Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 94
Filtrar
1.
J Ambul Care Manage ; 44(4): 293-303, 2021.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34319924

RESUMO

COVID-19 necessitated significant care redesign, including new ambulatory workflows to handle surge volumes, protect patients and staff, and ensure timely reliable care. Opportunities also exist to harvest lessons from workflow innovations to benefit routine care. We describe a dedicated COVID-19 ambulatory unit for closing testing and follow-up loops characterized by standardized workflows and electronic communication, documentation, and order placement. More than 85% of follow-ups were completed within 24 hours, with no observed staff, nor patient infections associated with unit operations. Identified issues include role confusion, staffing and gatekeeping bottlenecks, and patient reluctance to visit in person or discuss concerns with phone screeners.


Assuntos
Instituições de Assistência Ambulatorial/organização & administração , COVID-19/terapia , Continuidade da Assistência ao Paciente/organização & administração , Pneumonia Viral/terapia , Unidades de Cuidados Respiratórios/organização & administração , Adulto , Idoso , Boston/epidemiologia , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Pneumonia Viral/virologia , Encaminhamento e Consulta/estatística & dados numéricos , SARS-CoV-2 , Análise de Sistemas , Fluxo de Trabalho
3.
J Gen Intern Med ; 2021 May 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33948801

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The relationship between clinician and patient is the cornerstone of primary care. Breakdown and termination of this relationship are understudied yet important, undesirable outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the nature and extent of provider and clinic termination of the primary care relationship. DESIGN: Retrospective observational case-control study. SUBJECTS: Adult patients in Eastern Massachusetts who received primary care at hospital- and community-based clinics and health centers participating in a practice-based research network between January 2013 and June 2017. MAIN MEASURES: Formal termination by primary care physician (PCP), reasons for termination, independent predictors of termination based on mixed-effects logistic regression, and documentation of a new PCP after termination. KEY RESULTS: We identified 158,192 patients who received primary care from 182 PCPs across 16 clinics. We found 536 cases of formal termination. Clinics ranged from 4 to 119 terminations per 10,000 patients (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=0.21; 95% CI: 0.18-0.24). Patient age, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, relationship status, employment status, and insurance type were independent predictors of termination (e.g., compared to patients employed full-time, patients unemployed due to disability were more likely to be terminated [adjusted OR:9.26; 95% CI: 6.74-12.74]). The most common cause for termination (38%) was appointment "no-shows" with some PCPs/clinics found to enforce a policy of dismissal following three no-shows. At the time of chart review, 201 patients (38%) had no documentation of a new PCP. Among patients who re-established care within the network, 134 (25%) had a primary care visit within 6 months of termination. CONCLUSIONS: Detailed chart review found that, unlike previous survey-based studies, dismissal was often for missed appointments based on enforcement of no-show policies. Many sociodemographic factors were associated with termination. Variability among clinics highlights the need for further research to better understand circumstances surrounding terminations, with the principal goals of improving patient-provider relationships and providing equitable care.

