causes of PDRAs are similar irrespective of whether the hospital admission is associated with a prescribing, monitoring or patient adherence problem. Conclusions: The causes of PDRAs are multifaceted and complex. Technical solutions to PDRAs will need to take account of this complexity and are unlikely to be sufficient on their own. Interventions targeting the human causes of PDRAs are also necessary - for example, improving methods of communication.
Resumo:
Nurses have successfully adopted the role of prescriber in numerous health care settings in the UK. Existing research has not addressed how Nurse Independent and Nurse Supplementary Prescribers compare with doctors in terms of the perceived advantages and disadvantages of nurse prescribing, nor has the perceived importance of nurses providing patients with an explanation about their medicines been established. The current study utilized a random sample of 31 qualified Nurse Independent and Nurse Supplementary Prescribers and 30 general practitioners who self-completed a written questionnaire in an independent groups design. The study establishes nurses’ and doctors’ perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of independent and supplementary nurse prescribing and provides some indication of the importance that nurses and doctors place on nurses providing an explanation about medicines, and the categories of information perceived to be important.
Resumo:
Background: This study was carried out as part of a European Union funded project (PharmDIS-e+), to develop and evaluate software aimed at assisting physicians with drug dosing. A drug that causes particular problems with drug dosing in primary care is digoxin because of its narrow therapeutic range and low therapeutic index. Objectives: To determine (i) accuracy of the PharmDIS-e+ software for predicting serum digoxin levels in patients who are taking this drug regularly; (ii) whether there are statistically significant differences between predicted digoxin levels and those measured by a laboratory and (iii) whether there are differences between doses prescribed by general practitioners and those suggested by the program. Methods: We needed 45 patients to have 95% Power to reject the null hypothesis that the mean serum digoxin concentration was within 10% of the mean predicted digoxin concentration. Patients were recruited from two general practices and had been taking digoxin for at least 4 months. Exclusion criteria were dementia, low adherence to digoxin and use of other medications known to interact to a clinically important extent with digoxin. Results: Forty-five patients were recruited. There was a correlation of 0·65 between measured and predicted digoxin concentrations (P < 0·001). The mean difference was 0·12 μg/L (SD 0·26; 95% CI 0·04, 0·19, P = 0·005). Forty-seven per cent of the patients were prescribed the same dose as recommended by the software, 44% were prescribed a higher dose and 9% a lower dose than recommended. Conclusion: PharmDIS-e+ software was able to predict serum digoxin levels with acceptable accuracy in most patients.
Resumo:
This study has explored the underlying causes of preventable drug-related admissions to hospital, from primary care through semi-structured interviews and review of patients’ medical records. Analysis of the data has revealed that communication failures between different groups of healthcare professionals and between healthcare professionals and patients contribute to preventable drug-related admissions, as do knowledge gaps about medication in both healthcare professionals and patients. In addition, working conditions for community pharmacists severely limit their ability to effectively act as a safety barrier to patients receiving inappropriate medication. Limitations include heavy workloads, lack of access to patients’ clinical information, poor relationships with general practitioners and time restrictions. The results of this study represent an important addition to our understanding of the contribution of human error as an underlying cause of preventable drug-related morbidity, and the factors which contribute to errors occurring in the primary healthcare setting.
Resumo:
Hospitals represent complex and difficult contexts for AEC (architecture, engineering and construction) professionals to engage with due to their functional complexity and diversity of stakeholder interests (i.e. patient, visitor, medical specialist). Hospital designers need to take note of changing NHS policy contexts (e.g. the possible empowerment of general practitioners to shape services), technological advances in medical equipment design and the potential health needs of future generations. It is imperative for hospital designers and architects to align their processes and methodologies (e.g. briefing and requirements capture) to the needs and desires of their clients so that a medical facility design is produced which is truly aligned to the requirements of the hospital stakeholders. Semiotics, the “study” or “discipline” of signs aims to investigate the nature of signs (their inception, representation and meaning), whilst semiotics-rooted theories are concerned with investigating how meaning and understanding is mobilized between persons and between organisations. This paper details a semiotics-rooted research approach for investigating the interactions between hospital designers and stakeholders on a forthcoming NHS hospital project in the UK. A semiotics grounded study will potentially provide a deeper understanding of how meaning and understanding is established between hospital project stakeholders and construction professionals.
Resumo:
The concept of being ‘patient-centric’ is a challenge to many existing healthcare service provision practices. This paper focuses on the issue of referrals, where multiple stakeholders, i.e. general practitioners and patients, are encouraged to make a consensual decision based on patient needs. In this paper, we present an ontology-enabled healthcare service provision, which facilitates both patients and GPs in jointly deciding upon the referral decision. In the healthcare service provision model, we define three types of profile, which represents different stakeholders’ requirements. This model also comprises of a set of healthcare service discovery processes: articulating a service need, matching the need with the healthcare service offerings, and deciding on a best-fit service for acceptance. As a result, the healthcare service provision can carry out coherent analysis using personalised information and iterative processes that deal with requirements change over time.
Resumo:
Background: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) can be treated with stimulant medication such as methylphenidate. Although effective, methylphenidate can cause serious side-effects, including suppressed appetite, growth retardation and sleep problems. A drug holiday is a deliberate interruption of pharmacotherapy for a defined period of time and for a specific clinical purpose, for example for appeasing side-effects. Whilst some international guidelines recommend introducing drug holidays in ADHD treatment, this is not practised routinely. Our aim was to examine the views and experiences of planned drug holidays from methylphenidate with adults who have responsibility for treatment decisions in children and adolescents with ADHD. Method: In-depth interviews were carried out. Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) practitioners (n=8), General Practitioners (n=8), teachers (n=5), and mothers of children with ADHD (n=4) were interviewed in a UK setting. Interview transcripts were analysed using grounded theory. Results: Methylphenidate eases the experience of the child amid problems at home and at school and once started is mostly continued long-term. Some families do practise short-term drug holidays at weekends and longer-term ones during school holidays. The decision to introduce drug holidays is influenced by the child’s academic progress, the parents’ ability to cope with the child, as well as medication beliefs. Trialling a drug holiday is thought to allow older children to self-assess their ability to manage without medication when they show signs of wanting to discontinue treatment prematurely. Conclusions: Planned drug holidays could address premature treatment cessation by enabling adolescents to assess repercussions under medical supervision.