The effect of Xylocaine spray on suture material degradation.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the tensile strength of fast absorbable Polyglactin 910 suture material when impregnated with various agents for local anesthesia and to investigate whether the presence of ethanol in Xylocaine spray could explain a potential reduction in tensile strength after use of Xylocaine spray. METHODS: In all, 120 suture samples of Polyglactin 910 were divided into four groups of 30. These four groups were randomly impregnated with isotonic sodium chloride, isotonic sodium chloride plus Xylocaine spray, isotonic sodium chloride plus Xylocaine gel, or isotonic sodium chloride plus ethanol. After impregnation, the sutures were stored in sealed glass tubes in a heating cabinet at 37°C for 72 h. Thereafter, the tensile strength of these 120 samples was assessed by a universal tensile testing machine. The maximal force needed to break the suture material was recorded in newtons (N). RESULTS: Fast absorbable Polyglactin 910 suture material impregnated with Xylocaine spray or ethanol showed weakened tensile strength (mean values 11.40 and 11.86 N, respectively), whereas the specimens impregnated with Xylocaine gel or sodium chloride retained their tensile strength better (mean values 13.81 and 13.28 N, respectively; mean difference between Xylocaine gel and Xylocaine spray -2.41 N, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this in vitro experiment, ethanol and Xylocaine spray weakened the tensile strength of fast absorbable Polyglactin 910 sutures. Use of Xylocaine spray, which contains ethanol, for local anesthesia might lead to early breakdown of the suture material and wound rupture. The authors suggest caution when using Xylocaine spray in combination with fast absorbable Polyglactin 910 suture.

Acceptability of a cross-sectoral hospital pharmacist intervention for patients in transition between hospital and general practice: a mixed methods study.

Background and objective: Drug-related problems (DRPs) are often seen when a patient is transitioning from one healthcare sector to another, for example, when a patient moves from the hospital to a General Practice (GP) setting. This transition creates an opportunity for information on medication changes and follow-up plans to be lost. A cross-sectoral hospital pharmacist intervention was developed and pilot-tested in a large GP clinic. The intervention included medication history, medication reconciliation, medication review, follow-up telephone calls, identification of possible DRPs and communication with the GP. It is unknown whether the intervention is transferable to other GP clinics. The aim of the study was to explore similarities and differences between GP clinics in descriptive data and intervention acceptability. Methods: A convergent mixed methods study design was used. The intervention was tested in four GP clinics with differing characteristics. Quantitative data on the GP clinics, patients and pharmacist activities were collected. Qualitative data on the acceptability were collected through focus group interviews with general practitioners, nurses and pharmacists. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability was used. Results: Overall, the intervention was found acceptable and relevant by all. There were differences between the GP clinics in terms of size, daily physician work form and their use of pharmacists for ad hoc tasks. There were similarities in patient characteristics across GP clinics. Therefore, the intervention was found equally relevant for all of the clinics. Shared employment with unique access to health records in both sectors was important in the identification and resolution of DRPs. Economy was a barrier for further implementation. Conclusions: The intervention was found acceptable and relevant by all; therefore, it was considered transferable to other GP clinics. Hospital pharmacists were perceived to be relevant healthcare professionals to be utilized in GP, in hospitals and in the cross-sectoral transition of patients.

Acceptability of a pharmacist activity for patients transitioning between hospital and general practice Why was the study done? Drug-related problems are often seen in patients transitioning across healthcare sectors. A pharmacist activity was developed and pilot-tested in a large General Practice (GP) clinic. It was unknown whether the activity was transferable to other GP clinics.The pharmacist activity included talking to the patients about their usual medication and adjustment of prescriptions accordingly. The pharmacist activity also included a review of their medications, a follow-up telephone call to the patients and communication with the GP in case of drug-related problems.The aim of the study was to test the activity in different GP clinics and to explore similarities and differences in descriptive data and acceptability. What did the researchers do? The activity was tested in four GP clinics within the same geographical area for three months.Descriptive data about the GP clinics, the patients and the pharmacist's activities performed were collected.Data about acceptability of the activity was collected through focus group interviews with general practitioners, nurses and hospital pharmacists.This qualitative data was combined with descriptive data to explore similarities and differences between GP clinics. What did the researchers find? Overall, the activity was found to be acceptable and relevant by all.There were differences between the GP clinics in terms of size, daily physician work form and their use of the pharmacist for ad hoc tasks.There were similarities in patients across GP clinics e.g. in terms of the number of medications or drug-related problems. The activity was found equally relevant for every clinic.Shared employment with access to health records in both sectors was important in the identification and resolution of drug-related problems. The pharmacist had the possibility to bring issues back and forth between the hospital and the GP clinic.Economy was a barrier for further implementation. What do the findings mean? The activity was found acceptable and relevant by all; therefore, it was considered transferable to other GP clinics.Hospital pharmacists were perceived to be relevant healthcare professionals to be utilised in GP, in hospitals and in the cross-sectoral transition of patients.