4.
Pain Physician ; 24(2): E191-E201, 2021 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33740356

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Clinicians frequently order urine drug testing (UDT) for patients on chronic opioid therapy (COT), yet often have difficulty interpreting test results accurately. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of a laboratory-generated urine toxicology interpretation service for clinicians prescribing COT. STUDY DESIGN: Type II hybrid-convergent mixed methods design (implementation) and pre-post prospective cohort study with matched controls (effectiveness). SETTING: Four ambulatory sites (2 primary care, 1 pain management, 1 palliative care) within 2 US academic medical institutions. METHODS: Interpretative reports were generated by the clinical chemistry laboratory and were provided to UDT ordering providers via inbox message in the electronic health record (EHR). The Partners Institutional Review Board approved this study.Participants were primary care, pain management, and palliative care clinicians who ordered liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry UDT for COT patients in clinic. Intervention was a laboratory-generated interpretation service that provided an individualized interpretive report of UDT results based on the patient's prescribed medications and toxicology metabolites for clinicians who received the intervention (n = 8) versus matched controls (n = 18).Implementation results included focus group and survey feedback on the interpretation service's usability and its impact on workflow, clinical decision making, clinician-patient relationships, and interdisciplinary teamwork. Effectiveness outcomes included UDT interpretation concordance between the clinician and laboratory, documentation frequency of UDT results interpretation and communication of results to patients, and clinician prescribing behavior at follow-up. RESULTS: Among the 8 intervention clinicians (median age 58 [IQR 16.5] years; 2 women [25%]) on a Likert scale from 1 ("strongly disagree") to 5 ("strongly agree"), 7 clinicians reported at 6 months postintervention that the interpretation service was easy to use (mean 5 [standard deviation {SD}, 0]); improved results comprehension (mean 5 [SD, 0]); and helped them interpret results more accurately (mean 5 [SD, 0]), quickly (mean 4.67 [SD, 0.52]), and confidently (mean 4.83 [SD, 0.41]). Although there were no statistically significant differences in outcomes between cohorts, clinician-laboratory interpretation concordance trended toward improvement (intervention 22/32 [68.8%] to 29/33 [87.9%] vs. control 21/25 [84%] to 23/30 [76.7%], P = 0.07) among cases with documented interpretations. LIMITATIONS: This study has a low sample size and was conducted at 2 large academic medical institutions and may not be generalizable to community settings. CONCLUSIONS: Interpretations were well received by clinicians but did not significantly improve laboratory-clinician interpretation concordance, interpretation documentation frequency, or opioid-prescribing behavior.


Assuntos
Analgésicos Opioides/urina , Cromatografia Líquida , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Opioides/diagnóstico , Detecção do Abuso de Substâncias/métodos , Urinálise/métodos , Adulto , Idoso , Feminino , Humanos , Laboratórios , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Opioides/urina , Manejo da Dor , Estudos Prospectivos
5.
J Gen Intern Med ; 36(5): 1404-1406, 2021 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33575908

RESUMO

Diagnostic errors are a source of unacceptable harm in health care. However, improvement efforts have been hampered by the lack of valid measures reflecting the quality of the diagnostic process. At the same time, it has become apparent that the healthcare work system, particularly in primary care, is chaotic and stressful, leading to clinician burnout and patient harm. We propose a new construct that health systems and researchers can use to measure the quality and safety of the diagnostic process that is sensitive to the context of the health care work system. This model focuses on three measurable practices: considering "don't miss" diagnoses, looking for red flags, and ensuring that clinicians avoid common diagnostic pitfalls. We believe that the performance of clinicians with respect to these factors is sensitive to the health care work system, allowing for context-dependent measurement and improvement of the diagnostic process. Such process measures will enable more rapid improvements rather than exclusively measuring outcomes related to "correct" or "incorrect" diagnoses.


Assuntos
Esgotamento Profissional , Pandemias , Esgotamento Profissional/diagnóstico , Esgotamento Profissional/epidemiologia , Atenção à Saúde , Erros de Diagnóstico , Humanos , Atenção Primária à Saúde
8.
JAMA ; 323(17): 1674-1675, 2020 May 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32369131
9.
JAMA ; 323(1): 33-34, 2020 01 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31910264

Assuntos
Médicos , Humanos
10.
J Gen Intern Med ; 35(2): 457-464, 2020 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31755012

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The essence of humanism in medicine and health care is relationships-caring relationships between clinicians and patients. While raising concerns regarding professional-patient boundaries has positively contributed to our understanding and prevention of potentially harmful boundary violations, there is controversy about which types of relationships, caring acts, and practices are acceptable versus cross boundary lines. OBJECTIVE: To examine primary care physicians' practices and attitudes regarding acts that have been questioned as potentially "inappropriate" or "unethical" crossing of professional-patient boundaries. DESIGN: Surveys conducted via in-person polling or electronic and mailed paper submissions from April 2016 to July 2017. We calculated descriptive statistics and examined associations with practices and attitudes using logistic regression. PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of all US primary care physicians who treat adult patients; convenience sample of attendees at medicine grand rounds presentations. MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes were self-reported practices and attitudes related to giving patients rides home, paying for patients' medication, helping patients find jobs, employing patients, going to dinner with patients, and providing care to personal friends. KEY RESULTS: Among 1563 total respondents, 34% had given a ride home, 34% had paid for medications, 15% helped patients find a job, 7% had employed a patient, 10% had dinner with patients, and 59% provided care to personal friends. A majority disapproved of dinner with a patient (75%) but approved of or were neutral on all other scenarios (61-90%). CONCLUSIONS: The medical profession is quite divided on questions related to drawing lines about appropriate boundaries. Contrary to official and widespread proscriptions against such practices (with exception of dinner dates), many have actually engaged in such practices and the majority found them acceptable.


