Medication decision-making for patients with renal insufficiency in inpatient and outpatient care at a US Veterans Affairs Medical Centre: a qualitative, cognitive task analysis.

BackgroundMany studies identify factors that contribute to renal prescribing errors, but few examine how healthcare professionals (HCPs) detect and recover from an error or potential patient safety concern. Knowledge of this information could inform advanced error detection systems and decision support tools that help prevent prescribing errors.ObjectiveTo examine the cognitive strategies that HCPs used to recognise and manage medication-related problems for patients with renal insufficiency.DesignHCPs submitted documentation about medication-related incidents. We then conducted cognitive task analysis interviews. Qualitative data were analysed inductively.SettingInpatient and outpatient facilities at a major US Veterans Affairs Medical Centre.ParticipantsPhysicians, nurses and pharmacists who took action to prevent or resolve a renal-drug problem in patients with renal insufficiency.OutcomesEmergent themes from interviews, as related to recognition of renal-drug problems and decision-making processes.ResultsWe interviewed 20 HCPs. Results yielded a descriptive model of the decision-making process, comprised of three main stages: detect, gather information and act. These stages often followed a cyclical path due largely to the gradual decline of patients' renal function. Most HCPs relied on being vigilant to detect patients' renal-drug problems rather than relying on systems to detect unanticipated cues. At each stage, HCPs relied on different cognitive cues depending on medication type: for renally eliminated medications, HCPs focused on gathering renal dosing guidelines, while for nephrotoxic medications, HCPs investigated the need for particular medication therapy, and if warranted, safer alternatives.ConclusionsOur model is useful for trainees so they can gain familiarity with managing renal-drug problems. Based on findings, improvements are warranted for three aspects of healthcare systems: (1) supporting the cyclical nature of renal-drug problem management via longitudinal tracking mechanisms, (2) providing tools to alleviate HCPs' heavy reliance on vigilance and (3) supporting HCPs' different decision-making needs for renally eliminated versus nephrotoxic medications

Financial Incentives and Maternal Health: Where Do We Go from Here?

Health financing strategies that incorporate financial incentives are being applied in many low- and middle-income countries, and improving maternal and neonatal health is often a central goal. As yet, there have been few reviews of such programmes and their impact on maternal health. The US Government Evidence Summit on Enhancing Provision and use of Maternal Health Services through Financial Incentives was convened on 24-25 April 2012 to address this gap. This article, the final in a series assessing the effects of financial incentives\u2014performance-based incentives (PBIs), insurance, user fee exemption programmes, conditional cash transfers, and vouchers\u2014summarizes the evidence and discusses issues of context, programme design and implementation, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability. We suggest key areas to consider when designing and implementing financial incentive programmes for enhancing maternal health and highlight gaps in evidence that could benefit from additional research. Although the methodological rigor of studies varies, the evidence, overall, suggests that financial incentives can enhance demand for and improve the supply of maternal health services. Definitive evidence demonstrating a link between incentives and improved health outcomes is lacking; however, the evidence suggests that financial incentives can increase the quantity and quality of maternal health services and address health systems and financial barriers that prevent women from accessing and providers from delivering quality, lifesaving maternal healthcare

SDOCT Imaging to Identify Macular Pathology in Patients Diagnosed with Diabetic Maculopathy by a Digital Photographic Retinal Screening Programme

INTRODUCTION: Diabetic macular edema (DME) is an important cause of vision loss. England has a national systematic photographic retinal screening programme to identify patients with diabetic eye disease. Grading retinal photographs according to this national protocol identifies surrogate markers for DME. We audited a care pathway using a spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SDOCT) clinic to identify macular pathology in this subset of patients. METHODS: A prospective audit was performed of patients referred from screening with mild to moderate non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (R1) and surrogate markers for diabetic macular edema (M1) attending an SDOCT clinic. The SDOCT images were graded by an ophthalmologist as SDOCT positive, borderline or negative. SDOCT positive patients were referred to the medical retina clinic. SDOCT negative and borderline patients were further reviewed in the SDOCT clinic in 6 months. RESULTS: From a registered screening population of 17 551 patients with diabetes mellitus, 311 patients met the inclusion criteria between (March 2008 and September 2009). We analyzed images from 311 patients' SDOCT clinic episodes. There were 131 SDOCT negative and 12 borderline patients booked for revisit in the OCT clinic. Twenty-four were referred back to photographic screening for a variety of reasons. A total of 144 were referred to ophthalmology with OCT evidence of definite macular pathology requiring review by an ophthalmologist. DISCUSSION: This analysis shows that patients with diabetes, mild to moderate non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (R1) and evidence of diabetic maculopathy on non-stereoscopic retinal photographs (M1) have a 42.1% chance of having no macular edema on SDOCT imaging as defined by standard OCT definitions of DME when graded by a retinal specialist. SDOCT imaging is a useful adjunct to colour fundus photography in screening for referable diabetic maculopathy in our screening population

Financial incentives and maternal health: Where do we go from here?

Health financing strategies that incorporate financial incentives are being applied in many low- and middle-income countries, and improving maternal and neonatal health is often a central goal. As yet, there have been few reviews of such programmes and their impact on maternal health. The US Government Evidence Summit on Enhancing Provision and use of Maternal Health Services through Financial Incentives was convened on 24–25 April 2012 to address this gap. This article, the final in a series assessing the effects of financial incentives—performance-based incentives (PBIs), insurance, user fee exemption programmes, conditional cash transfers, and vouchers—summarizes the evidence and discusses issues of context, programme design and implementation, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability. We suggest key areas to consider when designing and implementing financial incentive programmes for enhancing maternal health and highlight gaps in evidence that could benefit from additional research. Although the methodological rigor of studies varies, the evidence, overall, suggests that financial incentives can enhance demand for and improve the supply of maternal health services. Definitive evidence demonstrating a link between incentives and improved health outcomes is lacking; however, the evidence suggests that financial incentives can increase the quantity and quality of maternal health services and address health systems and financial barriers that prevent women from accessing and providers from delivering quality, lifesaving maternal healthcare