Use of medicines recommended for secondary prevention of acute coronary syndrome

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE : To analyze if the demographic and socioeconomic variables, as well as percutaneous coronary intervention are associated with the use of medicines for secondary prevention of acute coronary syndrome. METHODS : In this cohort study, we included 138 patients with acute coronary syndrome, aged 30 years or more and of both sexes. The data were collected at the time of hospital discharge, and after six and twelve months. The outcome of the study was the simultaneous use of medicines recommended for secondary prevention of acute coronary syndrome: platelet antiaggregant, beta-blockers, statins and angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker. The independent variables were: sex, age, education in years of attending, monthly income in tertiles and percutaneous coronary intervention. We described the prevalence of use of each group of medicines with their 95% confidence intervals, as well as the simultaneous use of the four medicines, in all analyzed periods. In the crude analysis, we verified the outcome with the independent variables for each period through the Chi-square test. The adjusted analysis was carried out using Poisson Regression. RESULTS : More than a third of patients (36.2%; 95%CI 28.2;44.3) had the four medicines prescribed at the same time, at the moment of discharge. We did not observe any differences in the prevalence of use in comparison with the two follow-up periods. The most prescribed class of medicines during discharge was platelet antiaggregant (91.3%). In the crude analysis, the demographic and socioeconomic variables were not associated to the outcome in any of the three periods. CONCLUSIONS : The prevalence of simultaneous use of medicines at discharge and in the follow-ups pointed to the under-utilization of this therapy in clinical practice. Intervention strategies are needed to improve the quality of care given to patients that extend beyond the hospital discharge, a critical point of transition in care.

Initial and Extended Use of Femoral Versus Nonfemoral Double-Lumen Vascular Catheters and Catheter-Related Infection During Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The risk of catheter-related infection or bacteremia, with initial and extended use of femoral versus nonfemoral sites for double-lumen vascular catheters (DLVCs) during continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), is unclear. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Critically ill patients on CRRT in a combined intensive care unit of a tertiary institution. FACTOR: Femoral versus nonfemoral venous DLVC placement. OUTCOMES: Catheter-related colonization (CRCOL) and bloodstream infection (CRBSI). MEASUREMENTS: CRCOL/CRBSI rates expressed per 1,000 catheter-days. RESULTS: We studied 458 patients (median age, 65 years; 60% males) and 647 DLVCs. Of 405 single-site only DLVC users, 82% versus 18% received exclusively 419 femoral versus 82 jugular or subclavian DLVCs, respectively. The corresponding DLVC indwelling duration was 6±4 versus 7±5 days (P=0.03). Corresponding CRCOL and CRBSI rates (per 1,000 catheter-days) were 9.7 versus 8.8 events (P=0.8) and 1.2 versus 3.5 events (P=0.3), respectively. Overall, 96 patients with extended CRRT received femoral-site insertion first with subsequent site change, including 53 femoral guidewire exchanges, 53 new femoral venipunctures, and 47 new jugular/subclavian sites. CRCOL and CRBSI rates were similar for all such approaches (P=0.7 and P=0.9, respectively). On multivariate analysis, CRCOL risk was higher in patients older than 65 years and weighing >90kg (ORs of 2.1 and 2.2, respectively; P<0.05). This association between higher weight and greater CRCOL risk was significant for femoral DLVCs, but not for nonfemoral sites. Other covariates, including initial or specific DLVC site, guidewire exchange versus new venipuncture, and primary versus secondary DLVC placement, did not significantly affect CRCOL rates. LIMITATIONS: Nonrandomized retrospective design and single-center evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: CRCOL and CRBSI rates in patients on CRRT are low and not influenced significantly by initial or serial femoral catheterizations with guidewire exchange or new venipuncture. CRCOL risk is higher in older and heavier patients, the latter especially so with femoral sites.

How was patient empowerment portrayed in information leaflets describing the community pharmacy Medicines Use Review service in the UK?

