Prevalence and determinants of medication administration errors in clinical wards: A two-centre prospective observational study.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To identify the prevalence and determinants of medication administration errors (MAEs). BACKGROUND: Insight into determinants of MAEs is necessary to identify interventions to prevent MAEs. DESIGN: A prospective observational study in two Dutch hospitals, a university and teaching hospital. METHODS: Data were collected by observation. The primary outcome was the proportion of administrations with one or more MAEs. Secondary outcomes were the type, severity and determinants of MAEs. Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression analyses were used for determinant analysis. Reporting adheres to the STROBE guideline. RESULTS: MAEs occurred in 352 of 2576 medication administrations (13.7%). Of all MAEs (n = 380), the most prevalent types were omission (n = 87) and wrong medication handling (n = 75). Forty-five MAEs (11.8%) were potentially harmful. The pharmaceutical forms oral liquid (odds ratio [OR] 3.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.43-7.25), infusion (OR 1.73, CI 1.02-2.94), injection (OR 3.52, CI 2.00-6.21), ointment (OR 10.78, CI 2.10-55.26), suppository/enema (OR 6.39, CI 1.13-36.03) and miscellaneous (OR 6.17, CI 1.90-20.04) were more prone to MAEs compared to oral solid. MAEs were more likely to occur when medication was administered between 10 a.m.-2 p.m. (OR 1.91, CI 1.06-3.46) and 6 p.m.-7 a.m. (OR 1.88, CI 1.00-3.52) compared to 7 a.m.-10 a.m. and when administered by staff with higher professional education compared to staff with secondary vocational education (OR 1.68, CI 1.03-2.74). MAEs were less likely to occur in the teaching hospital (OR 0.17, CI 0.08-0.33). Day of the week, patient-to-nurse ratio, interruptions and other nurse characteristics (degree, experience, employment type) were not associated with MAEs. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified a high MAE prevalence. Identified determinants suggest that focusing interventions on complex pharmaceutical forms and error-prone administration times may contribute to MAE reduction. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The findings of this study can be used to develop targeted interventions to improve patient safety.

Barriers and facilitators for the usage of a personal health record for medication reconciliation: A qualitative study among patients.

AIMS: Personal health records (PHRs) are more often used for medication reconciliation (MR). However, patients' adoption rate is low. We aimed to provide insight into patients' barriers and facilitators for the usage of a PHR for MR prior to an in- or outpatient visit. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted among PHR users and non-users who had a planned visit at the outpatient rheumatology department or the inpatient cardiology or neurology department. About 1 week after the hospital visit, patients were interviewed about barriers and facilitators for the usage of a PHR for MR using a semi-structured interview guide based on the theoretical domains framework. Afterwards, data were analysed following thematic analysis. RESULTS: Ten PHR users and non-users were interviewed. Barriers and facilitators were classified in four domains: patient, application, process and context. We identified 14 barriers including limited (health) literacy and/or computer skills, practical and technical issues, ambiguity about who is responsible (the patient or the healthcare provider) and lack of data exchange and connectivity between applications. Besides that, ten facilitators were identified including being place and time independent, improve usability, target patients who benefit most and/or have sufficient skills, and integration of different applications. CONCLUSION: Barriers and facilitators identified at the patient, application, process and context level, need to be addressed to effectively develop and implement PHRs for MR.

