H. Takaki, Erina Kaneko, Masanobu Sonoda, Toru Yamano, I. Ieiri
This study aimed to identify drug-related problems (DRPs) using data regarding the communication of pharmacists with prescribers over the phone at a community pharmacy. Furthermore, we elucidated the frequency of the sources of information for detecting each DRP and evaluated the decisions made by the prescribers for each DRP. This cross-sectional study was conducted at a community pharmacy in Fukuoka Prefecture, Japan. We anonymously collected data obtained by pharmacists through contacting prescribers over the phone relating to any problems or doubts found in prescriptions between April 2016 and March 2019. We classified the data and identified DRPs. We elucidated the frequency of sources of information for detecting each DRP using descriptive analyses and evaluated prescribers’ decisions regarding each DRP via multivariate Poisson regression analyses. Of the 95 023 prescriptions, 5073 DRPs were identified (5073/95 023 = 5.34%). The most frequent DRP was inappropriate dosage and administration (1349/5073 = 26.59%), followed by non-adherence (1272/5073 = 25.07%) and incorrect prescription periods (889/5073 = 17.52%). Patient interviews were the most frequent sources of information for detecting following DRPs: non-adherence (1057/1272 = 83.10%), untreated indication (590/631 = 93.50%) and adverse drug reactions (80/107 = 74.77%). Most of the DRPs were resolved by making changes to the prescriptions (4571/5073 = 90.10%). Inappropriate dosage and administration and non-adherence issues were the most frequent DRPs in a Japanese community pharmacy. Patient interviews were an important source of information for detecting DRPs. Further research is warranted to address the impact of DRPs on patient safety.
{"title":"Drug-related problems identified at a Japanese community pharmacy: a cross-sectional study","authors":"H. Takaki, Erina Kaneko, Masanobu Sonoda, Toru Yamano, I. Ieiri","doi":"10.1093/jphsr/rmac035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jphsr/rmac035","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 This study aimed to identify drug-related problems (DRPs) using data regarding the communication of pharmacists with prescribers over the phone at a community pharmacy. Furthermore, we elucidated the frequency of the sources of information for detecting each DRP and evaluated the decisions made by the prescribers for each DRP.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 This cross-sectional study was conducted at a community pharmacy in Fukuoka Prefecture, Japan. We anonymously collected data obtained by pharmacists through contacting prescribers over the phone relating to any problems or doubts found in prescriptions between April 2016 and March 2019. We classified the data and identified DRPs. We elucidated the frequency of sources of information for detecting each DRP using descriptive analyses and evaluated prescribers’ decisions regarding each DRP via multivariate Poisson regression analyses.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 Of the 95 023 prescriptions, 5073 DRPs were identified (5073/95 023 = 5.34%). The most frequent DRP was inappropriate dosage and administration (1349/5073 = 26.59%), followed by non-adherence (1272/5073 = 25.07%) and incorrect prescription periods (889/5073 = 17.52%). Patient interviews were the most frequent sources of information for detecting following DRPs: non-adherence (1057/1272 = 83.10%), untreated indication (590/631 = 93.50%) and adverse drug reactions (80/107 = 74.77%). Most of the DRPs were resolved by making changes to the prescriptions (4571/5073 = 90.10%).\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 Inappropriate dosage and administration and non-adherence issues were the most frequent DRPs in a Japanese community pharmacy. Patient interviews were an important source of information for detecting DRPs. Further research is warranted to address the impact of DRPs on patient safety.\u0000","PeriodicalId":16705,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41375767","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There is a widely held but previously unsubstantiated belief that prescribers tend to consider and use a limited set of medications when making prescribing decisions. This study aimed to enhance understanding of the process of prescribing decision making in a real-world context. Using constructivist grounded theory methodology, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 healthcare providers in Georgia state. The providers, most of whom are physicians of different specialties, shared their perspectives about prescribing decision making and their perceptions about using a limited set of medications in daily practice. Three themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: (1) prescribers recognized the existence of ‘small individual formularies’ and considered it helpful in simplifying prescribing decision making; (2) healthcare providers employed an algorithm to initiate and step up drug therapy for patients; (3) formulary and patient affordability played a vital role in prescribing. Physicians and other prescribers consider and use a limited set of prescription drugs based on their internal prescribing behaviour algorithm. Strategies could be developed to help stakeholders use this information to improve medication use.
