A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the use of a web-based application to manage medications during in vitro fertilization.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of a web-based application that assists in medication management during in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. DESIGN: Multicenter randomized controlled trial. SETTING: University hospitals. PATIENT(S): Women undergoing IVF. INTERVENTION(S): Subjects were recruited to assess quality of life during IVF and were randomly assigned to use either the OnTrack application to assist with medication management or conventional medication management. Surveys were administered at four time points. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Medication surplus, incidence of medication errors, amount of patient-initiated communication, and patient satisfaction. RESULT(S): A total of 153 women participated. The average number of portal messages and telephone calls was similar between groups. Twelve patients in the control group (12/69, 17.4%) and 8 patients in the case group (8/72, 11.1%) made medication errors. There were similar amounts of medication surplus in the two groups. The estimated cost of medication waste was $2,578 ± $2,056 in the control group and $2,554 ± $1,855 in the case group. Patient satisfaction was similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION(S): Use of a web-based application did not decrease medication errors, medication surplus, or patient-initiated messages. Many patients had a medication surplus, which can be an area of cost reduction during IVF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03383848.

Impact of Sustained Use of a Multifaceted Computerized Quality Improvement Intervention for Cardiovascular Disease Management in Australian Primary Health Care.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated a multifaceted, computerized quality improvement intervention for management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in Australian primary health care. After completion of a cluster randomized controlled trial, the intervention was made available to both trial arms. Our objective was to assess intervention outcomes in the post-trial period and any heterogeneity based on original intervention allocation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from 41 health services were analyzed. Outcomes were (1) proportion of eligible population with guideline-recommended CVD risk factor measurements; and (2) the proportion at high CVD risk with current prescriptions for guideline-recommended medications. Patient-level analyses were conducted using generalized estimating equations to account for clustering and time effects and tests for heterogeneity were conducted to assess impact of original treatment allocation. Median follow-up for 22 809 patients (mean age, 64.2 years; 42.5% men, 26.5% high CVD risk) was 17.9 months post-trial and 35 months since trial inception. At the end of the post-trial period there was no change in CVD risk factor screening overall when compared with the end of the trial period (64.7% versus 63.5%, P=0.17). For patients at high CVD risk, there were significant improvements in recommended prescriptions at end of the post-trial period when compared with the end of the trial period (65.2% versus 56.0%, P<0.001). There was no heterogeneity of treatment effects on the outcomes based on original randomization allocation. CONCLUSIONS: CVD risk screening improvements were not observed in the post-trial period. Conversely, improvements in prescribing continued, suggesting that changes in provider and patient actions may take time when initiating medications. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.anzctr.org.au. Unique identifier: 12611000478910.

The First US Clinical Experience With Computer-Assisted Propofol Sedation: A Retrospective Observational Comparative Study on Efficacy, Safety, Efficiency, and Endoscopist and Patient Satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) is now approved for moderate sedation of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I and II patients undergoing routine endoscopy. As the first US medical center to adopt CAPS for routine clinical use, we compared patient and endoscopist satisfaction with CAPS versus midazolam and fentanyl (MF) sedation. METHODS: Patients who underwent elective outpatient upper endoscopy and colonoscopy with CAPS were compared with concurrent patients sedated with MF. The primary end points were patient satisfaction (measured by the validated Patient Sedation Satisfaction Index [PSSI]), and endoscopist satisfaction (Clinician Sedation Satisfaction Index [CSSI]). Secondary end points included procedural success rates, polyp detection rates, adverse events, and procedure/recovery times. Multivariable regression was used for comparative analysis. RESULTS: CAPS was utilized to sedate 244 patients, of whom 55 underwent upper endoscopy, 173 colonoscopy, and 16 double procedures. During the same period, 75 upper endoscopies, 223 colonoscopies, and 30 doubles were performed with MF on similar patients. For upper endoscopy, the procedural success rate was 98.2% for CAPS versus 98.7% for MF (P = .96), whereas for colonoscopy, the success rate was 98.9% vs 98.8% (P = .59). Colonoscopic polyp detection rate was 54.5% for CAPS and 59.3% for MF (P = .67). Procedure times were similar between CAPS and MF. For CAPS, the mean recovery time was 26.4 vs 39.1 minutes for MF (P < .001). One CAPS patient required mask ventilation, 4 experienced asymptomatic hypotension or desaturation, and 5 experienced marked agitation resulting from undersedation. For MF, 5 patients had hypotension or desaturation, and 8 experienced undersedation. For colonoscopy, the CAPS group had higher PSSI scores for sedation adequacy, the recovery process and global satisfaction, and higher CSSI scores for ease of sedation administration, the recovery process and global satisfaction. For upper endoscopy and doubles, the CAPS CSSI score was higher for the recovery process only. All P values were adjusted for confounding by using regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In low-risk patients, CAPS appears to be effective and efficient. CAPS is associated with higher satisfaction than MF for colonoscopies and, to a lesser extent, upper endoscopies.

SEDASYS(®), airway, oxygenation, and ventilation: anticipating and managing the challenges.

In May 2013, the FDA (Federal Drug Administration) approved SEDASYS(®), a device that enables non-anesthesia physicians to provide mild-to-moderate sedation to patients undergoing colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy. SEDASYS(®) is the first among the devices being built to provide computer-assisted personalized sedation. Although the intention of this approval is to cut the anesthesia related expenses, it is likely to create new challenges to the users-both clinical and administrative-that might even increase the cost. Deep sedation is required frequently for a successful completion of the procedure, which poses unforeseen challenges. The present review aims to provide clear information to the users regarding pre-procedure assessment, possible sedation related complications and management options.

