Current Practices and Opportunities for Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy in Hospitals: A National Cross-Sectional Survey.

This nationwide study assessed how outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is organised by Dutch acute care hospitals, the barriers experienced, and how an OPAT program affects the way hospitals organised OPAT care. We systematically developed and administered a survey to all 71 Dutch acute care hospitals between November 2021 and February 2022. Analyses were primarily descriptive and included a comparison between hospitals with and without an OPAT program. Sixty of the 71 hospitals (84.5%) responded. Fifty-five (91.7%) performed OPAT, with a median number of 20.8 (interquartile range [IQR] 10.3-29.7) patients per 100 hospital beds per year. Of these 55 hospitals, 31 (56.4%) had selection criteria for OPAT and 34 (61.8%) had a protocol for laboratory follow-up. Sixteen hospitals (29.1%) offered self-administered OPAT (S-OPAT), with a median percentage of 5.0% of patients (IQR: 2.3%-10.0%) actually performing self-administration. Twenty-five hospitals (45.5%) had an OPAT-related outcome registration. The presence of an OPAT program (22 hospitals, 40.0%) was significantly associated with aspects of well-organised OPAT care. The most commonly experienced barriers to OPAT implementation were a lack of financial, administrative, and IT support and insufficient time of healthcare staff. Concluding, hospital-initiated OPAT is widely available in the Netherlands, but various aspects of well-organised OPAT care can be improved. Implementation of a team-based OPAT program can contribute to such improvements. The observed variation provides leads for further scientific research, guidelines, and practical implementation programs.

Unacceptable pain in oncology: The patients' perspective on reasons for absence of pain interventions.

OBJECTIVE: Around 40% of oncology patients receive inadequate pain treatment. A previous study reported pain interventions for only 70% of patients who reported unacceptable pain at the self-service registration desk. The aim of this study is to gain insight in reasons for the absence of pain intervention among oncology patients who reported unacceptable pain. METHODS: In this mixed methods study, 20 patients visiting the oncology outpatient clinic were selected via patient record assessment and interviewed about their perceived reasons for absence of pain intervention. RESULTS: The reasons mentioned by the patients for absence of pain intervention included reluctance of the patient to discuss pain, no treatment preferred by the patient, focus of the physician on treatment of the disease, pain treatment difficult or impossible, and the perception that pain is an inevitable consequence of the cancer treatment. Almost 50% of the patients considered the physician responsible for the absence of pain intervention. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, a variety of reasons for absence of pain intervention are reported by patients, including patient-related and health professional-related reasons. Improvements can be made by promoting regular discussion of pain during hospital visits and empowerment of patients.