{"title":"The potential existence of ‘Small Individual Formulary’ in prescribing behaviour: a qualitative semi-structured interview study","authors":"Yu Wang, M. Perri","doi":"10.1093/jphsr/rmac031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jphsr/rmac031","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 There is a widely held but previously unsubstantiated belief that prescribers tend to consider and use a limited set of medications when making prescribing decisions. This study aimed to enhance understanding of the process of prescribing decision making in a real-world context.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 Using constructivist grounded theory methodology, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 healthcare providers in Georgia state. The providers, most of whom are physicians of different specialties, shared their perspectives about prescribing decision making and their perceptions about using a limited set of medications in daily practice.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 Three themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: (1) prescribers recognized the existence of ‘small individual formularies’ and considered it helpful in simplifying prescribing decision making; (2) healthcare providers employed an algorithm to initiate and step up drug therapy for patients; (3) formulary and patient affordability played a vital role in prescribing.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 Physicians and other prescribers consider and use a limited set of prescription drugs based on their internal prescribing behaviour algorithm. Strategies could be developed to help stakeholders use this information to improve medication use.\u0000","PeriodicalId":16705,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43451533","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Objectives Pharmacy practice journals are considered the main player in promoting pharmacy practice research and the pharmacy profession globally. The current study aimed to explore and analyze literature on the COVID-19 pandemic published in pharmacy practice journals. Methods COVID-19 research articles were extracted from 32 pharmacy practice journals indexed in Scopus for the study period from 01 January 2020, up until 31 December 2021 Key findings A total of 581 documents were found with an average of 4.5 authors per article and 4.8 citations per document. The retrieved documents were published in 28 pharmacy practice-related journals with the Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy and the American Journal of Health System Pharmacy journals being the leaders in this field. The major findings of the analysis indicated (1) a limited number of contributing countries with limited author-author interactions and cross country collaboration; (2) specific topics were encountered, mainly hospital pharmacy services, survey studies on knowledge, and pharmacy education; (3) several contributing countries in the Middle East, mainly Saudi Arabia; Egypt, and Jordan contributed to the retrieved documents, and (4) the highly-cited documents discussed issues related to pharmacy services and role of the community pharmacists during the pandemic. Conclusion Research activity on COVID-19 in pharmacy practice journals represents the commitment of researchers and professionals to transform and promote the profession of pharmacy. Research on pharmacy practice and pharmacists in low- and middle-income countries during pandemics needs to be prioritized by scholars and journal editors.
{"title":"Bibliometric analysis of COVID-19 research publications in pharmacy practice journals","authors":"W. Sweileh","doi":"10.1093/jphsr/rmac026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jphsr/rmac026","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objectives Pharmacy practice journals are considered the main player in promoting pharmacy practice research and the pharmacy profession globally. The current study aimed to explore and analyze literature on the COVID-19 pandemic published in pharmacy practice journals. Methods COVID-19 research articles were extracted from 32 pharmacy practice journals indexed in Scopus for the study period from 01 January 2020, up until 31 December 2021 Key findings A total of 581 documents were found with an average of 4.5 authors per article and 4.8 citations per document. The retrieved documents were published in 28 pharmacy practice-related journals with the Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy and the American Journal of Health System Pharmacy journals being the leaders in this field. The major findings of the analysis indicated (1) a limited number of contributing countries with limited author-author interactions and cross country collaboration; (2) specific topics were encountered, mainly hospital pharmacy services, survey studies on knowledge, and pharmacy education; (3) several contributing countries in the Middle East, mainly Saudi Arabia; Egypt, and Jordan contributed to the retrieved documents, and (4) the highly-cited documents discussed issues related to pharmacy services and role of the community pharmacists during the pandemic. Conclusion Research activity on COVID-19 in pharmacy practice journals represents the commitment of researchers and professionals to transform and promote the profession of pharmacy. Research on pharmacy practice and pharmacists in low- and middle-income countries during pandemics needs to be prioritized by scholars and journal editors.","PeriodicalId":16705,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44480262","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Mohammed Shazad, F. El‑Dahiyat, F. Javid, Neda Zare, Besime Ozbek, J. Stephenson, Z. Babar
