Delay in the Provision of Medication by a Pharmacy Outside the Respiratory Outpatient Department.

Respiratory medicine physicians prescribe many different kinds of medications depending on patient's condition. To examine an outside pharmacy's ability to meet the demand of our respiratory prescription services, we developed a questionnaire for all the patients who came to our outpatient department from November 1, 2015 to January 31, 2016. A total of 298 of 330 patients answered the questionnaire. Overall, 169 patients mainly went to the pharmacy near our hospital, whereas 64 patients mainly went to another pharmacy. Specifically, 23 of 219 patients who answered the question "When you went to the pharmacy with prescription, have you ever been not immediately given medication?", were not immediately given medication by the pharmacy. The results show that the other pharmacy significantly delayed medication compared with the one near our hospital. Interestingly, there were many types of inhaler cases that were out of stock in both pharmacies. Also, we found that 9 of 11 patients who were not provided medication on the spot acquired the medication within 1 or 2 d. Further, 10 of 20 patients who were not provided medication on the spot were only able to obtain the medication once. We did not observe any changes in patients' physical condition due to the delay in medication.

Indicators for childhood asthma in Spain, using the Rand method

OBJECTIVE: To develop quality indicators to measure asthma care in primary health care. METHOD: A modified RAND was used, which included the systematic review of the literature in Embase, Cochrane and Pubmed Quality Agencies and Database. The work group identified the indicators, translated them into Spanish and resolved any duplicates. Each indicator is composed of several dimensions (access to care, clinical effectiveness, patient-centred quality and patient safety). A multidisciplinary panel of 98 professionals from all over Spain were invited to score each indicator using a Likert scale. After calculating the average and median of each indicator, this information was sent to those who responded (n = 38) for a second round and further scoring. The agreement percentage for the group was obtained for each indicator. RESULTS: Of the 105 asthma indicators reviewed, we selected 46 that were presented to the panel of experts. In both Delphi phases, 37.1% of the members of the initial panel of experts responded. Of these, 26 were primary care paediatricians, six were pulmonologists, three were nurses, two were pharmacists and one was an allergist. For 32 indicators, agreement exceeded 70% and seven of those scored highest for the various care aspects for asthmatic children. CONCLUSION: Quality indicators are presented for the follow-up of asthma and their implementation in primary care, which have undergone a strict selection and agreement process by a multidisciplinary work group

No disponible

Methacholine challenge test by wheezing and oxygen saturation in preschool children with asthma

Methacholine challenge test (MCT) performed with spirometry is a commonly used test to evaluate bronchial hyperreactivity (BHR) in children. However, preschoolers do not usually collaborate. OBJECTIVES: To assess the usefulness of MCT through clinical evaluation (wheezing auscultation and decreased pulse arterial oxygen saturation [SpO2]) in recurrent wheezing preschoolers with asthma, in comparison to healthy controls. METHODS: We performed the MCT (modified Cockroft method) on healthy and on asthmatic preschoolers. The end point was determined by the presence of wheezing in the chest and/or tracheal auscultation (PCw) and/or a decrease in SpO2 of ≥5 from the baseline value (PCSpO2). Maximal methacholine concentration was 8 mg/ml. RESULTS: The study population comprised 65 children: 32 healthy and 33 asthmatic children. There were no differences in demographic characteristics between the groups. The median methacholine doses for PCw and for PCSpO2 were significantly lower among asthmatic than healthy children: 0.5 mg/ml (0.25-0.5 mg/ml) vs. 2 mg/ml (1-4 mg/ml), respectively, p < 0.001; and 0.25 mg/ml (0.25-0.5 mg/ml) and 2 mg/ml (0.5-4 mg/ml), respectively, p < 0.001. The best cut-off point of PCw was observed at a methacholine concentration of 0.5 mg/ml (AUC = 0.72 [95% CI = 0.66-0.77]), its sensitivity was 91%, specificity 43%, PPV 16% and NPV 98%. For PCSpO2 the best cut-off point was a methacholine concentration of 1 mg/ml (AUC = 0.85 [95% CI 0.81-0.89]), with sensitivity of 80%, specificity 74%, PPV 49%, and NPV 92%. There were no adverse reactions. CONCLUSION: MCT using clinical parameters such as wheezing auscultation and SpO2 measurement could be a useful and safe test to confirm BHR among preschoolers

No disponible

Prescription of inhalers in asthma and COPD: towards a rational, rapid and effective approach.

