Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Am J Health Syst Pharm ; 80(11): 678-686, 2023 05 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36857752

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to validate the Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index (PFI) for assessment of burnout and professional fulfillment in a study population of pharmacy residents and residency preceptors. SUMMARY: The historical gold standard for assessing professional burnout is the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI); there is no established standard for professional fulfillment. The PFI is a 16-question assessment that has previously been validated in medical residents and practicing physicians. In this study, surveys including both PFI and MBI items were sent to active pharmacy residents and residency preceptors. To determine concurrent validity, domains of the PFI were compared to the closest related MBI domain as well as composite burnout rates measured in each portion of the survey. A total of 142 preceptors and 68 residents completed both the PFI and a version of the MBI previously validated in physicians. In assessing indicators of pharmacist burnout and fulfillment, data captured by domains of the PFI closely correlated with data captured by corresponding domains of the MBI (Pearson correlations of 0.683-0.822), with high internal consistency (Cronbach α of 0.866-0.903). CONCLUSION: The PFI is a valid method of assessing burnout in both pharmacy residents and residency preceptors. Additionally, the PFI contributes a reliable system of assessing professional fulfillment while also being highly accessible for both research and residency program monitoring applications.


Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional , Pharmacy , Physicians , Humans , Surveys and Questionnaires , Burnout, Psychological , Burnout, Professional/diagnosis , Burnout, Professional/epidemiology
2.
Crit Care Explor ; 4(2): e0633, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35187497

ABSTRACT

The response of ICU patients to continuously infused ketamine when it is used for analgesia and/or sedation remains poorly established. OBJECTIVES: To describe continuous infusion (CI) ketamine use in critically ill patients, including indications, dose and duration, adverse effects, patient outcomes, time in goal pain/sedation score range, exposure to analgesics/sedatives, and delirium. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, retrospective, observational study from twenty-five diverse institutions in the United States. Patients receiving CI ketamine between January 2014 and December 2017. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Chart review evaluating institutional and patient demographics, ketamine indication, dose, administration, and adverse effects. Pain/sedation scores, cumulative doses of sedatives and analgesics, and delirium screenings in the 24 hours prior to ketamine were compared with those at 0-24 hours and 25-48 hours after. RESULTS: A total of 390 patients were included (median age, 54.5 yr; interquartile range, 39-65 yr; 61% males). Primary ICU types were medical (35.3%), surgical (23.3%), and trauma (17.7%). Most common indications were analgesia/sedation (n = 357, 91.5%). Starting doses were 0.2 mg/kg/hr (0.1-0.5 mg/kg/hr) and continued for 1.6 days (0.6-2.9 d). Hemodynamics in the first 4 hours after ketamine were variable (hypertension 24.0%, hypotension 23.5%, tachycardia 19.5%, bradycardia 2.3%); other adverse effects were minimal. Compared with 24 hours prior, there was a significant increase in proportion of time spent within goal pain score after ketamine initiation (24 hr prior: 68.9% [66.7-72.6%], 0-24 hr: 78.6% [74.3-82.5%], 25-48 hr: 80.3% [74.6-84.3%]; p < 0.001) and time spent within goal sedation score (24 hr prior: 57.1% [52.5-60.0%], 0-24 hr: 64.1% [60.7-67.2%], 25-48 hr: 68.9% [65.5-79.5%]; p < 0.001). There was also a significant reduction in IV morphine (mg) equivalents (24 hr prior: 120 [25-400], 0-24 hr: 118 [10-363], 25-48 hr: 80 [5-328]; p < 0.005), midazolam (mg) equivalents (24 hr prior: 11 [4-67], 0-24 hr: 6 [0-68], 25-48 hr: 3 [0-57]; p < 0.001), propofol (mg) (24 hr prior: 942 [223-4,018], 0-24 hr: 160 [0-2,776], 25-48 hr: 0 [0-1,859]; p < 0.001), and dexmedetomidine (µg) (24 hr prior: 1,025 [276-1,925], 0-24 hr: 285 [0-1,283], 25-48 hr: 0 [0-826]; p < 0.001). There was no difference in proportion of time spent positive for delirium (24 hr prior: 43.0% [17.0-47.0%], 0-24 hr: 39.5% [27.0-43.8%], 25-48 hr: 0% [0-43.7%]; p = 0.233). Limitations to these data include lack of a comparator group, potential for confounders and selection bias, and varying pain and sedation practices that may have changed since completion of the study. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There is variability in the use of CI ketamine. Hemodynamic instability was the most common adverse effect. In the 48 hours after ketamine initiation compared with the 24 hours prior, proportion of time spent in goal pain/sedation score range increased and exposure to other analgesics/sedatives decreased.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...