The objective of the literature review is to collect data on how cancer medication pricing affects affordability and availability around the world. A literature search was carried out between 12 October 2020 and 2 December 2020, articles were selected based on them being available as full texts online and written in English. The keywords used were: ‘cancer’, ‘medicines’, ‘drug’, ‘drugs’, ‘pharmaceuticals’, ‘price’, ‘prices’, ‘pricing’. The collective search produced a total of 10 725 articles. After a refining process, any articles considered unnecessary and potential duplications were eliminated, and 16 research articles were included in the final analysis. The results were included in the following categories: (a) high-income countries, (b) low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), (c) originator cancer drug prices, (d) generic drug prices, (e) breast and colorectal cancer drug pricing. The expensive pricing of oncology medications is typically expected to be an obstacle for developing nations; however, the soaring prices have been found increasingly challenging for high-income countries. Within Europe, variations exist between countries in government expenditure and cancer drug prices. Originator cancer drug prices tend to be most expensive in Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland and Germany whereas Greece, Spain, Portugal and the UK had among the lowest recorded prices. The high cost of cancer drugs coupled with low availability rates have resulted in restricted access for many LMICs as monthly medicinal costs are often greater than yearly incomes. The literature has shown the increasing trend of cancer drug pricing. The synthesis has also shown that cancer treatments are unaffordable in many developing countries resulting in most cancer deaths occurring in LMICs. Furthermore, governments cannot effectively challenge patented drug prices until the expiry of the patent.
{"title":"Analysis of cancer drug prices: a narrative review of literature","authors":"Mohammed Shazad, F. El‑Dahiyat, F. Javid, Neda Zare, Besime Ozbek, J. Stephenson, Z. Babar","doi":"10.1093/jphsr/rmac027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jphsr/rmac027","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 The objective of the literature review is to collect data on how cancer medication pricing affects affordability and availability around the world.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 A literature search was carried out between 12 October 2020 and 2 December 2020, articles were selected based on them being available as full texts online and written in English. The keywords used were: ‘cancer’, ‘medicines’, ‘drug’, ‘drugs’, ‘pharmaceuticals’, ‘price’, ‘prices’, ‘pricing’. The collective search produced a total of 10 725 articles. After a refining process, any articles considered unnecessary and potential duplications were eliminated, and 16 research articles were included in the final analysis. The results were included in the following categories: (a) high-income countries, (b) low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), (c) originator cancer drug prices, (d) generic drug prices, (e) breast and colorectal cancer drug pricing. The expensive pricing of oncology medications is typically expected to be an obstacle for developing nations; however, the soaring prices have been found increasingly challenging for high-income countries. Within Europe, variations exist between countries in government expenditure and cancer drug prices. Originator cancer drug prices tend to be most expensive in Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland and Germany whereas Greece, Spain, Portugal and the UK had among the lowest recorded prices. The high cost of cancer drugs coupled with low availability rates have resulted in restricted access for many LMICs as monthly medicinal costs are often greater than yearly incomes.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 The literature has shown the increasing trend of cancer drug pricing. The synthesis has also shown that cancer treatments are unaffordable in many developing countries resulting in most cancer deaths occurring in LMICs. Furthermore, governments cannot effectively challenge patented drug prices until the expiry of the patent.\u0000","PeriodicalId":16705,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46785722","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Predatory journals and conferences","authors":"A. Wertheimer","doi":"10.1093/jphsr/rmac018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jphsr/rmac018","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16705,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46881688","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
T. Mohamed Dharvees, D. Sandy Crasta, Steby Mol Stephen, Anmaria Thomas, P. Pereira, M. Ramesh, C. Sri Harsha, Jehath Syed
To assess the rate of medication adherence, facilitators and barriers to medication adherence among elderly. A cross-sectional study was conducted to assess the medication adherence level and the patient reported facilitators and barriers using medication adherence rating scale and a prevalidated questionnaire, respectively amongst the geriatric patients who were hospitalised in a south India tertiary care hospital. Data thus collected were categorically analysed. Predictors were assessed using odds ratio at 95% confidence interval. A total of 401 patients were enrolled, majority [220 (54.86%)] were adherent to the medications. The barriers identified included forgetfulness, carelessness, lack of awareness about the disease and medication, illiteracy, lack of regular follow up and visit, social stigma on disease, polypharmacy and adverse effects. The facilitators included good access to the health care system, patient counselling, regular follow-up, and refill. The age group of 71–80 years [OR 2.02 (95% CI, 1.31–3.13)], illiteracy [OR 2.34 (95% CI 1.38–3.98)], single as marital status [OR 3.64 (95% CI, 1.13–11.67)], comorbidities (≥5) [OR 3.91 (95% CI, 1.78–8.60)], discharge medications (>11) [OR 3.11 (95% CI, 1.55–6.26)], lack of awareness about the disease [OR 1.99 (95% CI, 1.30–3.032)] were found to be significant predisposing factors. This study reveals as several predictive factors were identified for medication nonadherence which can aid in developing strategies to improve medication adherence.