Usability and perceived usefulness of patient-centered medication reconciliation using a personalized health record: a multicenter cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Adoption of a personal health record (PHR) depends on its usability and perceived usefulness. Therefore, we aimed to assess the usability and perceived usefulness of an online PHR used for medication reconciliation and to assess the association between patient-, clinical-, hospital-, and ICT-related factors and the usability and perceived usefulness at both the in- and outpatient clinics. METHODS: A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted with patients with either an outpatient visit (rheumatology ward) or planned admission in the hospital (cardiology, neurology, internal medicine or pulmonary wards). All patients received an invitation to update their medication list in the PHR 2 weeks prior to their appointment. One month after the hospital visit, PHR-users were asked to rate usability (using the System Usability Scale (SUS)) and perceived usefulness on a 5-point Likert scale. The usability and perceived usefulness were classified according to the adjective rating scale of Bangor et al. The usability was furthermore dichotomized in the categories: low (SUS between 0 and 51) and good (SUS 51-100) usability. Associations between patient-, clinical-, hospital-, and ICT-related factors and the usability and perceived usefulness were analysed. RESULTS: 255 of the 743 invited PHR-users completed the questionnaire. 78% inpatients and 83% outpatients indicated that usability of the PHR was good. There were no significant association between patient-, clinical-, hospital-, and ICT-related factors and the usability of the PHR. The majority of the patients (57% inpatients and 67% outpatients) classified perceived usefulness of the PHR as good, excellent, or best imaginable. Outpatients who also used the PHR for other drug related purposes reported a higher perceived usefulness (adjusted odds ratio 20.0; 95% confidence interval 2.36-170). Besides that, there was no significant association between patient-, clinical-, hospital-, and ICT-related factors and the perceived usefulness of the PHR. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the patients indicated that the PHR for medication reconciliation was useful and easy to use, but there is still room for improvement. To improve the intervention, further research should explore patients' barriers and facilitators of using a PHR for medication reconciliation.

The value of incorporating patient-consulted medication reconciliation in influencing drug-related actions in the outpatient rheumatology setting.

BACKGROUND: Unintentional changes to patients' medicine regimens and drug non-adherence are discovered by medication reconciliation. High numbers of outpatient visits and medication reconciliation being time-consuming, make it challenging to perform medication reconciliation for all outpatients. Therefore, we aimed to get insight into the proportion of outpatient visits in which information obtained with medication reconciliation led to additional drug-related actions. METHODS: In October and November 2018, we performed a cross-sectional observational study at the rheumatology outpatient clinic. Based on a standardized data collection form, outpatient visits were observed by a pharmacy technician trained to observe and report all drug-related actions made by the rheumatologist. Afterwards, the nine observed rheumatologists and an expert panel, consisting of two rheumatologists and two pharmacists, were individually asked which drug information reported on the drug list composed by medication reconciliation was required to perform the drug-related actions. The four members of the expert panel discussed until consensus was reached about their assessment of the required information. Subsequently, a researcher determined if the required information was available in digital sources: electronic medical record (electronic prescribing system plus physician's medical notes) or Dutch Nationwide Medication Record System. RESULTS: Of the 114 selected patients, 83 (73%) patients were included. If both digital drug sources were available, patient's input during medication reconciliation resulted in additional information to perform drug-related actions according to the rheumatologist in 0% of the visits and according to the expert panel in 14%. If there was only access to the electronic medical record, the proportions were 8 and 29%, respectively. Patient's input was especially required for starting a new drug and discussing drug-related problems. CONCLUSIONS: If rheumatologists only had access to the electronic medical record, in 1 out of 3 visits the patient provided additional information during medication reconciliation which was required to perform a drug-related action. When rheumatologists had access to two digital sources, patient's additional input during medication reconciliation was at most 14%. As the added value of patient's input was highest when rheumatologists prescribe a new drug and/or discuss a drug-related problem, it may be considered that rheumatologists only perform medication reconciliation during the visit when performing one of these actions.

The effect of Patient's Own Medication use on patient's self-reported medication knowledge during hospitalisation: a pre-post intervention study.

BACKGROUND: Improving patient's medication knowledge and consequently medication use is essential for optimal treatment outcomes. As patient knowledge about medication is currently suboptimal, interventions to optimise medication knowledge are necessary. Implementation of Patient's Own Medication (POM) in which patients bring their outpatient medication to the hospital, and nurses administer these during admission, may increase medication knowledge. The aim of this study is to explore the impact of POM use on self-reported medication knowledge of hospitalised patients compared to standard care. Patient's sense of medication safety, attitude to the provision of information, and to inpatient medication use were studied in both standard care and during POM use too. METHOD: In this nationwide intervention study perceived medication knowledge was assessed with a questionnaire pre and post implementing POM use. The questionnaire assessed perceived medication knowledge at admission and discharge, medication safety during hospitalisation, the provision of information during hospitalisation and at discharge, and inpatient medication use during hospitalisation. Patients' answers were categorised into positive and negative/neutral. The proportion of patients with adequate medication knowledge, in the standard care and POM use group at hospital admission and discharge, were calculated and compared with adjustment for potential confounders. RESULTS: Among the 731 patients (393 received standard care and 338 POM) who completed the questionnaire (80.2%), POM use seemed to be positively associated with self-reported knowledge on how to use medication at discharge (adjusted OR: 3.22 [95% CI 2.01-5.16]). However, for the other two knowledge related statements POM use was not associated. Medication knowledge at admission was the most important variable associated with perceived medication knowledge at discharge. The majority perceived POM use to be safer (52.9% of standard care patients versus 74.0% POM users; P <  0.01), POM users knew better which medicines they still used during hospitalisation (85.8% versus 92.3% resp.; P = 0.01), and most patients preferred POM use regardless of having experienced it (68.2% versus 82.2% resp.; P <  0.01). CONCLUSION: POM use positively affects patient's medication knowledge about how to use medication and patients' perception of medication safety. With POM use more patients have a positive attitude towards the provision of information. The majority of patients prefer POM use. In conclusion, POM use seems a valuable intervention and requires further investigation.

