880 resultados para Drugs -- Prescribing
Resumo:
Aim: Previous systematic reviews have found that drug-related morbidity accounts for 4.3% of preventable hospital admissions. None, however, has identified the drugs most commonly responsible for preventable hospital admissions. The aims of this study were to estimate the percentage of preventable drug-related hospital admissions, the most common drug causes of preventable hospital admissions and the most common underlying causes of preventable drug-related admissions. Methods: Bibliographic databases and reference lists from eligible articles and study authors were the sources for data. Seventeen prospective observational studies reporting the proportion of preventable drug-related hospital admissions, causative drugs and/or the underlying causes of hospital admissions were selected. Included studies used multiple reviewers and/or explicit criteria to assess causality and preventability of hospital admissions. Two investigators abstracted data from all included studies using a purpose-made data extraction form. Results: From 13 papers the median percentage of preventable drug-related admissions to hospital was 3.7% (range 1.4-15.4). From nine papers the majority (51%) of preventable drug-related admissions involved either antiplatelets (16%), diuretics (16%), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (11%) or anticoagulants (8%). From five studies the median proportion of preventable drug-related admissions associated with prescribing problems was 30.6% (range 11.1-41.8), with adherence problems 33.3% (range 20.9-41.7) and with monitoring problems 22.2% (range 0-31.3). Conclusions: Four groups of drugs account for more than 50% of the drug groups associated with preventable drug-related hospital admissions. Concentrating interventions on these drug groups could reduce appreciably the number of preventable drug-related admissions to hospital from primary care.
Patients' attitudes towards, and information needs in relation to, nurse prescribing in rheumatology
Resumo:
Aims and objectives: To assess the level of confidence that rheumatology patients would have in nurse prescribing, the effects on likely adherence and particular concerns that these patients have. In addition, given that information provision has been cited as a potential benefit of nurse prescribing, the present study assessed the extent to which these patients would want an explanation for the selected medicine, as well as which types of information should be included in such an explanation. Background: Nurse prescribing has been successfully implemented in the UK in several healthcare settings. Existing research has not addressed the effects on patients' confidence and likely adherence, nor have patients' information needs been established. However, we know that inadequate medicines information provision by health professionals is one of the largest causes of patient dissatisfaction. Methods: Fifty-four patients taking disease-modifying drugs for inflammatory joint disease attending a specialist rheumatology clinic self-completed a written questionnaire. Results: Patients indicated a relatively high level of confidence in nurse prescribing and stated that they would be very likely to take the selected medication. The level of concern was relatively low and the majority of concerns raised did not relate to the nurse's status. Strong support was expressed for the nurse providing an explanation for medicine choice. Conclusion: This research provides support for the prescription of medicines by nurses working in the area of rheumatology, the importance of nurses providing a full explanation about the selected medicines they prescribe for these patients and some indication as to which categories of information should be included. Relevance to clinical practice: Rheumatology patients who have not yet experienced nurse prescribing are, in general, positive about nurses adopting this role. It is important that nurses provide appropriate information about the prescribed medicines, in a form that can be understood.
Resumo:
This is the first in a short series of articles that focus on what GPs should consider when monitoring and prescribing specialist-initiated palliative-care drugs. This first article summarises the key issues for patients receiving ketamine.
Resumo:
Aim: To develop a list of prescribing indicators specific for the hospital setting that would facilitate the prospective collection of high severity and/or high frequency prescribing errors, which are also amenable to electronic clinical decision support (CDS). Method: A three-stage consensus technique (electronic Delphi) was carried out with 20 expert pharmacists and physicians across England. Participants were asked to score prescribing errors using a 5-point Likert scale for their likelihood of occurrence and the severity of the most likely outcome. These were combined to produce risk scores, from which median scores were calculated for each indicator across the participants in the study. The degree of consensus between the participants was defined as the proportion that gave a risk score in the same category as the median. Indicators were included if a consensus of 80% or more was achieved. Results: A total of 80 prescribing errors were identified by consensus as being high or extreme risk. The most common drug classes named within the indicators were antibiotics (n=13), antidepressants (n=8), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (n=6), and opioid analgesics (n=6).The most frequent error type identified as high or extreme risk were those classified as clinical contraindications (n=29/80). Conclusion: 80 high risk prescribing errors in the hospital setting have been identified by an expert panel. These indicators can serve as the basis for a standardised, validated tool for the collection of data in both paperbased and electronic prescribing processes, as well as to assess the impact of electronic decision support implementation or development.