Objective The Medicines Use Review (MUR) community pharmacy service was introduced in 2005 to enhance patient empowerment but the service has not been taken up as widely as expected. We investigated the depiction of the patient–pharmacist power relationship within MUR patient information leaflets. Methods We identified 11 MUR leaflets including the official Department of Health MUR booklet and through discourse analysis examined the way language and imagery had been used to symbolise and give meaning to the MUR service, especially the portrayal of the patient–pharmacist interactions and the implied power relations. Results A variety of terminology was used to describe the MUR, a service that aimed ultimately to produce more informed patients through the information imparted by knowledgeable, skilled pharmacists. Conclusion The educational role of the MUR overshadowed the intended patient empowerment that would take place with a true concordance-centred approach. Although patient empowerment was implied, this was within the boundaries of the biomedical model with the pharmacist as the expert provider of medicines information. Practice implications If patient empowerment is to be conveyed this needs to be communicated to patients through consistent use of language and imagery that portrays the inclusivity intended.

What is the new medicines use review ‘patient survey’ attempting to capture in the context of existing patient satisfaction with pharmacy questionnaires and a new conceptual framework?

The community pharmacy service medicines use review (MUR) was introduced in 2005 ‘to improve patient knowledge, concordance and use of medicines’ through a private patient–pharmacist consultation. The MUR presents a fundamental change in community pharmacy service provision. While traditionally pharmacists are dispensers of medicines and providers of medicines advice, and patients as recipients, the MUR considers pharmacists providing consultation-type activities and patients as active participants. The MUR facilitates a two-way discussion about medicines use. Traditional patient–pharmacist behaviours transform into a new set of behaviours involving the booking of appointments, consultation processes and form completion, and the physical environment of the patient–pharmacist interaction moves from the traditional setting of the dispensary and medicines counter to a private consultation room. Thus, the new service challenges traditional identities and behaviours of the patient and the pharmacist as well as the environment in which the interaction takes place. In 2008, the UK government concluded there is at present too much emphasis on the quantity of MURs rather than on their quality.[1] A number of plans to remedy the perceived imbalance included a suggestion to reward ‘health outcomes’ achieved, with calls for a more focussed and scientific approach to the evaluation of pharmacy services using outcomes research. Specifically, the UK government set out the main principal research areas for the evaluation of pharmacy services to include ‘patient and public perceptions and satisfaction’as well as ‘impact on care and outcomes’. A limited number of ‘patient satisfaction with pharmacy services’ type questionnaires are available, of varying quality, measuring dimensions relating to pharmacists’ technical competence, behavioural impressions and general satisfaction. For example, an often cited paper by Larson[2] uses two factors to measure satisfaction, namely ‘friendly explanation’ and ‘managing therapy’; the factors are highly interrelated and the questions somewhat awkwardly phrased, but more importantly, we believe the questionnaire excludes some specific domains unique to the MUR. By conducting patient interviews with recent MUR recipients, we have been working to identify relevant concepts and develop a conceptual framework to inform item development for a Patient Reported Outcome Measure questionnaire bespoke to the MUR. We note with interest the recent launch of a multidisciplinary audit template by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) in an attempt to review the effectiveness of MURs and improve their quality.[3] This template includes an MUR ‘patient survey’. We will discuss this ‘patient survey’ in light of our work and existing patient satisfaction with pharmacy questionnaires, outlining a new conceptual framework as a basis for measuring patient satisfaction with the MUR. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the NHS Surrey Research Ethics Committee on 2 June 2008. References 1. Department of Health (2008). Pharmacy in England: Building on Strengths – Delivering the Future. London: HMSO. www. official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm73/7341/7341.pdf (accessed 29 September 2009). 2. Larson LN et al. Patient satisfaction with pharmaceutical care: update of a validated instrument. JAmPharmAssoc 2002; 42: 44–50. 3. Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (2009). Pharmacy Medicines Use Review – Patient Audit. London: RPSGB. http:// qi4pd.org.uk/index.php/Medicines-Use-Review-Patient-Audit. html (accessed 29 September 2009).

A retrospective audit of medicines use review forms

The medicines use review (MUR) service was introduced in England and Wales in 2005 to improve patients’ knowledge and use of medicines through a private, patient–pharmacist consultation. The pharmacist completes a standard form as a record of the MUR consultation and the patient receives a copy. The 2008 White Paper, Pharmacy in England[1] notes some MURs are of poor or questionable quality and there are anecdotal reports that pharmacists elect to conduct ‘easy’ MURs with patients on a single prescribed medicine only.[2] In 2009, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) launched a multi-disciplinary audit template to review the effectiveness of MURs and improve their quality.[3] Prior to this, we conducted a retrospective MUR audit in a 1-month period in 2008. Our aims were to report on findings from this audit and the validity of using MUR forms as data for audit.

How is the language of medicines use review leaflets symbolising the service?

Introduction The medicines use review (MUR), a new community pharmacy ‘service’, was launched in England and Wales to improve patients’ knowledge and use of medicines through a private, patient–pharmacist appointment. After 18 months, only 30% of pharmacies are providing MURs; at an average of 120 per annum (maximum 400 allowed).1 One reason linked to low delivery is patient recruitment.2 Our aim was to examine how the MUR is symbolised and given meaning via printed patient information, and potential implications. Method The language of 10 MUR patient leaflets, including the NHS booklet,3 and leaflets from multiples and wholesalers was evaluated by discourse analysis. Results and Discussion Before experiencing MURs, patients conceivably ‘categorise’ relationships with pharmacists based on traditional interactions.4 Yet none of the leaflets explicitly describe the MUR as ‘new’ and presuppose patients would become involved in activities outside of their pre-existing relationship with pharmacists such as appointments, self-completion of charts, and pharmacy action plans. The MUR process is described inconsistently, with interchangeable use of formal (‘review meeting‘) and informal (‘friendly’) terminology, the latter presumably to portray an intended ‘negotiation model’ of interaction.5 Assumptions exist about attitudes (‘not understanding’; ‘problems’) that might lead patients to an appointment. However, research has identified a multitude of reasons why patients choose (or not) to consult practitioners,6 and marketing of MURs should also consider other barriers. For example, it may be prudent to remove time limits to avoid implying patients might not be listened to fully, during what is for them an additional practitioner consultation.

Differences in perceived risks and benefits of herbal, over-the-counter conventional, and prescribed conventional, medicines, and the implications of this for the safe and effective use of herbal products

Objectives: To investigate people's views about the efficacy and specific risks of herbal, over-the-counter (OTC) conventional, and prescribed conventional medicines, and their likelihood of taking a second (herbal or OTC conventional) product in addition to a prescribed medicine. Methods: Experiment 1 (1 factor within-participant design); Experiment 2 (1 factor between-participant design). Convenience samples of general population were given a hypothetical scenario and required to make a number of judgements. Results: People believed herbal remedies to be less effective, but less risky than OTC and prescribed conventional medicines. Herbal medicines were not seen as being safer simply because of their easier availability. Participants indicated that they would be more likely to take a herbal medicine than a conventional OTC medicine in addition to a prescribed medicine, and less likely to consult their doctor in advance. Conclusion: People believe that herbal medicines are natural and relatively safe and can be used with less caution. People need to be given clear information about the risks and benefits of herbal medicines if they are to use such products safety and effectively. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Informing people about the risks and benefits of medicines: implications for the safe and effective use of medicinal products

Providing effective information about drug risks and benefits has become a major challenge for health professionals, as many people are ill equipped to understand, retain and use the information effectively. This paper reviews the growing evidence that people’s understanding (and health behaviour) is not only affected by the content of medicines information, but also by the particular way in which it is presented. Such presentational factors include whether information is presented verbally or numerically, framed positively or negatively, whether risk reductions are described in relative or absolute terms (and baseline information included), and whether information is personalized or tailored in any way. It also looks at how understanding is affected by the order in which information is presented, and the way in which it is processed. The paper concludes by making a number of recommendations for providers of medicines information, about both the content and presentation of such information, that should enhance safe and effective medicines usage.

Use of a continuous culture fermentation system to investigate the effect of GanedenBC30 (Bacillus coagulans GBI-30, 6086) supplementation on pathogen survival in the human gut microbiota

Single-stage continuous fermentation systems were employed to examine the effects of GanedenBC30 supplementation on the human gastrointestinal microbiota in relation to pathogen challenge in vitro. Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis demonstrated that GanedenBC30 supplementation modified the microbial profiles in the fermentation systems compared with controls, with profiles clustering according to treatment. Overall, GanedenBC30 supplementation did not elicit major changes in bacterial population counts in vitro, although notably higher Bcoa191 counts were seen following probiotic supplementation (compared to the controls). Pathogen challenge did not elicit significant modification of the microbial counts in vitro, although notably higher Clit135 counts were seen in the control system post-Clostridium difficile challenge than in the corresponding GanedenBC30-supplemented systems. Sporulation appears to be associated with the anti-microbial activity of GanedenBC30, suggesting that a bi-modal lifecycle of GanedenBC30 in vivo may lead to anti-microbial activity in distal regions of the gastrointestinal tract.