Effect of Interactive eHealth Interventions on Improving Medication Adherence in Adults With Long-Term Medication: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Medication nonadherence leads to suboptimal treatment outcomes, making it a major priority in health care. eHealth provides an opportunity to offer medication adherence interventions with minimal effort from health care providers whose time and resources are limited. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is twofold: (1) to evaluate effectiveness of recently developed and tested interactive eHealth (including mHealth) interventions on medication adherence in adult patients using long-term medication and (2) to describe strategies among effective interventions. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and Web of Science were systematically searched from January 2014 to July 2019 as well as reference lists and citations of included articles. Eligible studies fulfilled the following inclusion criteria: (1) randomized controlled trial with a usual care control group; (2) a total sample size of at least 50 adult patients using long-term medication; (3) applying an interactive eHealth intervention aimed at the patient or patient's caregiver; and (4) medication adherence as primary outcome. Methodologic quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Selection and quality assessment of studies were performed by 2 researchers (BP and BvdB or JV) independently. A best evidence synthesis was performed according to the Cochrane Back Review Group. RESULTS: Of the 9047 records screened, 22 randomized clinical trials were included reporting on 29 interventions. Most (21/29, 72%) interventions specified using a (mobile) phone for calling, SMS text messaging, or mobile apps. A majority of all interactive interventions (17/29) had a statistically significant effect on medication adherence (P<.05). Of these interventions, 9 had at least a small effect size (Cohen d ≥ 0.2) and 3 showed strong odds for becoming adherent in the intervention group (odds ratio > 2.0). Our best evidence synthesis provided strong evidence for a positive effect of interventions using SMS text messages or interactive voice response, mobile app, and calls as mode of providing adherence tele-feedback. Intervention strategies "to teach medication management skills," "to improve health care quality by coordinating medication adherence care between professionals," and "to facilitate communication or decision making between patients and health care providers" also showed strong evidence for a positive effect. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this review supports the hypothesis that interactive eHealth interventions can be effective in improving medication adherence. Intervention strategies that improve patients' treatment involvement and their medication management skills are most promising and should be considered for implementation in practice.

Identification of Cardiovascular Patient Groups at Risk for Poor Medication Adherence: A Cluster Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Poor medication adherence limits the secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and leads to increased morbidity, mortality, and costs. Identifying groups of patients at risk of poor adherence behavior could enable an intervention to be developed and target patients appropriately. OBJECTIVE: The first aim of this study was to identify homogeneous subgroups of cardiovascular outpatients based on their cardiovascular risk factors. Subsequently, differences in medication adherence between these groups were examined. METHODS: In this retrospective, observational study, patients with an established CVD were included. Well-known cardiovascular risk factors such as smoking, diet, exercise, blood lipid levels, blood pressure, and body mass index were collected. To identify patient subgroups, a 2-step cluster analytic procedure was performed. Differences between the groups on medication adherence were determined on the outcome of the Modified Morisky Scale. Data collection took place between October 2011 and January 2013. RESULTS: Cardiovascular risk factors of 530 patients were included in the cluster analysis. Three groups were identified. Compared with other clusters (clusters 1 and 2), cluster 3 contained significantly fewer patients who could be classified as highly adherent and more patients classified as medium adherent (23% and 57%, respectively; P = .024). This group was characterized by a younger age (53% were <55 years old) and using a relatively low number of different medications (41% used <4 different medications). Besides, in this subgroup the most smokers (37%), unhealthy alcohol users (27%), and patients with unhealthy eating habits (14%) were present. CONCLUSION: This study showed that cardiovascular patients who are relatively young and have an unhealthy lifestyle are at risk for nonadherent behavior.

