Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Patient Saf ; 20(5): 370-374, 2024 Aug 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38506482

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Inadequate follow-up of incidental imaging findings (IIFs) can result in poor patient outcomes, patient dissatisfaction, and provider malpractice. At our institution, radiologists flag IIFs during report dictation to trigger electronic health record (EHR) notifications to providers and patients. Nurse coordinators directly contact patients or their primary care physicians (PCPs) regarding IIFs if follow-up is not completed within the recommended time frame. Despite these interventions, many patients and their PCPs remain unaware of IIFs. In an effort to improve awareness of IIFs, we aim to investigate communication of IIFs on inpatient discharge summaries after implementation of our EHR notification system. METHODS: Inpatient records with IIFs from 2018 to 2021 were retrospectively reviewed to determine type of IIFs, follow-up recommendations, and mention of IIFs on discharge summaries. Nurse coordinators spoke to patients and providers to determine their awareness of IIFs. RESULTS: Incidental imaging findings were reported in 51% of discharge summaries (711/1383). When nurse coordinators called patients and PCPs regarding IIFs at the time follow-up was due, the patients and PCPs were aware of 79% of IIFs (1096/1383). CONCLUSIONS: With implementation of EHR notifications to providers regarding IIFs, IIFs were included in 51% of discharge summaries. Lack of inclusion of IIFs on discharge summaries could be related to transitions of care within hospitalization, provider alert fatigue, and many diagnostic testing results to distill. These findings demonstrate the need to improve communication of IIFs, possibly via automating mention of IIFs on discharge summaries, and the need for care coordinators to follow up on IIFs.


Assuntos
Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde , Achados Incidentais , Humanos , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Comunicação , Sumários de Alta do Paciente Hospitalar , Alta do Paciente , Feminino , Masculino , Diagnóstico por Imagem/métodos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade
2.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol ; 22(8): 1749-1750, 2024 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38311147
3.
Curr Gastroenterol Rep ; 26(5): 145-156, 2024 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38353899

RESUMO

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD) is challenging; thus, the need for newer therapeutic options with an oral route of administration has led to the development of novel small molecules drugs (SMDs). We aim to highlight the most common Adverse events (AEs) associated with SMDs and recommendations on monitoring for AEs before and during treatment. RECENT FINDINGS: SMDs, such as Tofacitinib, a JAK inhibitor, have been associated with laboratory abnormalities, infections, and risk of thromboembolic events. Therefore, oral agents with greater selectivity in JAK inhibition, such as tofacitinib and upadacitinib, were later developed. Ozanimod and etrasimod, S1PR agonists, require closer safety profile monitoring by clinicians. Multiple therapies have been recently developed with variable efficacy. However, they have been associated with AEs, and some require close monitoring prior to and during therapy. Clinicians should highlight these adverse events to patients while reassuring the safety profile of these novel SMDs for IBD is favorable.


Assuntos
Doenças Inflamatórias Intestinais , Inibidores de Janus Quinases , Humanos , Doenças Inflamatórias Intestinais/tratamento farmacológico , Administração Oral , Inibidores de Janus Quinases/efeitos adversos , Inibidores de Janus Quinases/uso terapêutico , Inibidores de Janus Quinases/administração & dosagem , Fármacos Gastrointestinais/efeitos adversos , Fármacos Gastrointestinais/administração & dosagem , Fármacos Gastrointestinais/uso terapêutico , Monitoramento de Medicamentos/métodos , Pirimidinas/efeitos adversos , Pirimidinas/administração & dosagem , Pirimidinas/uso terapêutico , Compostos Heterocíclicos com 3 Anéis , Piperidinas
4.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37821035

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Recent studies raise concern for increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors used to treat immune-mediated inflammatory disorders (IMIDs). We aimed to examine MACE risk with licensed biologics and small molecules used commonly between IMIDs: inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. METHODS: Data were obtained from systematic searches (from inception to May 31, 2022) in PubMed, Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Studies that assessed a predefined MACE (myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, unstable angina, cardiovascular death, or heart failure) risk in those ≥18 years of age with IMIDs treated with anti-interleukin (IL)-23 antibodies, anti-IL-12/23, anti-tumor necrosis factor α antibodies (anti-TNF-α), or JAK inhibitors were included in a network meta-analysis using a random-effects model with pooled odds ratios (ORs) reported with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) by drug class and disease state. RESULTS: Among 3528 studies identified, 40 (36 randomized controlled trials and 4 cohort studies) were included in the systematic review, comprising 126,961 patients with IMIDs. Based on network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, regardless of disease state, anti-TNF-α (OR, 2.49; 95% CrI, 1.14-5.62), JAK inhibitors (OR, 2.64; 95% CrI, 1.26-5.99), and anti-IL-12/23 (OR, 3.15; 95% CrI, 1.01-13.35) were associated with increased MACE risk compared with placebo. There was no significant difference in the magnitude of the MACE risk between classes or based on IMID type. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-IL-12/23, JAK inhibitors, and anti-TNF-α were associated with higher risk of MACE compared with placebo. The magnitude of the increased MACE risk was not different by IMID type. These results require confirmation in larger prospective studies.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA