[Translated article] Consensus recommendations on the preventive treatment of migraine.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives are to know the opinion of neurologists and hospital pharmacists on those aspects still under debate regarding the role of anti-Calcitonin Gene-related Peptide monoclonal antibodies in the preventive treatment of migraine. To identify those controversies that still exist. To propose agreed recommendations for improvement of care. And to promote access of clinicians and patients to these new treatments in the prevention of migraine with biological drugs, in order to improve patient care and follow-up. METHODOLOGY: Recommendations for the use of biological drugs in the prevention of migraine were identified and evaluated through the Delphi consensus methodology, proposing 88 statements grouped into 3 themes: a clinical module that deals with the management of biological treatments in migraine; a patient module that discusses patient education and adherence improvement strategies; and a coordination module that includes statements related to strategies to improve joint work between the two groups. The 9-point Likert ordinal scale was used to score these recommendations and, subsequently, the data was statistically analysed through different metrics. RESULTS: After both rounds of voting, consensus was reached in agreement on 71 of the 88 statements (80.7%), leaving 1 statement (1.1%) with consensus in disagreement and 16 remaining as indeterminate (18.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The high degree of consensus indicates that the opinion of neurologists and hospital pharmacists on the role of anti-Calcitonin Gene-related Peptide monoclonal antibodies in the preventive treatment of migraine is very similar and allows identifying those controversies that still exist, to improve the care and follow-up of patients with migraine.

Consensus recommendations for the treatment of migraine prevention. / Recomendaciones de consenso para el tratamiento de la prevención de la migraña.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives are to know the opinion of neurologists and hospital pharmacists on those aspects still under debate regarding the role of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in the preventive treatment of migraine. To identify those controversies that still exist. To propose agreed recommendations for improvement of care. And to promote access of clinicians and patients to these new treatments in the prevention of migraine with biological drugs, in order to improve patient care and follow-up. METHODOLOGY: Recommendations for the use of biological drugs in the prevention of migraine were identified and evaluated through the Delphi consensus methodology, proposing 88 statements grouped into three themes: a clinical module that deals with the management of biological treatments in migraine; a patient module that discusses patient education and adherence improvement strategies; and a coordination module that includes statements related to strategies to improve joint work between the two groups. The 9-point Likert ordinal scale was used to score these recommendations and, subsequently, the data was statistically analyzed through different metrics. RESULTS: After both rounds of voting, consensus was reached in agreement on 71 of the 88 statements (80.7%), leaving one statement (1.1%) with consensus in disagreement and 16 remaining as indeterminate (18.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The high degree of consensus indicates that the opinion of neurologists and hospital pharmacists on the role of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of migraine is very similar and allows identifying those controversies that still exist, to improve the care and follow-up of patients with migraine.

Improvement in RAID questionnaire results in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with advanced therapies.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the changes in patient-reported outcomes after starting advanced antirheumatic treatment. METHODS: The study included all patients who started self-administered biological or targeted synthetic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis between February and November 2020. The patients were given the RAID quality of life questionnaire to complete before starting the treatment and after 4 months. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the association between patients' clinical and sociodemographic characteristics and quality of life improvement. The level of significance was set at 0.05. RESULTS: Forty-six patients were included. Their ratings in the RAID questionnaire were improved after 4 months of treatment, both in the final overall total, which improved by 1.63±2.29 points, and in the different subtopics of the questionnaire (range 0-10). Pain was the domain that improved the most (2.33±2.82 points), followed by functional disability (2.15±2.51) and physical well-being (1.96±3.18). The improvement was statistically significant in all domains except the sleep score, which showed no statistically significant difference between the two time points analysed. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced antirheumatic treatment improves the quality of life of patients after 4 months of treatment.

Do Patients and Relatives Have Different Dispositions When Challenging Healthcare Professionals About Patient Safety? Results Before and After an Educational Program.

BACKGROUND: There is a universal interest in evaluating the new roles of patients to improve patient safety. However, relatively little is known about the contribution of family caregivers. The purposes of this study was to determine whether patients and relatives (P&Rs) have different dispositions when challenging healthcare professionals about patient safety and to measure the influence of an educational program. METHODS: An interventional before-and-after design was used to determine the P&Rs' basal level of willingness and the influence of a training program. One hundred thirty-six participants were recruited, 90 patients and 46 relatives, from the Day Hospital of a Tertiary Hospital in Spain, in 2018.The safe practices selected were as follows: patient identification, hand hygiene, blood or chemotherapy identification, and secondary effects of treatment. The educational materials comprised brochures and story-type videos. A questionnaire measured participants' willingness to speak up before and after the training. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-six P&Rs (63% response rate) agreed to participate. The hypothesis that relatives are more willing to challenge healthcare professionals could not be proven. Their willingness to speak up depended on the type of safe practice both before and after training, ranging from 42% to 87%. The percentage of items that P&Rs were willing to challenge increased after the training among both the patients and the relatives, but statically significant differences were only seen among patients. CONCLUSIONS: After the training, participants' willingness to challenge healthcare workers was high for all safe practices analyzed but hand hygiene. Patients and relatives had very similar willingness. After the training, participants felt confident with their knowledge about safe practices, thereby increasing their challenging attitude.

Patients and relatives as auditors of safe practices in oncology and hematology day hospitals.

BACKGROUND: When there is a gap in professionals' adherence to safe practices during cancer treatment, the consequences can be serious. Identifying these gaps in order to enable improvements in patient safety can be a challenge. This study aimed to assess if cancer patients and their relatives can be given the skills to audit reliably four safe practices, and to explore whether they are willing to play this new role. METHODS: We recruited 136 participants in 2018, from the oncology and haematology day hospital of a tertiary hospital in Spain. Patient identification, hand hygiene, blood or chemotherapy identification, and side effects related to transfusion and chemotherapy, were the safe practices selected for evaluation. The study comprised two parts: an interventional educational program and a cross-sectional design to collect data and assess to what degree participants are able and willing to be auditors depending on their characteristics using multivariate logistic regression models. A participant's auditing skill were assessed pre and post the educational intervention. RESULTS: The model was seeking predictors of being a good auditor. 63 participants (46.3%) were classified as good auditors after the training. To have younger age, higher educational level and to have had an experience of an adverse event were associated with a higher probability of being a good auditor. Additionally, 106 (77.9%) participants said that they would like to audit anonymously the professionals' compliance of at least three of four safe practices. The willingness to audit safe practices differed depending on the safe practice but these differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: The data gathered by patients and relatives acting as auditors can provide healthcare organizations with valuable information about safety and quality of care that is not accessible otherwise. This new role provides an innovative way to engage patients and their families' in healthcare safety where other methods have not had success. The paper sets out the methods that healthcare organizations need to undertake to enrol and train patients and relatives in an auditor role.