Long-term use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and risk of fracture: A retrospective population-based cohort study.

AIMS: To investigate the association between long-term dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor use and risk of fracture among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: A retrospective population-based cohort study, using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink database (2007-2015), was conducted. All those (N = 328 254) with at least one prescription for a non-insulin antidiabetic drug (NIAD), aged ≥18 years at the time of data collection, were included. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the hazard ratios of any fracture, osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture in DPP-4 inhibitor users compared with those using other NIADs. Analyses were stratified by continuous duration of DPP-4 inhibitor use. Time-dependent adjustments were made for age, sex, lifestyle, comorbidity and concomitant drug use. RESULTS: Current use of DPP-4 inhibitors was not associated with risk of any fracture (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.99 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.93-1.06]) as compared with current other NIAD use. Current use of DPP-4 inhibitors was also not associated with risk of osteoporotic or hip fracture. After stratification by continuous duration of DPP-4 inhibitor use the highest category was not associated with any (>4.0-8.5 years of use, adjusted HR 0.99 [95% CI 0.70-1.41]), osteoporotic (>3.0-8.5 years of use, adjusted HR 0.75 [95% CI 0.52-1.09]) or hip (>2.0-8.5 years of use; adjusted HR 1.24 [95% CI 0.85-1.79]) fracture. CONCLUSION: Continuous long-term DPP-4 inhibitor use (defined as >4.0-8.5 years of DPP-4 inhibitor use for any fracture, >3.0-8.5 years for osteoporotic fracture and >2.0-8.5 years for hip fracture was not associated with risk of any, osteoporotic or hip fracture. These findings may be of value for clinical decisions regarding treatment of patients with T2DM, especially those at high risk of fracture.

Risk of major bleeding and stroke associated with the use of vitamin K antagonists, nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants and aspirin in patients with atrial fibrillation: a cohort study.

AIMS: Nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are now available for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) as an alternative to vitamin K antagonists (VKA) and aspirin. The comparative effectiveness and safety in daily practice of these different drug classes is still unclear. The objective of this study was to evaluate the risk of major bleeding and stroke in AF patients using NOACs, VKAs or aspirin. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted among AF patients using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (March 2008-October 2014). New users of VKAs, NOACs and low dose aspirin were followed from the date of first prescription of an antithrombotic drug until the occurrence of stroke or major bleeding. Analyses were adjusted for a history of comorbidities and drug use with Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 31 497 patients were eligible for the study. The hazard ratio (HR) of major bleeding was 2.07 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27-3.38] for NOACs compared with VKAs, which was mainly attributed by the increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (HR 2.63, 95% CI 1.50-4.62). This increased bleeding risk was restricted to women (HR 3.14, 95% CI 1.76-5.60). Aspirin showed a similar bleeding risk as VKAs. NOACs showed equal effectiveness as VKA in preventing ischaemic stroke (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.67-2.19). VKAs were more effective than aspirin (HR 2.18, 95% CI 1.83-2.59). CONCLUSIONS: NOACs were associated with a higher risk on gastrointestinal bleeding, particularly in women. The use of NOACs in patients who are vulnerable for this type of bleeding should be carefully considered. NOACs and VKAs are equally effective in preventing stroke. Aspirin was not effective in the prevention of stroke in AF.

The use of incretins and fractures - a meta-analysis on population-based real life data.

The aim of the present study was to estimate the effect of incretins on fracture risk in the real-world situation by meta-analysis of the available population-based cohort data. Pubmed and Embase were searched for original articles investigating use of incretin agents, and fracture risk up to December 2015. Adjusted results were extracted and pooled by use of generic inverse variance methods, assuming a random-effects model. Neither current dipeptidyl peptidase 4-inhibitor use nor current glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist use was associated with a decreased risk of fracture: pooled relative risk (pooled RR [95% confidence interval]: 1.02 [0.91-1.13] and 1.03 [0.87-1.22]), respectively. This meta-analysis demonstrated that current use of incretin agents, was not associated with decreased fracture risk. Our findings show the value of representative real-world populations, and the risks associated with suggesting benefits for medications on the basis of safety reporting in randomized controlled trials.

