RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To assess patients' preferences with respect to different methods of receiving test results while they were hospitalized and to determine whether the different modes of communication of the test results were associated with better recall. METHODS: Five discrete test results were shared with adult inpatients on general medicine service (blood pressure, white blood cell count, hematocrit, creatinine, and chest X-ray). The information was delivered by a physician in one of three ways: 1) verbally, 2) explained with a print out of the results, or 3) described while showing results on a computer monitor (electronic). The same physician returned within 3 hours to assess recall and satisfaction with the way patients received their results. RESULTS: All the patients (100%) receiving their results in written format were satisfied with the mode of communication as compared to electronic format (86%) or verbally (79%) (P=0.02). Fifty percent of patients in the computer format group could recall four or more test results at the follow-up, as compared to 43% in printed group and 24% who were informed of their results verbally (P=0.35). CONCLUSION: Patients most appreciated receiving test results in written form while in the hospital, and this delivery method was as good as any other method with respect to recall.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: In the hospital setting, several studies have reported proton pump inhibitor (PPI) overuse, a majority of which is continued after discharge. In addition to being expensive, PPIs are associated with an increased risk of infections, osteoporosis and serious drug interactions. We examined the trends and predictors of PPI guidelines non-compliance among academic and non-academic hospitalists in USA. METHODS AND PATIENTS: Oral PPI prescriptions initiated by 2 academic and 2 non-academic hospitalist groups were reviewed. Prescription indications were recorded when explicitly stated in the chart. Otherwise, qualified physicians reviewed the chart to make such determination. Indications were then compared to the published guidelines. Several variables were tested to determine independent predictors of initiation and post discharge continuation of guideline non-compliant prescriptions. RESULTS: Of the 400 PPI prescriptions 39% were guideline compliant. Academic hospitalists were significantly more compliant with PPI prescription guidelines (50 vs 29%). Gastrointestinal ulcer bleeding prophylaxis (GIP) for low risk patients was the most common indication for non-compliant prescriptions, while that of guideline compliant prescriptions was dyspepsia treatment. Independent predictors of the initiation of guideline non-compliant prescriptions were non-academic hospitalist group, PPI indication not documented in the chart, and GIP as part of the admission orderset. The latter was an independent predictor of those prescriptions continuation post-discharge (protective) in addition to non-academic hospitalists group. CONCLUSION: Hospitalists overprescribe PPI to a level comparable to that of the non-hospitalist providers in the literature. Understanding the determinants of increased compliance among academic groups is instrumental to design interventions aimed at increasing PPI prescription compliance.