Inhaled medication is the cornerstone of the pharmacological treatment of patients with asthma and COPD. The major two classes of inhaled medication include corticosteroids (ICS) and bronchodilators. There is a wide diversity in molecules in both classes. Moreover, there is a wide variation in delivery systems. The correct use of inhalers is not granted and patients often incur in many mistakes when using pMDIs and DPIs, despite repeated instructions. A better matching between patient and device could be accomplished if the physician is aware of: (1) the patient characteristics (disease, severity, fluctuation in airflow obstruction, etc); (2) what class of medication is indicated; (3) where in the lung the medication should be delivered; and, (4) how this can be best achieved by a given device in this specific patient. We focus on the prescription of pMDIs and DPIs at the GP office or at the outpatient clinic of the hospital, and we propose an evidence based approach enabling the caregiver to make a rational choice in only a few minutes by just considering the following four simple questions: Who?, What? Where? and How? (the so-called 3W-H approach).

Retail sales of inhalation devices in European countries: so much for a global policy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the retail sales of pressurised metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs), dry-powder inhalers (DPIs) and liquids for nebulisation in 16 European countries. METHODS: Retail sales data relating to pMDIs, DPIs and liquids for nebulisation delivering short- and long-acting bronchodilators, corticosteroids and combinations between 2002 and 2008 were obtained from the IMS sales database. The IMS database ensured that wholesalers' stock sales accurately matched that of retail pharmacies and included purchases by panel pharmacies directly from pharmaceutical manufacturers, specialist wholesalers and distribution cooperatives. RESULTS: Mean inhaler retail sales (expressed as percentages of total sales) were 47.5% for pMDIs, 39.5% for DPIs and 13% for nebulisers. The distribution of inhaler sales differed significantly between the countries with pMDI sales greatest in the United Kingdom and Hungary compared to other countries, where DPI sales prevailed. Sales of nebulisation liquids were high in Italy. The pMDI was the most frequently prescribed inhaler for bronchodilators. In contrast, retail sales of DPIs were similar to those of pMDIs for inhaled corticosteroids, and higher in the case of inhalers with combined long-acting ß(2)-agonist and corticosteroid. CONCLUSION: We found a high degree of variability in inhaler prescription between European countries. Differing health policies, costs, health insurance issues, pharmaceutical/commercial aspects and prescribers' and patients' preferences may explain this variation. We suggest a need for more uniform, outcome-led inhaler prescribing practice across Europe to improve the efficacy and cost effectiveness of the treatment of obstructive airways diseases.

Guidelines for better harm reduction: evaluating implementation of best practice recommendations for needle and syringe programs (NSPs).

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate needle and syringe program (NSP) policies and procedures before and after the dissemination of a set of best practice recommendations. METHODS: An on-line survey of 32 core NSP managers (100% response rate) and 62 satellite NSP managers (63% response rate). The survey included items about the distribution of needles/syringes, other injection-related equipment and inhalation equipment, and use of a best practice recommendations document. RESULTS: The majority of NSPs reported following needle and syringe best practice recommendations. Most core NSPs (88%, n=28) and satellite NSPs (84%, n=52) distributed cookers following the dissemination of the document. All core NSPs (100%, n=32) and nearly all satellite NSPs (97%, n=60) distributed sterile water ampoules in 2008, many more than in 2006. Although more NSPs distributed safer inhalation equipment in 2008, the majority did not distribute these items. More satellite NSPs (44%, n=27) distributed glass stems than the core NSPs (16%, n=5). Commonly cited implementation barriers included funding, senior management and decision-making. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that NSPs will implement empirically based best practice recommendations and welcome such guidance. The managers we surveyed not only reported increased implementation of practices that have been empirically shown to help reduce disease transmission among injection drug users (IDUs), they also used the best practices document for additional purposes, such as planning and advocacy, and expressed interest in having sets of recommendations developed for other areas of harm reduction. Ensuring high-quality and consistent NSP services is essential to prevent transmission of HIV among people who inject drugs and others in the community. Best practice recommendations can assist in achieving these goals.

Assessment of key influences on asthma inhaler device selection.

AIM: To identify factors that influenced trained asthma practice nurses' inhaler device selection and the relative importance they placed on these factors in clinical practice. METHOD: Questionnaires were sent to 1,500 randomly selected, trained asthma nurses working in primary care. A second, open-ended questionnaire was sent to 300 of these nurses. RESULTS: The response rate was 38% (573) for the first questionnaire and 21% (64) for the second questionnaire. Patient-related factors had the greatest influence on device selection. Other important factors were ease of inhaler use, the patient's lifestyle and inspiratory flow. Less important considerations were device availability, the size, shape and colour of the inhaler and recommendations from others. CONCLUSION: Many factors influence device selection. Nurses considered some of the factors identified as important when selecting a device, but not others. Nurses should be aware of potential influences on device selection and should consider their professional accountability in all patient interactions.