Use of Glucagon-Like-Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists and Risk of Fracture as Compared to Use of Other Anti-hyperglycemic Drugs.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are a new class of drugs that might have a potential beneficial effect on bone metabolism. Data on the effect of GLP-1 RAs and fracture risk are lacking. The aim of the present study was to investigate the association between the use of GLP-1 and the risk of fracture. A case-control study was performed using Danish National Health Service data. Cases were those who sustained a fracture and controls were those without a fracture during the study period (2007-2011), all aged 18 years and above. Conditional logistic regression estimated the odds ratios (OR) of fracture with current use of DPP4-I use. Analyses were adjusted for comorbidities and recent drug use. Among cases (n = 229,114), there were 6993 current non-insulin anti-diabetic drug (NIAD) users (excluding incretin users) and 255 GLP-1 RA users. Similarly, among controls (n = 229,114), 7209 were NIAD users (excluding incretin users) and 220 were GLP-1 RA users. Current GLP-1 RA use was not associated with a decreased risk of fracture [adjusted (adj.) OR 1.16; 95% CI 0.83-1.63]. Osteoporotic fracture risk was also not associated with current GLP-1 RA use (adj. OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.44-1.39). In our nation-wide case-control study, we identified that the use of GLP-1 RA was not associated with fracture risk as compared to the use of other anti-hyperglycemic drugs. Additionally, current GLP-1 RA use, stratified by cumulative or average daily dose, is not associated with fracture risk. Further research should focus on long-term use of GLP-1 RA and fracture risk.

Bone fracture risk is not associated with the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: a population-based cohort analysis.

Glucagon-like Peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1-ra) are a relatively new class of anti-hyperglycemic drugs which may positively affect bone metabolism and thereby decrease (osteoporotic) bone fracture risk. Data on the effect of GLP1-ra on fracture risk are scarce and limited to clinical trial data only. The aim of this study was to investigate, in a population-based cohort, the association between the use of GLP1-ra and bone fracture risk. We conducted a population-based cohort study, with the use of data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) database (2007-2012). The study population (N = 216,816) consisted of all individuals with type 2 diabetes patients with at least one prescription for a non-insulin anti-diabetic drug and were over 18 years of age. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the hazard ratio of fracture in GLP1-ra users versus never-GLP1-ra users. Time-dependent adjustments were made for age, sex, lifestyle, comorbidity and the use of other drugs. There was no decreased risk of fracture with current use of GLP1-ra compared to never-GLP1-ra use (adjusted HR 0.99, 95 % CI 0.82-1.19). Osteoporotic fracture risk was also not decreased by current GLP1-ra use (adjusted HR 0.97; 95 % CI 0.72-1.32). In addition, stratification according to cumulative dose did not show a decreased bone fracture risk with increasing cumulative GLP1-ra dose. We showed in a population-based cohort study that GLP1-ra use is not associated with a decreased bone fracture risk compared to users of other anti-hyperglycemic drugs. Future research is needed to elucidate the potential working mechanisms of GLP1-ra on bone.

Use of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors and fracture risk compared to use of other anti-hyperglycemic drugs.

INTRODUCTION: Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4-Is) are a new class of anti-hyperglycemic drugs which might have a potential beneficial effect on bone metabolism. Data on the effect of DPP4-I use and fracture risk is limited and conflicting. The aim of the present study was to investigate the association between use of DPP4-Is and fracture risk. METHODS: A case-control study was conducted using data from the Danish National Health Service. Cases were those who sustained a fracture, and controls were those without a fracture during the study period (2007-2011), all aged 18 years and older. Conditional logistic regression estimated the odds ratios of fracture with current use of DPP4-I use. Analyses were adjusted for comorbidities and recent drug use. RESULTS: Among the cases there were 6993 current non-insulin anti-diabetic drug (NIAD) users (excluding incretin users) and 643 DPP4-I users. There were 7209 NIAD users (excluding incretin users) among the controls and 707 DPP4-I users. Current DPP4-I use was not associated with risk of any fracture (adjusted [adj.] OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.79-1.18) or major osteoporotic fracture (adj. OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.72-1.28). Stratification of current DPP4-I use to cumulative and average daily dose did not show an association. CONCLUSIONS: In a population-based case-control study we identified that short-term use of DPP4-I was not associated with fracture risk as compared to users of other anti-hyperglycemic drugs. Additionally, results suggest that increasing daily dose and cumulative DPP4-I exposure were not associated with fracture risk. However, more research is needed to assess the effect of long-term DPP4-I use on the risk of fracture.

Dried blood spot analysis for the quantification of vancomycin and creatinine using liquid chromatography - tandem mass spectrometry: Method development and validation.

BACKGROUND: Vancomycin is a widely used antibiotic for the treatment of gram-positive bacterial infections, especially for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections. Due to a small therapeutic range and large inter-patient variability, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of vancomycin is required to minimize toxicity and maximize treatment efficacy. Venous blood sampling is mostly applied for TDM of vancomycin, although this widely used sampling method is more invasive compared to less painful alternatives, such as the dried blood spot (DBS) method, which can be performed at home. METHOD: We developed an UPLC-MS/MS method for the quantification of vancomycin and creatinine in DBS. A fast sample preparation and short analysis run time of 5.2 min were applied, which makes this method highly suitable for clinical settings. Validation was performed according to international (FDA and EMA) guidelines. RESULTS: The validated concentration range was found linear for creatinine from 41.8 µmol/L to 722 µmol/L and for vancomycin from 3.8 mg/L to 76.6 mg/L (r2 > 0.990) and the inaccuracies, imprecisions, hematocrit effects, and recoveries were < 15 % for both compounds. No significant carryover effect was observed. CONCLUSION: Hence, we successfully validated a quantification method for the simultaneous determination of creatinine and vancomycin in DBS.

Smaller nadroparin dose reductions required for patients with renal impairment: A multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines advise 50 % and 25 % dose reduction of the therapeutic nadroparin dose (86 IU/kg) in patients with eGFR 15-29 and 30-60 ml/min respectively. For monitoring, peak anti-Xa levels are suggested. Data lack whether this results in therapeutic anti-Xa levels or in anti-Xa levels that are comparable to those of patients without renal impairment. AIMS: To determine dose ranges in patients with renal impairment that result in therapeutic anti-Xa levels and to determine the percentage of the 86 IU/kg dose that results in anti-Xa levels normally occurring in patients without renal impairment. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in five hospitals. Patients ≥18 years of age, with an eGFR ≥ 15 ml/min were included. The first correctly sampled peak (i.e. 3-5 h after ≥ third administration, regardless of dose per patient) was included. Simulated prediction models were developed using multiple linear regression. RESULTS: 770 patients were included. eGFR and hospital affected the association between dose and anti-Xa level. The doses for peak anti-Xa levels of 0.75 IU/ml differed substantially between hospitals and ranged from 55 to 91, 65-359 and 68-168 IU/kg in eGFR 15-29, 30-60 and > 60 ml/min/1.73m2, respectively. In eGFR 15-29 and 30-60 ml/min/1.73m2, doses of 75 % and 91 % of 86 IU/kg respectively, were needed for anti-Xa levels normally occurring in patients with eGFR > 60 ml/min. CONCLUSION: We advise against anti-Xa based dose-adjustments as long as anti-Xa assays between laboratories are not harmonized and an anti-Xa target range is not validated. A better approach might be to target levels similar to eGFR > 60 ml/min/1.73m2, which are achieved by smaller dose reductions.

Best practices, implementation and challenges of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy: results of a worldwide survey among healthcare providers.

Background: Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy (OPAT) is considered a patient-friendly and cost-effective practice. Patients in the OPAT service can be at risk for developing adverse events. Due to extensive variations in practice, guidelines have been developed to minimize the risks. Objectives: In this first worldwide survey on OPAT, we explored the current OPAT services around the world, adherence to recommendations and identified best practices and challenges from different perspectives. Methods: An e-survey was conducted and consisted of questions about demographics, characteristics of the OPAT service, role of pharmacy, future developments, and respondents' views on improvements as well as best practices. Results: A total of 126 responses from 28 countries were included. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of the respondents stated that their facility provides antimicrobial therapy in the outpatient setting, whereas 22% did not. Forty-two percent (42%) of the hospitals with OPAT services had a specialized OPAT service, while 14% lacked specialized services and 22% had a partially specialized team in place. In facilities with a specialized OPAT service, the number of mandatory infectious disease (ID) consultations before discharge and clinical monitoring by an ID specialist or OPAT team member, the frequency of monitoring, and the availability of an OPAT registry were higher. A multidisciplinary team's presence was commonly noted as best practices. On the other hand, respondents experienced difficulties with reimbursement and lack of standardization in the screening, follow-up and monitoring of patients. Conclusion: This survey provides a better understanding of the implementation and practices of OPAT services globally and describes best practices and the challenges from different professionals.