Resumo:
This is the third in a short series of articles that focus on what GPs should consider when monitoring and prescribing specialist‐initiated palliative‐care drugs. Here, the authors summarise the key issues around the shortterm use of psychostimulants in palliative care.
Resumo:
This is the second in a short series of articles that focus on what GPs should consider when monitoring and prescribing specialist‐initiated palliative‐care drugs. Here, the authors summarise the key issues around the use of methadone for pain management.
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:
[EN] Background This study aims to design an empirical test on the sensitivity of the prescribing doctors to the price afforded for the patient, and to apply it to the population data of primary care dispensations for cardiovascular disease and mental illness in the Spanish National Health System (NHS). Implications for drug policies are discussed. Methods We used population data of 17 therapeutic groups of cardiovascular and mental illness drugs aggregated by health areas to obtain 1424 observations ((8 cardiovascular groups * 70 areas) + (9 psychotropics groups * 96 areas)). All drugs are free for pensioners. For non-pensioner patients 10 of the 17 therapeutic groups have a reduced copayment (RC) status of only 10% of the price with a ceiling of €2.64 per pack, while the remaining 7 groups have a full copayment (FC) rate of 40%. Differences in the average price among dispensations for pensioners and non-pensioners were modelled with multilevel regression models to test the following hypothesis: 1) in FC drugs there is a significant positive difference between the average prices of drugs prescribed to pensioners and non-pensioners; 2) in RC drugs there is no significant price differential between pensioner and non-pensioner patients; 3) the price differential of FC drugs prescribed to pensioners and non-pensioners is greater the higher the price of the drugs. Results The average monthly price of dispensations to pensioners and non-pensioners does not differ for RC drugs, but for FC drugs pensioners get more expensive dispensations than non-pensioners (estimated difference of €9.74 by DDD and month). There is a positive and significant effect of the drug price on the differential price between pensioners and non-pensioners. For FC drugs, each additional euro of the drug price increases the differential by nearly half a euro (0.492). We did not find any significant differences in the intensity of the price effect among FC therapeutic groups. Conclusions Doctors working in the Spanish NHS seem to be sensitive to the price that can be afforded by patients when they fill in prescriptions, although alternative hypothesis could also explain the results found.
Resumo:
Objective To analyse the available evidence on cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Design Network meta-analysis. Data sources Bibliographic databases, conference proceedings, study registers, the Food and Drug Administration website, reference lists of relevant articles, and reports citing relevant articles through the Science Citation Index (last update July 2009). Manufacturers of celecoxib and lumiracoxib provided additional data. Study selection All large scale randomised controlled trials comparing any non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug with other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or placebo. Two investigators independently assessed eligibility. Data extraction The primary outcome was myocardial infarction. Secondary outcomes included stroke, death from cardiovascular disease, and death from any cause. Two investigators independently extracted data. Data synthesis 31 trials in 116 429 patients with more than 115 000 patient years of follow-up were included. Patients were allocated to naproxen, ibuprofen, diclofenac, celecoxib, etoricoxib, rofecoxib, lumiracoxib, or placebo. Compared with placebo, rofecoxib was associated with the highest risk of myocardial infarction (rate ratio 2.12, 95% credibility interval 1.26 to 3.56), followed by lumiracoxib (2.00, 0.71 to 6.21). Ibuprofen was associated with the highest risk of stroke (3.36, 1.00 to 11.6), followed by diclofenac (2.86, 1.09 to 8.36). Etoricoxib (4.07, 1.23 to 15.7) and diclofenac (3.98, 1.48 to 12.7) were associated with the highest risk of cardiovascular death. Conclusions Although uncertainty remains, little evidence exists to suggest that any of the investigated drugs are safe in cardiovascular terms. Naproxen seemed least harmful. Cardiovascular risk needs to be taken into account when prescribing any non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug.