{"title":"Facilitators and barriers of medication adherence amongst the geriatrics: a cross-sectional study","authors":"T. Mohamed Dharvees, D. Sandy Crasta, Steby Mol Stephen, Anmaria Thomas, P. Pereira, M. Ramesh, C. Sri Harsha, Jehath Syed","doi":"10.1093/jphsr/rmac023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jphsr/rmac023","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 To assess the rate of medication adherence, facilitators and barriers to medication adherence among elderly.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 A cross-sectional study was conducted to assess the medication adherence level and the patient reported facilitators and barriers using medication adherence rating scale and a prevalidated questionnaire, respectively amongst the geriatric patients who were hospitalised in a south India tertiary care hospital. Data thus collected were categorically analysed. Predictors were assessed using odds ratio at 95% confidence interval.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 A total of 401 patients were enrolled, majority [220 (54.86%)] were adherent to the medications. The barriers identified included forgetfulness, carelessness, lack of awareness about the disease and medication, illiteracy, lack of regular follow up and visit, social stigma on disease, polypharmacy and adverse effects. The facilitators included good access to the health care system, patient counselling, regular follow-up, and refill. The age group of 71–80 years [OR 2.02 (95% CI, 1.31–3.13)], illiteracy [OR 2.34 (95% CI 1.38–3.98)], single as marital status [OR 3.64 (95% CI, 1.13–11.67)], comorbidities (≥5) [OR 3.91 (95% CI, 1.78–8.60)], discharge medications (>11) [OR 3.11 (95% CI, 1.55–6.26)], lack of awareness about the disease [OR 1.99 (95% CI, 1.30–3.032)] were found to be significant predisposing factors.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 This study reveals as several predictive factors were identified for medication nonadherence which can aid in developing strategies to improve medication adherence.\u0000","PeriodicalId":16705,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49611933","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Anam Azhar, Syed Wasif Gillani, Nada Jiaan, V. Menon, Semira Abdi, H. A. Rathore
This study aimed to determine patient satisfaction with the following pharmacist-led services for inpatients in tertiary care hospitals. Studies were identified from different databases from 2012 to 2020. A total of 1910 articles were identified using the search strategies out of which 1153 were rejected based on the review of titles and abstracts. The search criteria were the roles of inpatient pharmacists and patient satisfaction with inpatient pharmacy services. Multiple keywords were used such as ‘patient satisfaction’/‘inpatient pharmacist’/‘pharmacist hospital services’/‘clinical pharmacist roles’. The quality of each study was measured using the mixed methods appraisal tool, and the same was used to evaluate the risk of bias as well. A total of 11 cross-sectional studies were included in the evidence synthesis of this meta-analysis. Three studies tested the satisfaction of patients with inpatient counselling with a sample size of n = 742. The odd ratio (OR) was 215.33 (141.77 to 327.05) [95% confidence interval (CI)] showed a significant patient satisfaction (P = 0.00001) with the pharmacist’s inpatient counselling (I2 = 0%). Studies showed a statistically significant satisfaction of patients with discharge counselling P < 0.00001 and OR 55.74 (35.93 to 86.49) and heterogeneity I2 = 0%. In a total of five studies, the healthcare professional (HCP) satisfaction with pharmacist services was reported, and satisfied and unsatisfied HCPs were n = 801 and n = 362, respectively. Results showed high satisfaction (P < 0.00001) and OR 4.62 (95% CI, 3.89 to 5.48). This meta-analysis concluded that clinical pharmacist services in an inpatient setting have a significant impact on increasing patient satisfaction with their treatment. The clinical pharmacist services are not very well implemented and are limited in some hospitals, but patients who have received these services were highly satisfied and expected to receive them more often.