The causes of prescribing errors in English general practices: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Few detailed studies exist of the underlying causes of prescribing errors in the UK. AIM: To examine the causes of prescribing and monitoring errors in general practice and provide recommendations for how they may be overcome. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interview and focus group study with purposive sampling of English general practices. METHOD: General practice staff from 15 general practices across three PCTs in England participated in a combination of semi-structured interviews (n = 34) and six focus groups (n = 46). Thematic analysis informed by Reason's Accident Causation Model was used. RESULTS: Seven categories of high-level error-producing conditions were identified: the prescriber, the patient, the team, the working environment, the task, the computer system, and the primary-secondary care interface. These were broken down to reveal various error-producing conditions: the prescriber's therapeutic training, drug knowledge and experience, knowledge of the patient, perception of risk, and their physical and emotional health; the patient's characteristics and the complexity of the individual clinical case; the importance of feeling comfortable within the practice team was highlighted, as well as the safety implications of GPs signing prescriptions generated by nurses when they had not seen the patient for themselves; the working environment with its extensive workload, time pressures, and interruptions; and computer-related issues associated with mis-selecting drugs from electronic pick-lists and overriding alerts were all highlighted as possible causes of prescribing errors and were often interconnected. CONCLUSION: Complex underlying causes of prescribing and monitoring errors in general practices were highlighted, several of which are amenable to intervention.

Impacto de un cambio de programa informático en los errores de prescripción farmacológica en urgencias / Impact of a change of computer software on prescription drug errors in an emergency department

Introducción: Un cambio de programa informático es un factor de riesgo de errores de prescripción farmacológica. Nuestro objetivo fue evaluar la eficacia de medidas preventivas para evitar estos errores en nuestro centro. Material y métodos: En el año 2007 (período 1), ante un futuro cambio de programa informático, se realizó un estudio de los errores de tratamiento y se diseñó un plan de prevención. Se clasificaron los errores según el tipo (indicación, dosis, vía de administración), la gravedad y los factores asociados a errores (nivel de urgencia, edad del paciente, experiencia del facultativo, día de la semana y hora del día). Tras la implantación del nuevo programa (año 2009) (período 2) se reevaluaron los mismos parámetros y se compararon con el período previo. Se realizó una revisión retrospectiva de todos los informes donde constaba algún tratamiento administrado en urgencias la misma semana y mes de ambos períodos. Resultados: En el período 1 se realizaron 615 prescripciones con errores en 92 (15%) y en el período 2, 445 con 51 (11,5%) errores, sin diferencias significativas entre ambos. Se observó una disminución significativa de errores de indicación inapropiada (8,1% período 1 vs 3,6% período 2; p=0,04) sin diferencias en los de dosis, vía de administración y gravedad del error. Se redujeron de forma significativa los errores en los facultativos de mayor experiencia y aumentaron en los rotantes externos (que no recibieron formación en el funcionamiento del nuevo programa). Conclusiones: El conocimiento de la situación previa y la aplicación de medidas preventivas permitieron que no aumentaran los errores con un nuevo programa informático(AU)

Introduction: Changing the computer software is a known risk factor of increased prescription drug errors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of preventive measures to prevent these errors at our centre. Material and methods: In 2007 (period 1), knowing that a change of computer software was coming, a study to determine the prescription drug errors was performed and an improvement plan was designed. Errors were classified as: type of error (indication, dosage, route of administration), severity and associated risk factors (emergency level, patient age, physician experience, day of week, time of day). Following the introduction of the new computer software (year 2009) (period 2), the same parameters were re-evaluated and compared with the previous period. All Paediatric Emergency Department (PED) reports, where some treatment was administered in the Emergency room in the same week and month for both periods, were reviewed. Results: A total of 615 prescriptions were written during period 1, of which 92 (15%) were classified as errors, and in period 2, 445 were written and 51 (11.5%) had errors, with no significant differences between both periods. There was a significant decrease in inappropriate indication errors (8.1% in period 1 vs 3.6% in period 2; P=.04), with no differences in dosage, route of administration and severity of errors. There was a significant error reduction in more experienced physicians, and an increase in errors by external rotation physicians (who were not skilled in the use of the new program). Conclusions: The knowledge of the previous situation and the use of preventive measures ensured that errors did not increase after a change of computer software(AU)

Risk of postoperative hypoglycemia in cardiovascular surgical patients receiving computer-based versus paper-based insulin therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of replacing a paper-based protocol with a computer-guided glucose management system (CGMS) for the treatment of postoperative hyperglycemia in the cardiovascular intensive care unit (CVICU). METHODS: With use of a before-and-after analysis, adult patients (≥18 years) discharged from the CVICU and treated with the paper protocol were compared with patients discharged from the CVICU and treated with the CGMS. Of the 1,648 patients analyzed, 991 were in the CGMS group. Clinical end points were evaluated by using the Wilcoxon test. Unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for each hypoglycemic end point were calculated from Cox models with use of the proportional hazards regression procedure, and clinical end points were adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS: Patients treated with the paper protocol were 6 times as likely to experience clinical hypoglycemia (blood glucose ≤70 mg/dL) as patients treated with the CGMS (adjusted HR = 6.06; P<.0001) and more than 7 times as likely to experience severe hypoglycemia (blood glucose ≤40 mg/dL) (adjusted HR = 7.59; P=.01). Despite the increased risk of hypoglycemia, no significant difference in length of stay or mortality was observed between the groups. CONCLUSION: CGMS treatment of postoperative hyperglycemia in CVICU patients can successfully attain goal glucose levels with a significant reduction in hypoglycemia in comparison with a paper protocol. This association persists after controlling for covariates.