Resumo:
Little is known about the prescription pattern of antihypertensive drugs for children with impaired kidney function. We have therefore documented the use of antihypertensive drugs in this patient group by evaluating the Italian pediatric population-based registry of patients with chronic kidney disease on conservative treatment (ItalKid) from 1995 to 2003. In 1995, prescriptions written for antihypertensive drugs for use by children were approximately equally divided among drugs blocking the renin-angiotensin system and calcium channel blockers (38 vs. 43% of all prescriptions), followed by beta-blockers and diuretics (15 and 4%, respectively). During subsequent years the proportion of prescriptions for drugs blocking the renin-angiotensin system increased (2003: 61%; p<0.001) and that of calcium channel blockers decreased (2003: 18%, p<0.001). In 1995, blockers of the renin-angiotensin system were prescribed, either as monotherapy or in combination, in 53% of the patients, but the relative frequency of the patients prescribed these drugs increased up to 83% in 2003 (p<0.0005). In conclusion, physicians caring for Italian children with impaired kidney function are increasingly prescribing drugs blocking the renin-angiotensin system.
Resumo:
Objective: To identify factors influencing the prescribing of medicines by general practitioners in rural and remote Australia. Design: A qualitative study using a questionnaire to determine attitudes about prescribing, specific prescribing habits and comments on prescribing in ‘rural practice’. Setting: General practice in rural and remote Queensland. Subjects: General practitioners practising in rural and remote settings in Queensland (n = 258). Main outcome measures: The factors perceived to influence the prescribing of medicines by medical practitioners in rural environments. Results: A 58% response rate (n = 142) was achieved. Most respondents agreed that they prescribe differently in rural compared with city practice. The majority of respondents agreed that their prescribing was influenced by practice location, isolation of patient home location, limited diagnostic testing and increased drug monitoring. Location issues and other issues were more likely to be identified as ‘influential’ by the more isolated practitioners. Factors such as access to continuing medical education and specialists were confirmed as having an influence on prescribing. The prescribing of recently marketed drugs was more likely by doctors practising in less remote rural areas. Conclusion: Practising in rural and remote locations is perceived to have an effect on prescribing. These influences need to be considered when developing quality use of medicines policies and initiatives for these locations. What is already known: Anecdotal and audit based studies have shown that rural general practice differs to urban-based practice in Australia, including some limited data showing some variations in prescribing patterns. No substantiated explanations for these variations have been offered. It is known that interventions to change prescribing behaviour are more likely to be effective if they are perceived as relevant and hence increasing our knowledge of rural doctors’ perceptions of differences in rural practice prescribing is required. What this study adds: Rural doctors believed that they prescribe differently in rural compared with city practice and they described a range of influences. The more remotely located doctors were more likely to report the ‘rural’ influences on prescribing, however, most results failed to reach statistical significance when compared to the less remotely located doctors. These perceptions should be considered when developing medicines policy and education for rural medical practitioners to ensure it is perceived rurally relevant.