Developing and piloting a cross-sectoral hospital pharmacist intervention for patients in transition between hospital and general practice.

Background: Healthcare is challenged by a rapidly growing group of patients with multi-morbidity and polypharmacy. Increasing activity and specialization puts pressure on healthcare sectors. Medication errors in cross-sectoral transition of patients are often seen. The aim of the study was to explore drug-related problems (DRPs) in the transition of patients between sectors and to develop and pilot-test a cross-sectoral hospital pharmacist intervention to overcome some of these problems. Methods: DRPs in cross-sectoral transitions were explored from four perspectives; the literature, the primary and secondary healthcare sector and the patients. An intervention was developed from the findings through co-creation between pharmacists, doctors and a nurse. The intervention was piloted and evaluated from data on the included patients and the activities performed. Results: DRPs in transitions from general practice (GP) to hospital were caused by inadequate focus on updating the Shared Medication Record (SMR). For patients being discharged, DRPs were described with multiple facets; for example, missing information on medication changes, lacking patient involvement and problems with dose-dispensed medicine or electronic prescriptions. An intervention with a pharmacist in a shared employment between Hospital Pharmacy and GP was developed and piloted. The intervention included medication reconciliation and updating SMR for patients referred to hospital; and medication review, overview of medication changes and follow-up telephone calls for patients discharged from hospital. The intervention identified and solved several DRPs; in this way, medication errors were avoided. Access to health records in both sectors was important in the identification and resolution of DRPs. Conclusion: DRPs in cross-sectoral transitions are multifaceted and the experiences depend on the point of view. The cross-sectoral hospital pharmacist intervention identified and solved several DRPs and medication errors were avoided. The intervention made sense to both healthcare sectors and patients. Shared employment and unique access to health records in both sectors showed to be of importance in the identification and resolution of DRPs. Plain language summary: Development and pilot-test of a pharmacist intervention for patients in transition between hospital and general practice Background: Healthcare is challenged by a rapidly growing group of patients with multiple chronic diseases treated with several drugs at the same time. The aim of the study was to explore drug-related problems in the transition of patients between the hospital and patients' general practitioner and to develop and pilot-test a pharmacist intervention to overcome some of these problems.Methods: Drug-related problems in patient transitions were explored from the perspectives of the hospital, the general practitioner, the patients and the literature. An intervention was developed from the findings by pharmacists, doctors and a nurse. The intervention was pilot-tested and evaluated from the descriptions of the included patients and activities performed.Results: Drug-related problems in transitions from general practice to hospital were caused by inadequate focus on updating the Shared Medication Record.For patients being discharged, drug-related problems were related to for examplemissing information on medication changessparse involvement of the patient in their own treatmentproblems with medicine dispensed on a dose dispensing machine at the local pharmacy.An intervention with a pharmacist in a shared employment between Hospital Pharmacy and general practice was developed and piloted. The intervention includedtalking to the patient about their medication and updating the Shared Medication Record for patients referred to hospitalmedication review, overview of medication changes and follow-up telephone calls for patients discharged from hospital to general practice.The intervention identified and solved several drug-related problems. Access to health records in both the general practice and at the hospital was important in the identification of drug-related problems.Conclusions: Drug-related problems in cross-sectoral transitions are multifaceted. The pharmacist intervention identified and solved several drug-related problems. The intervention made sense to the general practitioner, hospital and patients. Shared employment and unique access to health records in both the general practice and at the hospital showed to be of importance in the identification of drug-related problems.