{"title":"Patient satisfaction with inpatient pharmacy services at tertiary care setting—a meta-analysis of recent literature","authors":"Anam Azhar, Syed Wasif Gillani, Nada Jiaan, V. Menon, Semira Abdi, H. A. Rathore","doi":"10.1093/jphsr/rmac022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jphsr/rmac022","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 This study aimed to determine patient satisfaction with the following pharmacist-led services for inpatients in tertiary care hospitals.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 Studies were identified from different databases from 2012 to 2020. A total of 1910 articles were identified using the search strategies out of which 1153 were rejected based on the review of titles and abstracts. The search criteria were the roles of inpatient pharmacists and patient satisfaction with inpatient pharmacy services. Multiple keywords were used such as ‘patient satisfaction’/‘inpatient pharmacist’/‘pharmacist hospital services’/‘clinical pharmacist roles’. The quality of each study was measured using the mixed methods appraisal tool, and the same was used to evaluate the risk of bias as well.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 A total of 11 cross-sectional studies were included in the evidence synthesis of this meta-analysis. Three studies tested the satisfaction of patients with inpatient counselling with a sample size of n = 742. The odd ratio (OR) was 215.33 (141.77 to 327.05) [95% confidence interval (CI)] showed a significant patient satisfaction (P = 0.00001) with the pharmacist’s inpatient counselling (I2 = 0%). Studies showed a statistically significant satisfaction of patients with discharge counselling P < 0.00001 and OR 55.74 (35.93 to 86.49) and heterogeneity I2 = 0%. In a total of five studies, the healthcare professional (HCP) satisfaction with pharmacist services was reported, and satisfied and unsatisfied HCPs were n = 801 and n = 362, respectively. Results showed high satisfaction (P < 0.00001) and OR 4.62 (95% CI, 3.89 to 5.48).\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 This meta-analysis concluded that clinical pharmacist services in an inpatient setting have a significant impact on increasing patient satisfaction with their treatment. The clinical pharmacist services are not very well implemented and are limited in some hospitals, but patients who have received these services were highly satisfied and expected to receive them more often.\u0000","PeriodicalId":16705,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45501773","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sainul Abideen Parakkal, Faisal Ahmed Hakeem, Hafees Madathil, H. S. Nemr, Fuad Hamed Ghamdi
Previous studies indicate a higher prevalence of inappropriate drug usage in patients with renal disease in ambulatory care settings and a higher rate of non-compliance with the renal dose adjustment protocol. This study aimed to investigate the number of renal dose adjustments recommended by pharmacists in ambulatory care settings, acceptance rate by the physicians and medications involved. This two-year retrospective study was conducted in an ambulatory care pharmacy in a Saudi Arabian tertiary care hospital. Based on the renal protocol at the study site, the pharmacists recommended dose adjustments for inappropriate medication orders, and the outcomes were documented electronically. A quantitative descriptive analysis of this practice was performed by retrieving the pharmacists’ documentation from electronic health records. Only protocol-compliant recommendations with proper documentation were included in the study. A total of 302 renal dose adjustments were recommended by pharmacists for 269 patients involving 47 medications, with an average of 1.12 recommendations per patient. The average monthly recommendation was 12.58 (median: 11; SD: 5.174; 95% Confidence Interval (CI), 12 to 13.16). Of the 302 recommendations, 219 (72.52%) were accepted by the physician, and 71 (23.51%) were not. The most common medications accepted for renal dosage adjustment included levofloxacin (8.94%), metformin (5.29%), amoxicillin-clavulanate (5.29%), cetirizine (4.97%), diclofenac (4.64%), ciprofloxacin (3.97%) and nitrofurantoin (3.31%). The pharmacist’s renal dose recommendations have a high acceptance rate in ambulatory care. This study demonstrated that ambulatory care pharmacists play a substantial clinical role in reducing inappropriate drug use in patients with renal disease.