Background: Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is defined as 'the administration of parenteral antimicrobial therapy in at least 2 doses on different days without intervening hospitalization'National and continental studies show a great proportion of unregulated OPAT services with the implementation of a specialized OPAT team varying extensively.Besides the perspectives of infectious disease specialists, the perspectives of other healthcare workers involved with OPAT is under investigated. Method: An electronic e-survey was conducted with questions about demographics, characteristics of OPAT service, the role of the pharmacy in OPAT, future developments and best-practices and challenges. Results: OPAT services have a high global adoption rate of 78%, however only 42% of healthcare facilities offer formal OPAT servicesFacilities with formal OPAT services have higher requirements for infectious disease consultation before discharge, clinical monitoring by an OPAT team member, monitoring frequency, and availability of an OPAT registryBest practices include a multidisciplinary OPAT team and the use of elastomer pumpsCommon challenges in OPAT involve reimbursement issues and lack of standardization in patient screening, follow-up, and monitoring. Conclusion: This is the first worldwide study exploring the implementation of OPAT services and perspectives of different professionals.

Best practices, implementation and challenges of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy: results of a worldwide survey among healthcare providers.

Gentamicin serum concentrations in patients with gentamicin-PMMA beads for infected hip joints: a prospective observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Gentamicin-polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) beads release gentamicin gradually, and high concentrations develop only locally. It is unclear how frequent and in which patients gentamicin serum concentrations are measurable and possibly lead to toxicity. The aim of this study was to investigate the measurability of gentamicin serum concentrations after the implantation of gentamicin-PMMA beads and to assess the nephrotoxicity of these beads. METHODS: In this observational cohort study, gentamicin and creatinine concentrations were measured in 34 serum samples of 23 patients with implanted gentamicin-PMMA beads for infected hip joints with our regular immunoassay (lower limit of quantitation 0.4 mg/L). Samples were also analyzed with an adjusted immunoassay with a lower limit of quantitation of 0.05 mg/L. RESULTS: Gentamicin serum concentrations were >0.4 mg/L in 9 of 34 (26%) of all the samples measured (both after the first implantation and change of beads) and in 5 of 23 patients (22%) after the first implantation of gentamicin-PMMA beads. Gentamicin serum concentrations were >0.05 mg/L in 31 samples (91%). Nephrotoxicity (defined as increase in serum creatinine >44 µmole/L and/or a relative increase >25%) occurred more frequently in patients with measurable gentamicin serum concentrations than in those without measurable gentamicin serum levels (57% versus 43%, P = 0.02). Both nephrotoxicity and gentamicin serum concentration could not be associated with the number of implanted gentamicin-PMMA beads. CONCLUSIONS: Gentamicin serum concentrations >0.4 mg/L can be measured after the implantation of gentamicin-PMMA beads in certain patients with infected hip joints. Furthermore, elevated (>0.4 mg/L) gentamicin serum concentrations are associated with nephrotoxicity in patients with gentamicin-PMMA beads for infected hip joints.

Risk factors for clinically relevant deviations in patients' medication lists reported by patients in personal health records: a prospective cohort study in a hospital setting.