Effects of stratified medication review in high-risk patients at admission to hospital: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients at high risk of medication errors will potentially benefit most from medication reviews. An algorithm, MERIS, can identify the patients who are at highest risk of medication errors. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of performing stratified medication reviews on patients who according to MERIS were at highest risk of medication errors. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial was performed at the Acute Admissions Unit, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. Patients were included at admission to the hospital and were randomised to control or intervention. The intervention consisted of stratified medication review at admission on patients with a high MERIS score. Clinical pharmacists and clinical pharmacologists performed the medication reviews; the clinical pharmacologists performed the reviews on patients with the highest MERIS score. The primary outcome measure was the number of prescribing errors during the hospitalisation. Secondary outcomes included self-experienced quality of life, health-care utilisation and mortality measured at follow-up 90 days after discharge. RESULTS: A total of 375 patients were included, of which medication reviews were performed in 64 patients. The medication reviews addressed 63 prescribing errors in 37 patients and 60 other drug-related problems. No difference in the number of prescribing errors during hospitalisation between the intervention group (n = 165) and control group (n = 153) was found, corresponding to 0.11 prescribing errors per drug (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.08-0.14) versus 0.13 per drug (95% CI: 0.09-0.16), respectively. No differences in secondary outcomes were observed. CONCLUSION: A stratified medication review approach based on the individual patient's risk of medication errors did not show impact on the chosen outcomes. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: How does a medication review at admission affect patients who are in high risk of medication errors? Patients are at risk of medication errors at admission to hospital. Medication reviews aim to detect and solve these. Yet, due to limited resources in healthcare, it would be beneficial to detect the patients who are most at risk of medication errors and perform medication reviews on those patients.In this study we investigated whether an algorithm, MERIS, could detect patients who are at highest risk of medication errors; we also studied whether performing medication reviews on patients at highest risk of medication errors would have an effect on, for example, the number of medication errors during hospitalisation, qualify of life and number of readmissions. We included 375 patients in a Danish acute admission unit and they were divided into control group and intervention group. Patients in the intervention group received a medication review at admission if they were considered at high risk of medication errors, assessed with the aid of MERIS. In summary, 64 patients in the intervention group were most at risk of medication errors and therefore received a medication review.We conclude in the study that MERIS was useful in identifying relevant patients for medication reviews. Yet, the medication reviews performed at admission did not impact on the chosen outcomes.

Cost-consequence analysis of self-administration of medication during hospitalization: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial in a Danish hospital setting.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the costs and consequences of introducing "self-administration of medication" (SAM) during hospitalization as compared with nurse-led dispensing and administration of medication. METHODS: This pragmatic randomized controlled trial was performed in a Danish Cardiology Unit. Patients ⩾18 years old capable of self-administering medication were eligible. In the intervention group, patients self-administered their medication. In the control group, medication was dispensed and administered by nurses. The implementation of SAM was used to evaluate the cost-consequences. The micro-costing analysis used the hospital perspective and a short-term incremental costing approach. The costs for medication, materials, and nursing time were included. Consequences included the dispensing error proportion, patients' perceptions regarding medication, satisfaction, and deviations in the medication list at follow-up. In addition, the number of readmissions and general practitioner (GP) contacts within 30 days after discharge was included. RESULTS: The total cost (TC) per patient in the intervention group was 49.9€ (95% CI: 46.6-53.2) compared with 52.6€ (95% CI: 46.6-58.6) in the control group. The difference between the groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.09). Sensitivity analysis consistently showed TCs favoring the intervention. The dispensing error proportion was 9.7% (95% CI: 7.9-11.6) in the intervention group compared with 12.8% (95% CI: 10.9-15.6) in the control group. The difference was statistically significant (p = 0.02). The analysis also found changes in the perceptions regarding medication (indicating higher medication adherence), increased satisfaction, and fewer patients with deviations in the medication list at follow-up. No statistically significant differences between the groups in relation to readmissions and GP contacts within 30 days were observed. CONCLUSIONS: SAM seems to cost less although the cost difference was small and not statistically significant. As SAM had positive effects on patient outcomes, the results indicate that SAM may be cost-effective. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Self-administration of medication: a research study of the costs and consequences Objectives To evaluate the costs and consequences of introducing "self-administration of medication" (SAM) during hospitalization compared to medication dispensed by nurses. Methods This research study included patients ≥18 years capable of self-administering medication and was performed in a Danish cardiology unit. Patients self-administered their own medication during hospitalization in the intervention group, whereas nurses dispensed and administered the medication in the control group. Patients were allocated between groups by randomization. The costs of SAM were analyzed from a hospital perspective and included costs for medication, materials, and nursing time. The consequences included the proportion of dispensing errors, patients' perceptions regarding medication, patient satisfaction, deviations in the medication list at follow-up, the number of readmissions and general practitioner (GP) contacts within 30 days after discharge. Results The total cost per patient was 49.9€ in the intervention group compared to 52.6€ in the control group (p = 0.09). The cost difference between groups was not significant. The proportion of dispensing errors was significantly lower in the intervention group compared to the control group. In addition the research study found changes in the perceptions regarding medication, increased satisfaction, and fewer patients with deviations in the medication list at follow-up. For readmissions and GP contacts within 30 days no significant differences between groups were found. Conclusion SAM cost less or equal to medication dispensing and administration by nurse. SAM had positive impacts on patient outcomes. Therefore, SAM may be cost-effective.