Resumo:
Background: jurisdictions are developing public drug insurance systems to improve access to pharmaceuticals, cost-effective prescribing, and patient health and well-being. We compared 2 Jurisdictions with different pharmaceutical policies to determine prescribing patterns for 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (le, statins). Objective: The aim of this work was to investigate the feasibility of using available prescription admimstrative databases to compare the use of statins in Queensland, Australia, and in Nova Scotia, Canada. Methods: Data from the Nova Scotia Pharmacare Program and the Health Insurance Commission in Australia were used to obtain dispensing data. Utilization was compared for the 5-year period from 1997 through 2001, using the World Health Organization anatomic therapeutic chemical/defined daily dose (DDD) system. Results: In the year 2001, there were 177,000 beneficiaries in the public drug plan in Nova Scotia (62% aged &GE; 65 years old) and 960,000 concession beneficiaries (pensioners and social security recipients, 61% aged &GE; 65 years) in Queensland. These 2 groups were comparable. The overall utilization of statin medications increased steadily in both areas over the study period, from 50 to 205 DDD/1000 beneficiaries per day. Comparison of the 2 growth lines showed no statistically significant differences in overall statin use despite differences in brand availabilities and policies about prescribing. In the year 2001, atorvastatin was the most commonly prescribed statin in both areas, comprising 46% of statin use in Nova Scotia and 51% in Queensland. Mean doses of each statin prescribed were slightly above the DDDs. Expenditure on statins per 1000 beneficiaries and per DDD were similar in each jurisdiction, being slightly higher in Nova Scotia. Conclusions: Despite differences in pharmaceutical reimbursement systems, use of the statins was similar in Nova Scotia and Queensland. The feasibility of the methodology was demonstrated. Future studies, including comparisons of drug utilization for other classes of drugs for which drug policies may be divergent (eg, different pricing structures or prior authorization requirements), or for which less evidence for appropriate use is available, may be useful. © 2005 Excerpta Medica, Inc.
Resumo:
Background: The provision of free prescription medicine samples is a common and traditional marketing strategy used by pharmaceutical companies, but concerns have been raised about their influence on physician prescribing behavior and patient safety. Objective: We sought to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of Australian family physicians regarding the use of sample prescription medications. Methods: Qualitative and quantitative techniques were used, including (1) mailed questionnaires to family physicians, (2) semistructured interviews with family physicians, and (3) sample cupboard inventories. Results: A number of issues about samples were identified by the questionnaires (208) and interviews (17 doctors), including insufficient labeling, poor record keeping, diversion of stock (personal use by doctors.. their families, practice staff and pharmaceutical representatives), and wasting of expired stock. Prescription medicine samples also influenced prescribing behavior. Australian doctors were less likely to provide samples to patients on financial grounds compared with a previous study in the United States on medical residents. Six sample cupboards were inventoried. Median wholesale value of sample cupboards was AUD $4959 (range $2395-$8709), with 6% of stock expired. Very little generic medicine was included in the sample cupboards. Conclusions: Better methods are needed to meet legislative requirements and to ensure quality use of medicines (and optimal public health) with respect to prescription medicine samples. Doctors and practice staff require training on the appropriate handling and storage of prescription medications. Alternative ways for distribution of sample medications need to be investigated.
Resumo:
Purpose Evidence is growing that early use of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and combinations of these drugs provide optimal care for people with rheumatoid arthirits. The aim of this study was to describe objectively the pattern of consumption of DMARDs in the Australian community (community-based prescribing, specialist and general practitioner) 1992-2004, and to compare this with prescribing patterns reported in other countries. Method Dispensing statistics from the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (PBS-Australia's universal prescription subsidy scheme) were analysed and temporal trends evaluated. Drug consumption was calculated as the number of dispensed defined daily doses (DDD)/1000 inhabitants/day (WHO ATC/DDD classification 2005). Results The consumption of DMARDs in the Australian community increased steadily from 2.6 DDD/1000 inhabitants/ day in 1992 to 5.5 DDD/1000 inhabitants/day. Over the period 1992-2004, methotrexate (MTX) was the most commonly used DMARD (from 0.6 to 3.0 DDD/1000 inhabitants/day). Consumption of gold (parentcral and oral) and penicillamine declined during this time. The inclusion of leflunomide on the PBS in 2000 contributed to the increase in DMARD usage. Conclusion Use of DMARDs within the Australian community has increased in recent years, coinciding with the change in guidelines for therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to earlier use of DMARDs and the more common use of combinations. This study used DDD methodology to quantify trends for DMARD consumption and these trends are broadly consistent with international prescribing patterns assessed using different methodologies. Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.