Care homes’ use of medicines study: prevalence, causes and potential harm of medication errors in care homes for older people

Introduction: Care home residents are at particular risk from medication errors, and our objective was to determine the prevalence and potential harm of prescribing, monitoring, dispensing and administration errors in UK care homes, and to identify their causes. Methods: A prospective study of a random sample of residents within a purposive sample of homes in three areas. Errors were identified by patient interview, note review, observation of practice and examination of dispensed items. Causes were understood by observation and from theoretically framed interviews with home staff, doctors and pharmacists. Potential harm from errors was assessed by expert judgement. Results: The 256 residents recruited in 55 homes were taking a mean of 8.0 medicines. One hundred and seventy-eight (69.5%) of residents had one or more errors. The mean number per resident was 1.9 errors. The mean potential harm from prescribing, monitoring, administration and dispensing errors was 2.6, 3.7, 2.1 and 2.0 (0 = no harm, 10 = death), respectively. Contributing factors from the 89 interviews included doctors who were not accessible, did not know the residents and lacked information in homes when prescribing; home staff’s high workload, lack of medicines training and drug round interruptions; lack of team work among home, practice and pharmacy; inefficient ordering systems; inaccurate medicine records and prevalence of verbal communication; and difficult to fill (and check) medication administration systems. Conclusions: That two thirds of residents were exposed to one or more medication errors is of concern. The will to improve exists, but there is a lack of overall responsibility. Action is required from all concerned.

Use of batch culture and a two-stage continuous culture system to study the effect of supplemental a-lactalbumin and glycomacropeptide on mixed populations of human gut bacteria

Certain milk factors can promote the growth of a host-friendly gastrointestinal microflora. This may explain why breast-fed infants experience fewer intestinal infections than their formula-fed counterparts. The effect of formula supplementation with two such factors was investigated in this study. Infant faecal specimens were used to ferment formulas supplemented with glycomacropeptide and α-lactalbumin in a two-stage compound continuous culture model. Bacteriology was determined by fluorescence in situ hybridisation. Vessels that contained breast milk as well as α-lactalbumin and glycomacropeptide had stable counts of bifidobacteria while lactobacilli increased significantly only in vessels with breast milk. Bacteroides, clostridia and Escherichia coli decreased significantly in all runs. Acetate was the principal acid found along with high amounts of propionate and lactate. Supplementation of infant formulas with appropriate milk proteins may be useful in simulating the beneficial bacteriological effects of breast milk.

Teaching the Rational Use of Medicines to medical students: a qualitative research

Background: Prescribing is a complex and challenging task that must be part of a logical deductive process based on accurate and objective information and not an automated action, without critical thinking or a response to commercial pressure. The objectives of this study were 1) develop and implement a discipline based on the WHO's Guide to Good Prescribing; 2) evaluate the course acceptance by students; 3) assess the impact that the Rational Use of Medicines (RUM) knowledge had on the students habits of prescribing medication in the University Hospital.Methods: In 2003, the RUM principal, based in the WHO's Guide to Good Prescribing, was included in the official curriculum of the Botucatu School of Medicine, Brazil, to be taught over a total of 24 hours to students in the 4th year. We analyzed the students' feedback forms about content and teaching methodology filled out immediately after the end of the discipline from 2003 to 2010. In 2010, the use of RUM by past students in their medical practice was assessed through a qualitative approach by a questionnaire with closed-ended rank scaling questions distributed at random and a single semistructured interview for content analysis.Results: The discipline teaches future prescribers to use a logical deductive process, based on accurate and objective information, to adopt strict criteria (efficacy, safety, convenience and cost) on selecting drugs and to write a complete prescription. At the end of it, most students considered the discipline very good due to the opportunity to reflect on different actions involved in the prescribing process and liked the teaching methodology. However, former students report that although they are aware of the RUM concepts they cannot regularly use this knowledge in their daily practice because they are not stimulated or even allowed to do so by neither older residents nor senior medical staff.Conclusions: This discipline is useful to teach RUM to medical students who become aware of the importance of this subject, but the assimilation of the RUM principles in the institution seems to be a long-term process which requires the involvement of a greater number of the academic members.