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.

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.

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.

A comparison between medication reconciliation by a pharmacy technician and the use of an online personal health record by patients for identifying medication discrepancies in patients' drug lists prior to elective admissions.

AIM: Medication discrepancies (MDs), defined as unexplained differences among medication regimens, cause important public health problems with clinical and economic consequences. Medication reconciliation (MR) reduces the risk of MDs, but is time consuming and its success relies on the quality of different information sources. Online personalized health records (PHRs) may overcome these drawbacks. Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine the level of agreement of identified MDs between traditional MR and an online PHR and the correctness of the identified MDs with a PHR. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted at the cardiology, neurology, internal medicine and pulmonary department of the Amphia Hospital, the Netherlands. Two weeks prior to a planned admission all patients received an invitation from a PHR to update their medication file derived from the Nationwide Medication Record System (NMRS). At admission MR was performed with all by a pharmacy technician, who created the best possible medication history (BPMH) based on the NMRS data and an interview. MDs were determined as discrepancies between the available information from the NMRS and the input and alterations patients or pharmacy technician made. The number, correctness of patients' alterations, type and severity of identified MDs were analysed. RESULTS: Of 488 patients approached, 155 (31.8 %) patients who both used the PHR and had received MR were included. The mean number of MDs identified with MR and PHR was 6.2 (SD 4.3) and 4.7 (SD 3.7), respectively. 82.1 % of the drug information noted by the patient in the PHR was correct compared to the BPMH and 98.6 % had no clinically relevant differences between the lists. CONCLUSION: Patients who used an online PHR can relatively accurately record a list of their medication. Further research is required to explore the level of agreement and the correctness of a PHR in other (larger) hospital(departments).

Pharmacogenetic analysis of irreversible severe cisplatin-induced nephropathy: a case report of a 27-year-old woman.

In this report we describe a young patient diagnosed with bulky FIGO stage IIIb squamous cell cervix carcinoma with severe and irreversible nephropathy after three weekly low-doses of cisplatin. Besides several known risk factors such as hypomagnesemia and hypoalbuminemia, the patient also proved to be homozygously polymorphic for two polymorphisms within the COMT gene (c.615 + 310C>T and c.616-367C>T). As COMT polymorphism has been associated with cisplatin-induced ototoxicity, its effect on nephrotoxicity of cisplatin should be the subject of further investigation.

Short article: The effect of implementation of a treatment algorithm for infliximab on remission rates and drug costs in inflammatory bowel disease patients.

INTRODUCTION: The effective, but expensive, drug infliximab is used in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Monitoring infliximab trough levels and anti-infliximab antibody (ATI) formation can lead to a more cost-effective use of infliximab therapy. The aim of our study was to investigate the effect of implementation of a treatment algorithm for infliximab in a single-centre IBD cohort, focussing on remission rates and drug costs. METHODS: IBD patients aged 18 years or older treated with infliximab were asked to participate in this study. Remission rates were assessed using faecal calprotectin levels and a validated questionnaire. Infliximab trough levels and ATIs were determined at baseline and at the third infliximab infusion. According to the advice given by the treatment algorithm, infliximab dosage adjustments were performed at the second infliximab infusion. RESULTS: Between January and December 2015 a total of 62 IBD patients in our centre were treated with infliximab, of whom 33 (53%) patients agreed to participate in this study. The number of patients in remission was 28 (85%) at baseline and there were 13 dose adaptations suggested by the treatment algorithm for the successive second infusion. Four patients possessed undetectable infliximab levels and positive ATI status at baseline. After the second infusion, there were 29 (88%) patients in remission at the third infusion. All of this resulted in an annual drug cost reduction of &OV0556;47 026 (7.4%). CONCLUSION: Our developed treatment algorithm of infliximab led to optimization of infliximab therapy in IBD patients by increasing remission rates and reducing drug costs.

Dose accuracy of new versus used Novopen 4 insulin pens.

OBJECTIVE: To our knowledge, no studies have been performed testing dose accuracy in both new and used patient insulin injection pens. We hypothesized that the dose accuracy of used (>1 year) insulin pens to be less accurate than that of new insulin pens and investigated whether possible differences influence the treatment. This study compared the dosing accuracy of 11 new and 11 used (>1 year) Novopen(®) 4 pens (Novo Nordisk, Bagsvaerd, Denmark). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dosing accuracy differences between new and used pens were studied by weighing the volume of the dosage of 8 international units of insulin (IU) and 32 IU of 11 pens. Each measurement was repeated 15 times. Whether the pens complied with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) limits of 10% for 8 IU and 5% for 32 IU was tested. The statistical analyses were performed using the Mann-Whitney rank sum test (within Sigmaplot version 12.0; Systat Software, Chicago, IL), and a P value of <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: For the 8 IU dose, the mean delivered dose was 8.04 IU in new pens and 7.91 IU in used insulin pens. For the 32 IU dose, the mean delivered dose was 31.90 in new pens and 31.68 IU in used insulin pens. The difference in the median values between the two groups was statistically significant (P<0.001). Three individual doses in the 32 IU dose exceeded the ISO range in the lower range. The difference in mean variation coefficient between the two groups was also statistically significant (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant difference between the accuracy of new versus used insulin pens. More studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to confirm our findings and further elucidate the relationship between age of insulin pens and dose accuracy.

Pharmacokinetics and protein binding of cefazolin in morbidly obese patients.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the pharmacokinetics and protein binding of cefazolin in morbidly obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery, to study the influence of bodyweight measures and age on pharmacokinetic parameters and to evaluate unbound cefazolin concentrations over time in this population. METHODS: Twenty morbidly obese patients (bodyweight 112-260 kg, body mass index 38-79 kg m(-2)) were studied following the administration of cefazolin 2 g at induction of anaesthesia. Blood samples were collected up to 4 h post-dosing to determine total and unbound plasma cefazolin concentrations. Non-compartmental pharmacokinetic data analysis was performed. RESULTS: Cefazolin clearance was 4.2 ± 1.0 L h(-1) (mean ± standard deviation) and showed a negative correlation with age (p = 0.003) but not with bodyweight measures (p > 0.05). Volume of distribution was 13.0 ± 3.1 L and correlated positively with bodyweight measures (p ≤ 0.001). Saturable protein binding was observed with a median protein binding of 79% (interquartile range 74-82), which proved similar to reported protein binding in non-obese patients. In all patients, unbound cefazolin concentrations remained above 1 mg L(-1) (minimal inhibitory concentration for 90% (MIC(90)) of methicillin-sensitive isolates of Staphylococcus aureus in Europe) until 4 h post-dosing. CONCLUSIONS: Younger age--and not bodyweight--was significantly associated with higher cefazolin clearance. However, as in all patients with bodyweights up to 260 kg, unbound plasma cefazolin concentrations remained above 1 mg L(-1) until 4 h after the intravenous administration of a 2-g dose. As such, re-dosing within 4 h or dosing with another antibiotic class should only be considered in the case of a higher MIC(90) of the local isolates.