Assuntos
Médicos de Atenção Primária , Adulto , Atitude do Pessoal de Saúde , Humanismo , Humanos , Padrões de Prática Médica , Autorrelato , Inquéritos e Questionários
11.
J Gen Intern Med ; 35(1): 283-290, 2020 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31713040

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Urine drug testing (UDT) is an essential tool to monitor opioid misuse among patients on chronic opioid therapy. Inaccurate interpretation of UDT can have deleterious consequences. Providers' ability to accurately interpret and document UDT, particularly definitive liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) results, has not been widely studied. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether providers correctly interpret, document, and communicate LC-MS/MS UDT results. DESIGN: This is a retrospective chart review of 160 UDT results (80 aberrant; 80 non-aberrant) between August 2017 and February 2018 from 5 ambulatory clinics (3 primary care, 1 oncology, 1 pain management). Aberrant results were classified into one or more of the following categories: illicit drug use, simulated compliance, not taking prescribed medication, and taking a medication not prescribed. Accurate result interpretation was defined as concordance between the provider's documented interpretation and an expert laboratory toxicologist's interpretation. Outcome measures were concordance between provider and laboratory interpretation of UDT results, documentation of UDT results, results acknowledgement in the electronic health record, communication of results to the patient, and rate of prescription refills. KEY RESULTS: Aberrant results were most frequently due to illicit drug use. Overall, only 88 of the 160 (55%) had any documented provider interpretations of which 25/88 (28%) were discordant with the laboratory toxicologist's interpretation. Thirty-six of the 160 (23%) documented communication of the results to the patient. Communicating results was more likely to be documented if the results were aberrant compared with non-aberrant (33/80 [41%] vs. 3/80 [4%], p < 0.001). In all cases where provider interpretations were discordant with the laboratory interpretation, prescriptions were refilled. CONCLUSIONS: Erroneous provider interpretation of UDT results, infrequent documentation of interpretation, lack of communication of results to patients, and prescription refills despite inaccurate interpretations are common. Expert assistance with urine toxicology interpretations may be needed to improve provider accuracy when interpreting toxicology results.


Assuntos
Preparações Farmacêuticas , Espectrometria de Massas em Tandem , Analgésicos Opioides , Cromatografia Líquida , Documentação , Seguimentos , Humanos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Detecção do Abuso de Substâncias
12.
J Healthc Risk Manag ; 39(2): 19-29, 2019 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31338938

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In the ambulatory setting, missed cancer diagnoses are leading contributors to patient harm and malpractice risk; however, there are limited data on the malpractice case characteristics for these cases. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine key features and factors identified in missed cancer diagnosis malpractice claims filed related to primary care and evaluate predictors of clinical and claim outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed 2155 diagnostic error closed malpractice claims in outpatient general medicine. We created multivariate models to determine factors that predicted case outcomes. RESULTS: Missed cancer diagnoses represented 980 (46%) cases of primary care diagnostic errors, most commonly from lung, colorectal, prostate, or breast cancer. The majority (76%) involved errors in clinical judgment, such as a failure or delay in ordering a diagnostic test (51%) or failure or delay in obtaining a consult or referral (37%). These factors were independently associated with higher-severity patient harm. The majority of these errors were of high severity (85%). CONCLUSIONS: Malpractice claims involving missed diagnoses of cancer in primary care most often involve routine screening examinations or delays in testing or referral. Our findings suggest that more reliable closed-loop systems for diagnostic testing and referrals are crucial for preventing diagnostic errors in the ambulatory setting.


