Impact of Computer-Based and Pharmacist-Assisted Medication Review Initiated in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: Whether early medication reconciliation and integration can reduce polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) in the emergency department (ED) remains unclear. Polypharmacy and PIM have been recognized as significant causes of adverse drug events in older adults. Therefore, this pilot study was conducted to delineate this issue. DESIGN: An interventional study. SETTING: A medical center in Taiwan. PARTICIPANTS: Older ED patients (aged ≥65 years) awaiting hospitalization between December 1, 2017, and October 31, 2018 were recruited in this study. A multidisciplinary team and a computer-based and pharmacist-assisted medication reconciliation and integration system were implemented. MEASUREMENTS: The reduced proportions of major polypharmacy (≥10 medications) and PIM at hospital discharge were compared with those on admission to the ED between pre- and post-intervention periods. RESULTS: A total of 911 patients (pre-intervention = 243 vs post-intervention = 668) were recruited. The proportions of major polypharmacy and PIM were lower in the post-intervention than in the pre-intervention period (-79.4% vs -65.3%; P < .001, and - 67.5% vs -49.1%; P < .001, respectively). The number of medications was reduced from 12.5 ± 2.7 to 6.9 ± 3.0 in the post-intervention period in patients with major polypharmacy (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Early initiation of computer-based and pharmacist-assisted intervention in the ED for reducing major polypharmacy and PIM is a promising method for improving geriatric care and reducing medical expenditures. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2298-2304, 2019.

Higher risk for cervical herniated intervertebral disc in physicians: A retrospective nationwide population-based cohort study with claims analysis.

There is no study about cervical herniated intervertebral disc (cervical HIVD) in physicians in the literature; therefore, we conceived a retrospective nationwide, population-based cohort study to elucidate the topic. We identified 26,038 physicians, 33,057 non-physician healthcare providers (HCPs), and identical numbers of non-HCP references (i.e., general population). All cohorts matched a 1:1 ratio with age and gender, and each were chosen from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD). We compared cervical HIVD risk among physicians, nonphysician HCPs, and non-HCP references and performed a follow-up between 2007 and 2011. We also made comparisons among physician specialists. Both physicians and nonphysician HCPs had higher cervical HIVD risk than non-HCP references (odds ratio [OR]: 1.356; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.162-1.582; OR: 1.383; 95% CI: 1.191-1.605, respectively). There was no significant difference of cervical HIVD risk between physicians and nonphysician HCPs. In the comparison among physician specialists, orthopedists had a higher cervical HIVD risk than other specialists, but the difference was not statistically significant (adjusted OR: 1.547; 95% CI: 0.782-3.061). Physicians are at higher cervical HIVD risk than the general population. Because unknown confounders could exist, further prospective studies are needed to identify possible causation.

Assessment of a new method to distinguish esophageal from tracheal intubation by measuring the endotracheal cuff pressure in a porcine model.

OBJECTIVES: With the knowledge of differences in anatomic structures between the trachea and the esophagus, the authors conducted an animal study to evaluate the usefulness of endotracheal cuff pressure in distinguishing endotracheal and esophageal intubations. METHODS: Six swine were anesthetized and endotracheally intubated with 7.5-mm cuffed endotracheal tubes. The intubations were confirmed by fiber-optic bronchoscopy. Each pilot balloon was connected to a 10-mL syringe and a manometer via a three-way stopcock. The cuff pressures were measured for each 1-mL incremental filling of air (1-10 mL). After removal of the endotracheal tubes, each swine was then intubated with the same endotracheal tubes into its esophagus. The cuff pressures of the esophageal intubation were measured with the same procedure. The cuff pressures and the pressure-volume relationships in both intubations were compared. RESULTS: The cuff pressure increased significantly in the esophageal intubation in comparison with the endotracheal intubation in all the comparisons from 1 mL to 10 mL (p = 0.028 for all Wilcoxon signed-rank tests). The slope of the pressure-volume curve of the cuff pressure was also significantly higher in the esophageal intubation during the inflation of the cuff on average (0.047 vs. 0.032 cm H2O/mL; p = 0.001), particularly in the first 5 mL of air inflation. CONCLUSIONS: The cuff pressure in the esophageal intubation was significantly higher than that in the endotracheal intubation under the same inflated volume from 1 to 10 mL. This may provide the basis for an adjunctive, simple, rapid, and reliable method to verify endotracheal intubation.