RESUMO
Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing before initiation of thiopurine treatment and CBC monitoring post-initiation helps avoid adverse events and ensure patient safety. This study aims to evaluate trends in PGx testing and CBC monitoring among Veterans prescribed azathioprine, thioguanine, or mercaptopurine to demonstrate VA's efforts to improve medication safety after an adverse event. To assess testing patterns, we used VA electronic health report data to identify 20,524 Veterans who first began thiopurine treatment between January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2021. Aggregate monthly counts of thiopurine prescriptions and associated lab tests were tabulated, and the trend in the proportion of patients tested was analyzed using the Mann-Kendall test. The proportion of patients undergoing PGx testing rose from 30.0% in 2010 to 47.5% in late 2014 (July-December). However, PGx testing and overall testing only increased slightly after the sentinel event, and orders levelled off over time at slightly lower levels than before the sentinel event. Very little change was seen in the overall proportion of individuals receiving any testing across all patients with new prescriptions from the time of the sentinel event in 2014 to the end of 2021. A large portion of patients prescribed thiopurine drugs did not receive testing that could help prevent the development of potential adverse events, leading to a predominantly reactive approach. Increased PGx testing may result in a more proactive approach to the prevention of adverse events due to genetic interaction.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Most articles on hand hygiene report either overall compliance or compliance with specific hand hygiene moments. These moments vary in the level of risk to patients if healthcare workers (HCWs) are noncompliant. We assessed how task type affected HCWs' hand hygiene compliance. METHODS: We linked consecutive tasks individual HCWs performed during the Strategies to Reduce Transmission of Antimicrobial Resistant Bacteria in Intensive Care Units (STAR*ICU) study into care sequences and identified task pairs-2 consecutive tasks and the intervening hand hygiene opportunity. We defined tasks as critical and/or contaminating. We determined the odds of critical and contaminating tasks occurring, and the odds of hand hygiene compliance using logistic regression for transition with a random effect adjusting for isolation precautions, glove use, HCW type, and compliance at prior opportunities. RESULTS: Healthcare workers were less likely to do hand hygiene before critical tasks than before other tasks (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.97 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .95-.98]) and more likely to do hand hygiene after contaminating tasks than after other tasks (aOR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.10-1.13]). Nurses were more likely to perform both critical and contaminating tasks, but nurses' hand hygiene compliance was better than physicians' (aOR, 0.94 [95% CI, .91-.97]) and other HCWs' compliance (aOR, 0.87 [95% CI, .87-.94]). CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare workers were more likely to do hand hygiene after contaminating tasks than before critical tasks, suggesting that habits and a feeling of disgust may influence hand hygiene compliance. This information could be incorporated into interventions to improve hand hygiene practices, particularly before critical tasks and after contaminating tasks.