Self-administration of medication during hospitalization-a randomized pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Self-administration of medication (SAM) during hospitalization is a complex intervention where patients are involved in their course of treatment. The study aim was to pilot test the SAM intervention. The objectives were to assess the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial on the safety and cost-consequences of SAM during hospitalization. METHODS: The study was performed in a Danish cardiology unit.Patients ≥ 18 years capable of self-administering medication during hospitalization were eligible. Patients were excluded if they did not self-administer medication at home, were incapable of self-administering medication, were not prescribed medication suitable for self-administration, did not bring their medication, or were unable to speak Danish.Feasibility was assessed as part of the pilot study. A future randomized controlled trial was considered feasible if it was possible to recruit 60 patients within 3 months, if outcome measurement method was capable of detecting dispensing errors in both groups, and if patients in the intervention group were more satisfied with the medication management during hospitalization compared to the control group.Forty patients were recruited to gain experience about the intervention (self-administration). Additionally, 20 patients were randomized to the intervention or control group (nurse-led dispensing) to gain experience about the randomization procedure.Dispensing error proportions were based on data collected through disguised observation of patients and nurses during dispensing. The error proportion in the control group was used for the sample size calculation. Patient acceptability was assessed through telephone calls. RESULTS: Of the 60 patients recruited, one withdrew and 11 were discharged before observation resulting in analysis of 39 patients in the intervention group and nine in the control group. A dispensing error proportion of 3.4% was found in the intervention group and 16.1% in the control group. A total of 91.7% of patients in the intervention group and 66.7% in the control group were highly satisfied with the medication management during hospitalization. The overall protocol worked as planned. Minor changes in exclusion criteria, intervention, and outcome measures were considered. CONCLUSIONS: It may be feasible to perform a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of the safety and cost-consequences of self-administration of medication during hospitalization. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03541421, retrospectively registered on 30 May 2018.

Self-administration of medication: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of the impact on dispensing errors, perceptions, and satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to investigate whether self-administration of medication (SAM) during hospitalization affects the number of dispensing errors, perceptions regarding medication, and participant satisfaction when compared with nurse-led medication dispensing. METHODS: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial was performed in a Danish cardiology unit. Patients aged ⩾ 18 years capable of SAM were eligible for inclusion. Patients were excluded if they did not self-administer medication at home, were not prescribed medication suitable for self-administration, or did not speak Danish.Intervention group participants self-administered their medication. In the control group, medication was dispensed and administered by nurses.The primary outcome was the proportion of dispensing errors collected through modified disguised observation of participants and nurses. Dispensing errors were divided into clinical and procedural errors.Secondary outcomes were explored through telephone calls to determine participant perceptions regarding medication and satisfaction, and finally, deviations in their medication list two weeks after discharge. RESULTS: Significantly fewer dispensing errors were observed in the intervention group, with 100 errors/1033 opportunities for error (9.7%), compared with 132 errors/1028 opportunities for error (12.8%) in the control group. The number of clinical errors was significantly reduced, whereas no difference in procedural errors was observed. At follow up, those who were self-administering medication had fewer concerns regarding their medication, found medication to be less harmful, were more satisfied, preferred this opportunity in the future, and had fewer deviations in their medication list after discharge compared with the control group. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the reduced number of dispensing errors in the intervention group, indicate that SAM is safe. In addition, SAM had a positive impact on (a) perceptions regarding medication, thus suggesting increased medication adherence, (b) deviations in medication list after discharge, and (c) participant satisfaction related to medication management at the hospital.

Risk of prescribing errors in acutely admitted patients: a pilot study.

Background Prescribing errors in emergency settings occur frequently. Knowing which patients have the highest risk of errors could improve patient outcomes. Objective The aim of this study was to test an algorithm designed to assess prescribing error risk in individual patients, and to test the feasibility of medication reviews in high-risk patients. Setting The study was performed at the Acute Admissions Unit at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. Methods The study was an interventional pilot study. Patients included were assessed according to risk of prescribing errors with the aid of an algorithm called 'Medication Risk Score' (MERIS). Based on the score, high-risk patients were offered a medication review. The clinical relevance of the medication reviews was assessed retrospectively. Main outcome measure The number and nature of prescribing errors during the patients' hospitalisation. Results The study included 103 patients, all of whom could be risk assessed with the algorithm MERIS. MERIS stratified 38 patients as high-risk patients and 65 as low-risk patients. The 103 patients were prescribed a total of 848 drugs in which 88 prescribing errors were found (10.4 %). Sixty-two of these were found in patients in the high-risk group. In general, the medication reviews were found to be clinically relevant and approximately 50 % of recommendations were implemented. Conclusion MERIS was found to be applicable in a clinical setting and stratified most patients with prescribing errors into the high-risk group. The medication reviews were feasible and found to be clinically relevant by most raters.