Background Personal health records have the potential to identify medication discrepancies. Although they facilitate patient empowerment and broad implementation of medication reconciliation, more medication discrepancies are identified through medication reconciliation performed by healthcare professionals. Aim We aimed to identify the factors associated with the occurrence of a clinically relevant deviation in a patient's medication list based on a personal health record (used by patients) compared to medication reconciliation performed by a healthcare professional. Method Three- to 14 days prior to a planned admission to the Cardiology-, Internal Medicine- or Neurology Departments, at Amphia Hospital, Breda, the Netherlands, patients were invited to update their medication file in their personal health records. At admission, medication reconciliation was performed by a pharmacy technician. Deviations were determined as differences between these medication lists. Associations between patient-, setting-, and medication-related factors, and the occurrence of a clinically relevant deviation (National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention class [Formula: see text] E) were analysed. Results Of the 488 patients approached, 155 patients were included. Twenty-four clinically relevant deviations were observed. Younger patients (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.94; 95%CI:0.91-0.98), patients who used individual multi-dose packaging (aOR 14.87; 95%CI:2.02-110), and patients who used [Formula: see text] 8 different medications, were at highest risk for the occurrence of a clinically relevant deviation (sensitivity 0.71; specificity 0.62; area under the curve 0.64 95%CI:0.52-0.76). Conclusion Medication reconciliation is the preferred method to identify medication discrepancies for patients with individual multi-dose packaging, and patients who used eight or more different medications.

Gaming for Adherence to Medication using Ehealth in Rheumatoid arthritis (GAMER) study: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect on adherence to disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in participants with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) of a serious game that targeted implicit attitudes toward medication. METHODS: A multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) was performed with adults with RA that used DMARDs and possessed a smartphone/tablet. Control and intervention groups received care as usual. The intervention group played the serious game at will during 3 months. Game play data and online questionnaires Compliance Questionnaire on Rheumatology (CQR), Beliefs about Medicine Questionnaire (BMQ), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index (RADAI) were collected. Primary outcome was DMARD implementation adherence operationalised as the difference in proportion of non-adherent participants (<80% taking adherence) between intervention and control group after 3 months using a Chi-squared test. Two sample t-tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were performed to test for differences on secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 110 intervention participants that started the study, 87 participants (79%) installed the game and had a median playtime of 9.7 hours at 3 months. Overall, 186 participants completed the study. Adherence in intervention group (63%) and control group (54%) did not differ significantly (p=0.13) at 3 months. Neither were there differences oberved in CQR continuous score, beliefs about medication (BMQ) or clinical outcomes (HAQ and RADAI). CONCLUSION: A serious game aimed at reinterpreting attitudes toward medication failed to show an effect on adherence to DMARDs or clinical outcomes in patients with RA. The game was played frequently indicating that it can be an effective channel for reaching patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL7217.

The Effect of Self-Administration of Medication During Hospitalization on Patient's Self-Efficacy and Medication Adherence After Discharge.

Purpose: The effect of self-administration of medication (SAM), in which capable hospitalized patients administer medication themselves on medication self-efficacy is inconclusive. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of SAM on medication self-efficacy, adherence and patient satisfaction. Patients and Methods: A prospective pre-post intervention study on the orthopedic ward of the Sint Maartenskliniek (Nijmegen) was conducted from January 2020 to July 2021. All adults admitted to this ward were eligible for participation. The primary outcome was the level of medication self-efficacy measured by the Self-Efficacy for Appropriate Medication Use Scale (SEAMS) one week after discharge. Secondary outcomes were SEAMS-score three months after hospitalization, medication adherence measured by the Medication Adherence Rating Scale (MARS) one week and three months after hospitalization and patient satisfaction expressed on a five-point Likert scale in patients who experienced SAM. The differences in median SEAMS-scores and non-adherence pre- versus post-implementation of SAM were statistically analyzed. Patients' agreement regarding satisfaction with SAM was calculated as proportion per Likert scale answer. Results: Of the 197 patients participating in the study, 96 were included pre- and 101 post-implementation of SAM. Median SEAMS-scores one week after discharge were 35 [IQR 31-38] and 34 [IQR 30-36] pre- and post-intervention respectively (p = 0.08). There was no difference in the proportion of non-adherent patients at one week and three months after discharge pre- and post-intervention, 52.4%, 53.2%, 57.9% and 64.4% respectively. Of the patients that experienced SAM 32% agreed and 49% strongly agreed that they would like to self-manage medication again during a future hospitalization. Conclusion: In this orthopedic population with high medication self-efficacy scores at discharge, SAM did not affect patients' medication self-efficacy nor medication adherence after hospitalization. Most patients preferred SAM. Additional studies should focus on the effect of SAM in other patient populations.