{"title":"Pharmacist-driven renal dose optimization practice—outcomes of a retrospective study in ambulatory care settings","authors":"Sainul Abideen Parakkal, Faisal Ahmed Hakeem, Hafees Madathil, H. S. Nemr, Fuad Hamed Ghamdi","doi":"10.1093/jphsr/rmac020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jphsr/rmac020","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 Previous studies indicate a higher prevalence of inappropriate drug usage in patients with renal disease in ambulatory care settings and a higher rate of non-compliance with the renal dose adjustment protocol. This study aimed to investigate the number of renal dose adjustments recommended by pharmacists in ambulatory care settings, acceptance rate by the physicians and medications involved.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 This two-year retrospective study was conducted in an ambulatory care pharmacy in a Saudi Arabian tertiary care hospital. Based on the renal protocol at the study site, the pharmacists recommended dose adjustments for inappropriate medication orders, and the outcomes were documented electronically. A quantitative descriptive analysis of this practice was performed by retrieving the pharmacists’ documentation from electronic health records. Only protocol-compliant recommendations with proper documentation were included in the study.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 A total of 302 renal dose adjustments were recommended by pharmacists for 269 patients involving 47 medications, with an average of 1.12 recommendations per patient. The average monthly recommendation was 12.58 (median: 11; SD: 5.174; 95% Confidence Interval (CI), 12 to 13.16). Of the 302 recommendations, 219 (72.52%) were accepted by the physician, and 71 (23.51%) were not. The most common medications accepted for renal dosage adjustment included levofloxacin (8.94%), metformin (5.29%), amoxicillin-clavulanate (5.29%), cetirizine (4.97%), diclofenac (4.64%), ciprofloxacin (3.97%) and nitrofurantoin (3.31%).\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 The pharmacist’s renal dose recommendations have a high acceptance rate in ambulatory care. This study demonstrated that ambulatory care pharmacists play a substantial clinical role in reducing inappropriate drug use in patients with renal disease.\u0000","PeriodicalId":16705,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43806085","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The aim of this study was to assess antipsychotic medication adherence and its relation to Psychiatric symptoms in a sample of patients with schizophrenia in Palestine. Patients were recruited from the governmental psychiatry clinic in Ramallah in a cross-sectional study. The self-reported Morisky–Green–Levine (MGL) scale was used to measure patients’ adherence. Psychiatric symptoms were measured using the expanded Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS-E). Of the 130 participants in the study, 78 (60%) were men and mean age was 41.8 ± 9.8 years 70 (53.8%). of the sample participants were classified as low-adherent while 60 (46.2%) of patients classified as high adherent. That negative symptom scores of high adherence group are significantly lower than low adherence group (12.5 vs. 15.0, P = 0.002) and lower depression anxiety scores (18.3 vs. 22.1, P < 0.001) indicated that high adherence group had lower depression, anxiety, social isolation, anxiety and suicidal ideation symptoms than low-adherence group. The multivariate regression model demonstrated that four variables remain significant and associated with nonadherence; no formal education (OR = 2.11; CI: 0.8–3.8; P = 0.04), age (OR = 2.88; CI: 1.2–4.4; P = 0.01), having comorbidity (OR = 3.2; CI: 1.9–4.3; P = 0.01) and having higher negative symptoms scores (OR = 2.5; CI: 1.2–3.9; P = 0.03); as they are positively correlated to nonadherence. Medication nonadherence was significant, and it was linked to poor psychiatric outcomes and adherence scores were unaffected by medication-related variables.
{"title":"Evaluation of antipsychotic medication adherence and its relation to negative and positive psychiatric symptoms","authors":"Maher R. Khdour, A. Salman","doi":"10.1093/jphsr/rmac019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jphsr/rmac019","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 The aim of this study was to assess antipsychotic medication adherence and its relation to Psychiatric symptoms in a sample of patients with schizophrenia in Palestine.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 Patients were recruited from the governmental psychiatry clinic in Ramallah in a cross-sectional study. The self-reported Morisky–Green–Levine (MGL) scale was used to measure patients’ adherence. Psychiatric symptoms were measured using the expanded Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS-E).\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 Of the 130 participants in the study, 78 (60%) were men and mean age was 41.8 ± 9.8 years 70 (53.8%). of the sample participants were classified as low-adherent while 60 (46.2%) of patients classified as high adherent. That negative symptom scores of high adherence group are significantly lower than low adherence group (12.5 vs. 15.0, P = 0.002) and lower depression anxiety scores (18.3 vs. 22.1, P < 0.001) indicated that high adherence group had lower depression, anxiety, social isolation, anxiety and suicidal ideation symptoms than low-adherence group. The multivariate regression model demonstrated that four variables remain significant and associated with nonadherence; no formal education (OR = 2.11; CI: 0.8–3.8; P = 0.04), age (OR = 2.88; CI: 1.2–4.4; P = 0.01), having comorbidity (OR = 3.2; CI: 1.9–4.3; P = 0.01) and having higher negative symptoms scores (OR = 2.5; CI: 1.2–3.9; P = 0.03); as they are positively correlated to nonadherence.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 Medication nonadherence was significant, and it was linked to poor psychiatric outcomes and adherence scores were unaffected by medication-related variables.\u0000","PeriodicalId":16705,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49642866","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
M. Zaini, R. A. Abu Farha, R. Abutayeh, Wesam Alsaud, A. Hammoudeh, A. Al-Shudifat, Thamer Al-Kharabsheh
The aim of this study was to assess Jordanian physicians’ awareness about venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk among COVID-19 patients and its treatment protocol. This was a cross-sectional-based survey that was conducted in Jordan in 2020. During the study period, a convenience sample of physicians working in various Jordanian hospitals were invited to participate in this study. Physicians’ knowledge was evaluated and physicians gained one point for each correct answer. Then, a knowledge score out of 23 was calculated for each. In this study, 102 physicians were recruited. Results from this study showed that most of the physicians realize that all COVID-19 patients need VTE risk assessment (n = 69, 67.6%). Regarding VTE prophylaxis, the majority of physicians (n = 91, 89.2%) agreed that low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is the best prophylactic option for mild-moderate COVID-19 patients with high VTE risk. Regarding severe/critically ill COVID-19 patients, 75.5% of physicians (n = 77) recognized that LMWH is the correct prophylactic option in this case, while 80.4% of them (n = 82) knew that mechanical prevention is the preferred prophylactic option for severe/critically ill COVID-19 patients with high bleeding risk. Moreover, 77.5% of physicians (n = 79) knew that LMWH is the treatment of choice for COVID-19 patients diagnosed with VTE. Finally, linear regression analysis showed that consultants had an overall higher knowledge score about VTE prevention and treatment in COVID-19 patients compared with residents (P = 0.009). All physicians knew about VTE risk factors for COVID-19 patients. However, consultants showed better awareness of VTE prophylaxis and treatment compared with residents. We recommend educational workshops be conducted to enhance physicians’ knowledge and awareness about VTE thromboprophylaxis and management in COVID-19 patients.
{"title":"Assessment of Jordanian physicians’ knowledge about venous thromboembolism risk and management among COVID-19 patients","authors":"M. Zaini, R. A. Abu Farha, R. Abutayeh, Wesam Alsaud, A. Hammoudeh, A. Al-Shudifat, Thamer Al-Kharabsheh","doi":"10.1093/jphsr/rmac021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jphsr/rmac021","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 The aim of this study was to assess Jordanian physicians’ awareness about venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk among COVID-19 patients and its treatment protocol.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 This was a cross-sectional-based survey that was conducted in Jordan in 2020. During the study period, a convenience sample of physicians working in various Jordanian hospitals were invited to participate in this study. Physicians’ knowledge was evaluated and physicians gained one point for each correct answer. Then, a knowledge score out of 23 was calculated for each.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 In this study, 102 physicians were recruited. Results from this study showed that most of the physicians realize that all COVID-19 patients need VTE risk assessment (n = 69, 67.6%). Regarding VTE prophylaxis, the majority of physicians (n = 91, 89.2%) agreed that low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is the best prophylactic option for mild-moderate COVID-19 patients with high VTE risk. Regarding severe/critically ill COVID-19 patients, 75.5% of physicians (n = 77) recognized that LMWH is the correct prophylactic option in this case, while 80.4% of them (n = 82) knew that mechanical prevention is the preferred prophylactic option for severe/critically ill COVID-19 patients with high bleeding risk. Moreover, 77.5% of physicians (n = 79) knew that LMWH is the treatment of choice for COVID-19 patients diagnosed with VTE. Finally, linear regression analysis showed that consultants had an overall higher knowledge score about VTE prevention and treatment in COVID-19 patients compared with residents (P = 0.009).\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 All physicians knew about VTE risk factors for COVID-19 patients. However, consultants showed better awareness of VTE prophylaxis and treatment compared with residents. We recommend educational workshops be conducted to enhance physicians’ knowledge and awareness about VTE thromboprophylaxis and management in COVID-19 patients.\u0000","PeriodicalId":16705,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41948447","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：