Assuntos
Erros de Diagnóstico/ética , Erros de Diagnóstico/legislação & jurisprudência , Imperícia/legislação & jurisprudência , Diagnóstico Ausente/ética , Diagnóstico Ausente/legislação & jurisprudência , Neoplasias/diagnóstico , Atenção Primária à Saúde/ética , Adulto , Currículo , Erros de Diagnóstico/estatística & dados numéricos , Educação Médica Continuada , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Imperícia/estatística & dados numéricos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Diagnóstico Ausente/estatística & dados numéricos , Atenção Primária à Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos
13.
Am J Health Syst Pharm ; 76(13): 970-979, 2019 Jun 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31361884

RESUMO

PURPOSE: To examine the extent to which outpatient clinicians currently document drug indications in prescription instructions. METHODS: Free-text sigs were extracted from all outpatient prescriptions generated by the computerized prescriber order entry system of a major academic institution during a 5-year period. Natural language processing was used to identify drug indications. The data set was analyzed to determine the rates at which prescribers included indications. It was stratified by provider specialty, drug class, and specific medications, to determine how often these indications were in prescriptions for as-needed (PRN) versus non-PRN medications. RESULTS: During the study period, 4,356,086 prescriptions were ordered. Indications were included in 322,961 orders (7.41%). From these orders, 249,262 indications (77.18%) were written for PRN orders. Although internal medicine prescribers generated the highest number of medication orders, they included indications in only 6.26% of their prescriptions, whereas orthopedic surgery providers had the highest rate of documenting indications (33.41%). Pain was the most common indication, accounting for 30.35% of all documented indications. The drug class with the highest number of sigs-containing indications was narcotic analgesics. Non-PRN chronic medication prescriptions rarely included the indication. CONCLUSION: Prescribers rarely included drug indications in electronic free-text prescription instructions, and, when they did, it was mostly for PRN uses such as pain.


Assuntos
Assistência Ambulatorial/estatística & dados numéricos , Prescrições de Medicamentos/estatística & dados numéricos , Sistemas de Registro de Ordens Médicas/estatística & dados numéricos , Assistência Ambulatorial/normas , Conjuntos de Dados como Assunto , Prescrições de Medicamentos/normas , Humanos , Sistemas de Registro de Ordens Médicas/normas , Erros de Medicação/prevenção & controle , Processamento de Linguagem Natural
15.
JAMA ; 321(18): 1780-1787, 2019 05 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31087021

RESUMO

Importance: Recommendations in the United States suggest limiting the number of patient records displayed in an electronic health record (EHR) to 1 at a time, although little evidence supports this recommendation. Objective: To assess the risk of wrong-patient orders in an EHR configuration limiting clinicians to 1 record vs allowing up to 4 records opened concurrently. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial included 3356 clinicians at a large health system in New York and was conducted from October 2015 to April 2017 in emergency department, inpatient, and outpatient settings. Interventions: Clinicians were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to an EHR configuration limiting to 1 patient record open at a time (restricted; n = 1669) or allowing up to 4 records open concurrently (unrestricted; n = 1687). Main Outcomes and Measures: The unit of analysis was the order session, a series of orders placed by a clinician for a single patient. The primary outcome was order sessions that included 1 or more wrong-patient orders identified by the Wrong-Patient Retract-and-Reorder measure (an electronic query that identifies orders placed for a patient, retracted, and then reordered shortly thereafter by the same clinician for a different patient). Results: Among the 3356 clinicians who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 43.1 [12.5] years; mean [SD] experience at study site, 6.5 [6.0] years; 1894 females [56.4%]), all provided order data and were included in the analysis. The study included 12 140 298 orders, in 4 486 631 order sessions, placed for 543 490 patients. There was no significant difference in wrong-patient order sessions per 100 000 in the restricted vs unrestricted group, respectively, overall (90.7 vs 88.0; odds ratio [OR], 1.03 [95% CI, 0.90-1.20]; P = .60) or in any setting (ED: 157.8 vs 161.3, OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.83-1.20], P = .96; inpatient: 185.6 vs 185.1, OR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.89-1.11]; P = .86; or outpatient: 7.9 vs 8.2, OR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.70-1.28], P = .71). The effect did not differ among settings (P for interaction = .99). In the unrestricted group overall, 66.2% of the order sessions were completed with 1 record open, including 34.5% of ED, 53.7% of inpatient, and 83.4% of outpatient order sessions. Conclusions and Relevance: A strategy that limited clinicians to 1 EHR patient record open compared with a strategy that allowed up to 4 records open concurrently did not reduce the proportion of wrong-patient order errors. However, clinicians in the unrestricted group placed most orders with a single record open, limiting the power of the study to determine whether reducing the number of records open when placing orders reduces the risk of wrong-patient order errors. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02876588.