A propósito de la técnica inhalatoria en asmáticos / Concerning the inhaling technique of asthmatics

No disponible

No disponible

Valoración del manejo de los inhaladores por el personal de enfermería en un hospital de referencia / Evaluation of the managemente of inhalers by the nursing personner in a reference hospital

Objetivo: valorar los conocimientos y adiestramiento del personal de enfermería con el paciente respiratorio en el manejo de la terapia inhalada en distintas salas de hospitalización.Material y métodos: se diseñó un estudio prospectivo con 144 enfermos/as mediante una encuesta individual en la que se solicitó a cada unode ellos una demostración práctica del manejo del cartucho presurizado con cámara inhalatoria, sin realizar una instrucción teórica previa sobrela técnica. Se revisó la técnica inhalatoria siguiendo los pasos establecidos en la normativa SEPAR.Resultados: participaron 144 de los 177 enfermeros/as (81,4%) que trabajan en las diferentes salas de hospitalización (29 varones, 115 mujeres,edad media 42,5 + 7 años). El 85,4% (123/144) reconocía tener conocimientos previos del manejo de los inhaladores. Tras la demostración práctica se comprobó que el 70,8% de los enfermeros realizaban incorrectamente algún paso de la maniobra inhalatoria; de ellos el 24,5% cometió un sólo error y el resto dos o más. Los errores más frecuentes fueron: no efectuar una espiración lenta y profunda antes de iniciar la inhalación (27,3%), no aguantar la respiración durante 10 segundos (24,4%), y no esperar 30 segundos antes de iniciar la siguiente inhalación (21,5%). Analizando estos resultados por salas de hospitalización, el 44,4% de la Unidad de Corta Estancia efectuaba correctamente la técnica frente al 31,3% en Neumología. Conclusiones: el porcentaje de errores en la técnica de inhalación es elevado por parte del personal de enfermería. Es importante que el personal sanitario posea un grado de conocimientos adecuado para poder instruir adecuadamente al paciente, ya que de ello depende en gran medida la eficacia del tratamiento

Objectives: To evaluate the knowledge and skills of nurses on the management of inhaled therapy in different hospitalization wards. Material and methods: We carried out a cross-sectional study, in which nurses were asked to perform a practical demonstration of the management of a pressurized canister with an inhalation chamber, without previous theoretical instruction about the technique. The inhalation technique was evaluated step by step following the recommendations of the Spanish Society of Pneumologists and Chest Surgeons (SEPAR). Results: We could obtain the participation of 144 of the 177 nurses working in different wards (29 males, 115 females, mean age 42.5 + 7 years). Previous knowledge of the management of inhalers was declared by 85.4%. We found that 70.8% of the nurses did not correctly perform all the steps: 24.5% made only one mistake, while the rest had mistakes in two or more steps. The most common mistakes were: not to perform a slow and deep exhalation before using the inhaler (27.3%), not to hold the breath after the inhalation (24.4%), and not to wait 30 seconds between inhalation manoeuvres (21.5%). When evaluating different wards, we found that 44.4% of the nurses in the Short Stay Unit performed the technique correctly in contrast to 31.3% of the nurses in the Pneumology Ward. Conclusions: The percentage of mistakes in the inhalation technique by the nursing personnel was high. The health personnel must have an adequate level of training in order to correctly instruct the patient, because the efficacy of inhaled treatment greatly depends on the adequacy of the technique

Availability and consumption status of CFC and non-CFC inhalers for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases in Thailand.

In response to the Montreal Protocol and the calls for global early-bird CFC phase-out before 2010, the demand and supply status of both CFC and non-CFC inhalers for prevention and treatment of asthma and COPD in Thailand were evaluated to determine how soon the country would be able to discontinue CFC MDIs with least impacts to both consumers and importers. Availability and supply of the inhalers were collected from registration and importation database of the Thai FDA. Demand and product cost were obtained from the local importers and from IMS, Thailand. Available inhaled products comprise of 39% CFC MDIs, 28% DPIs, 20% solutions for nebulizers and 13% HFA MDls, respectively. All 31 brands of portable hand-held inhalers, comprising 16 CFC MDIs, 6 HFA MDIs and 9 DPIs, are imported, only solutions for nebulization are locally manufactured. Salbutamol is mostly prescribed MDI, its consumption is over 50% of all. The transition to non-CFC alternatives (HFA MDIs and DPIs) has become evidence since 2000. After being informed about the demand and supply of the inhalers, in 2005, Thai FDA has announced its CFC phase-out policy and encouraged importation of HFA alternatives by facilitating the registration and approval process. When the most prescribing CFC MDls, salbutamol, is completely replaced with non-CFC form in 2006, Thailand would be able to reduce considerable amount of CFCs into our atmosphere.

Neighborhood racial composition and availability of asthma drugs in retail pharmacies.

This study investigated whether there may be differences in the availability of asthma drugs and equipment in retail pharmacies in nonwhite and white neighborhoods in the District of Columbia. We conducted a telephone survey of a random sample of 38 retail pharmacies in predominately black or white neighborhoods. No differences in the reported availability of asthma drugs and equipment by neighborhood were found, although there was variability in availability of certain asthma drugs and limited availability of asthma equipment. Low demand was the most frequent reason cited by pharmacists regarding why asthma drugs or equipment were not in stock.