Assuntos
Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde , Erros Médicos/estatística & dados numéricos , Centros Médicos Acadêmicos , Adulto , Prestação Integrada de Cuidados de Saúde , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Erros Médicos/prevenção & controle , Sistemas Computadorizados de Registros Médicos/organização & administração , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Comportamento Multitarefa , Near Miss/estatística & dados numéricos , Segurança do Paciente , Carga de Trabalho
16.
Am J Health Syst Pharm ; 76(8): 537-542, 2019 04 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30915453

RESUMO

PURPOSE: An ethnographic study of 3 pharmacy and therapeutics (P&T) committees was conducted to characterize the process by which evidence is weighted and decisions are made. METHODS: We recorded discussions and conducted an analysis of the transcripts from the 3 P&T committees for a 1-year period. We examined the content and ideas expressed during deliberations and synthesized themes to give a broader picture of the issues arising. Committee discussions were transcribed and the segments of each meeting that addressed any new formulary additions were then analyzed. Using constant comparison method, we generated a series of topic codes to characterize and classify that portion of the discussion. RESULTS: At 26 meetings across the 3 sites, 24 new drug formulary additions were discussed. A total of 1,093 discussion segments were identified and mapped to 7 broad categories related to discussion of evidence of need, efficacy/indications, safety, misuse potential, cost issues, committee decision-making issues, and discussion related to operationalizing use and implementation at the local institution. Overall, the leading category of discussion was efficacy/indications followed by evidence of need, operational issues, and cost issues, with some variation by site. The committees devoted substantially greater portions of their discussion to the logistics of using the drugs in their institutions than they did safety issues. We identified wide variations in specific drugs being considered and the relative amount of time devoted to various issues related to these drugs being discussed. We found discussions generally did not follow a systematic, standardized, rigorous, and reproducible approach. Discussions tended to be more idiosyncratic, individualized, varying from drug to drug, and at times devoted to a variety of tangential issues raised by committee members. CONCLUSION: P&T committee discussions at all 3 sites tended to be idiosyncratic and individualized, varying from drug to drug, and at times devoted to a variety of issues more tangentially raised by committee members. All spent less time talking about drug safety, in each case roughly half the time that they devoted to discussions of efficacy.


Assuntos
Tomada de Decisões , Formulários de Hospitais como Assunto , Comitê de Farmácia e Terapêutica/organização & administração , Antropologia Cultural , Humanos , Fatores de Tempo
17.
JAMA Netw Open ; 2(3): e191514, 2019 03 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30924903

RESUMO

Importance: The indication (reason for use) for a medication is rarely included on prescriptions despite repeated recommendations to do so. One barrier has been the way existing electronic prescribing systems have been designed. Objective: To evaluate, in comparison with the prescribing modules of 2 leading electronic health record prescribing systems, the efficiency, error rate, and satisfaction with a new computerized provider order entry prototype for the outpatient setting that allows clinicians to initiate prescribing using the indication. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study used usability tests requiring internal medicine physicians, residents, and physician assistants to enter prescriptions electronically, including indication, for 8 clinical scenarios. The tool order assignments were randomized and prescribers were asked to use the prototype for 4 of the scenarios and their usual system for the other 4. Time on task, number of clicks, and order details were captured. User satisfaction was measured using posttask ratings and a validated system usability scale. The study participants practiced in 2 health systems' outpatient practices. Usability tests were conducted between April and October of 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Usability (efficiency, error rate, and satisfaction) of indications-based computerized provider order entry prototype vs the electronic prescribing interface of 2 electronic health record vendors. Results: Thirty-two participants (17 attending physicians, 13 residents, and 2 physician assistants) used the prototype to complete 256 usability test scenarios. The mean (SD) time on task was 1.78 (1.17) minutes. For the 20 participants who used vendor 1's system, it took a mean (SD) of 3.37 (1.90) minutes to complete a prescription, and for the 12 participants using vendor 2's system, it took a mean (SD) of 2.93 (1.52) minutes. Across all scenarios, when comparing number of clicks, for those participants using the prototype and vendor 1, there was a statistically significant difference from the mean (SD) number of clicks needed (18.39 [12.62] vs 46.50 [27.29]; difference, 28.11; 95% CI, 21.47-34.75; P < .001). For those using the prototype and vendor 2, there was also a statistically significant difference in number of clicks (20.10 [11.52] vs 38.25 [19.77]; difference, 18.14; 95% CI, 11.59-24.70; P < .001). A blinded review of the order details revealed medication errors (eg, drug-allergy interactions) in 38 of 128 prescribing sessions using a vendor system vs 7 of 128 with the prototype. Conclusions and Relevance: Reengineering prescribing to start with the drug indication allowed indications to be captured in an easy and useful way, which may be associated with saved time and effort, reduced medication errors, and increased clinician satisfaction.


Assuntos
Prescrição Eletrônica , Modelos Teóricos , Melhoria de Qualidade , Assistência Ambulatorial , Pessoal de Saúde , Humanos , Sistemas de Registro de Ordens Médicas , Erros de Medicação/estatística & dados numéricos , Inovação Organizacional
18.
J Gen Intern Med ; 34(2): 285-292, 2019 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30291602

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Medication adverse events are important and common yet are often not identified by clinicians. We evaluated an automated telephone surveillance system coupled with transfer to a live pharmacist to screen potentially drug-related symptoms after newly starting medications for four common primary care conditions: hypertension, diabetes, depression, and insomnia. METHODS: Cluster randomized trial with automated calls to eligible patients at 1 and 4 months after starting target drugs from intervention primary care clinics compared to propensity-matched patients from control clinics. Primary and secondary outcomes were physician documentation of any adverse effects associated with newly prescribed target medication, and whether the medication was discontinued and, if yes, whether the reason for stopping was an adverse effect. RESULTS: Of 4876 eligible intervention clinic patients who were contacted using automated calls, 776 (15.1%) responded and participated in the automated call. Based on positive symptom responses or request to speak to a pharmacist, 320 patients were transferred to the pharmacist and discussed 1021 potentially drug-related symptoms. Of these, 188 (18.5%) were assessed as probably and 479 (47.1%) as possibly related to the medication. Compared to a propensity-matched cohort of control clinic patients, intervention patients were significantly more likely to have adverse effects documented in the medical record by a physician (277 vs. 164 adverse effects, p < 0.0001, and 177 vs. 122 patients discontinued with documented adverse effects, p < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: Systematic automated telephone outreach monitoring coupled with real-time phone referral to a pharmacist identified a substantial number of previously unidentified potentially drug-related symptoms, many of which were validated as probably or possibly related to the drug by the pharmacist or their physicians. Multiple challenges were encountered using the interactive voice response (IVR) automated calling system, suggesting that other approaches may need to be considered and evaluated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02087293.


Assuntos
Telefone Celular , Aconselhamento/métodos , Efeitos Colaterais e Reações Adversas Relacionados a Medicamentos/terapia , Programas de Rastreamento/métodos , Farmacêuticos , Papel Profissional , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Estudos de Coortes , Efeitos Colaterais e Reações Adversas Relacionados a Medicamentos/diagnóstico , Efeitos Colaterais e Reações Adversas Relacionados a Medicamentos/psicologia , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Programas de Rastreamento/psicologia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Farmacêuticos/psicologia , Papel Profissional/psicologia , Adulto Jovem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...