Inappropriate prescribing in hospitalized elderly patients

Inappropriate prescribing (IP) is a major healthcare problem in elderly patients. The risk of this problem increases during hospitalization. This is due to increase morbidity and thus increases the use of medications by the inpatients. This study will clarify the problem of IP for elderly people during hospitalization and will identify the different types of it. It also will highlight some tools that are used to assess the different types of IP and the prevalence of it in elderly patients during hospitalization. Finally, the study will address the consequences of IP in the elderly inpatients and the risks associated with the use of some potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in the elderly.

Evaluation of inappropriate prescribing to the hospitalized elderly patients in Al Shifa hospital, Gaza, Palestine

Background: The current study aimed to assess the prevalence of inappropriate prescribing (IP) for hospitalized elderly patients at Al Shifa Hospital, Gaza, Palestine.Methods: This study was a retrospective cross-sectional study. A total of 2385 prescribed drugs for 380 elderly inpatients in internal, cardiology, and respiratory departments were screened for IP. Four criteria were used to detect IP using chart review method; Drug-drug interactions (DDIs), drug contra-indications (CI), duplication of therapy and Beers' criteria 2012.Results: The results showed that 44.2% of patients had at least one IP. Around 33.2% of the patients had DDIs, 19.2% had IP according to Beers' criteria and 1.1% had drug CI. There was no duplication of therapy. A total of 323 IP instances were detected. Of them, 74% for DDIs and 24.8% for Beers' criteria. The prevalence of overall IP was significantly influenced by age (p-value=0.024), polypharmacy (p-value<0.001), degree of morbidity (p-value<0.001), and departments (p-value=0.018). The prevalence of DDIs was influenced by polypharmacy (p-value<0.001), degree of morbidity (p-value=0.001), and departments (p-value=0.005). Finally, the prevalence of IP according to Beers' criteria was significantly influenced by departments with the highest in the cardiology department (29.7%) (P-value=0.007).Conclusions: Although the overall IP was common, it was not far higher than that reported worldwide. The majority of IP was DDIs. Age, polypharmacy, degree of morbidity and departments influenced the occurrence of IP

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Evaluation of inappropriate prescribing to the hospitalized elderly patients in Al Shifa hospital, Gaza, Palestine

Background: The current study aimed to assess the prevalence of inappropriate prescribing (IP) for hospitalized elderly patients at Al Shifa Hospital, Gaza, Palestine.Methods: This study was a retrospective cross-sectional study. A total of 2385 prescribed drugs for 380 elderly inpatients in internal, cardiology, and respiratory departments were screened for IP. Four criteria were used to detect IP using chart review method; Drug-drug interactions (DDIs), drug contra-indications (CI), duplication of therapy and Beers' criteria 2012.Results: The results showed that 44.2% of patients had at least one IP. Around 33.2% of the patients had DDIs, 19.2% had IP according to Beers' criteria and 1.1% had drug CI. There was no duplication of therapy. A total of 323 IP instances were detected. Of them, 74% for DDIs and 24.8% for Beers' criteria. The prevalence of overall IP was significantly influenced by age (p-value=0.024), polypharmacy (p-value&lt;0.001), degree of morbidity (p-value&lt;0.001), and departments (p-value=0.018). The prevalence of DDIs was influenced by polypharmacy (p-value&lt;0.001), degree of morbidity (p-value=0.001), and departments (p-value=0.005). Finally, the prevalence of IP according to Beers' criteria was significantly influenced by departments with the highest in the cardiology department (29.7%) (P-value=0.007).Conclusions: Although the overall IP was common, it was not far higher than that reported worldwide. The majority of IP was DDIs. Age, polypharmacy, degree of morbidity and departments influenced the occurrence of IP

Effects of pre-operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery: an international prospective cohort study an international prospective cohort study

We aimed to determine the impact of pre-operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery during the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We performed an international prospective cohort study including patients undergoing elective surgery in October 2020. Isolation was defined as the period before surgery during which patients did not leave their house or receive visitors from outside their household. The primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications, adjusted in multivariable models for measured confounders. Pre-defined sub-group analyses were performed for the primary outcome. A total of 96,454 patients from 114 countries were included and overall, 26,948 (27.9%) patients isolated before surgery. Postoperative pulmonary complications were recorded in 1947 (2.0%) patients of which 227 (11.7%) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients who isolated pre-operatively were older, had more respiratory comorbidities and were more commonly from areas of high SARS-CoV-2 incidence and high-income countries. Although the overall rates of postoperative pulmonary complications were similar in those that isolated and those that did not (2.1% vs 2.0%, respectively), isolation was associated with higher rates of postoperative pulmonary complications after adjustment (adjusted OR 1.20, 95%CI 1.05–1.36, p = 0.005). Sensitivity analyses revealed no further differences when patients were categorised by: pre-operative testing; use of COVID-19-free pathways; or community SARS-CoV-2 prevalence. The rate of postoperative pulmonary complications increased with periods of isolation longer than 3 days, with an OR (95%CI) at 4–7 days or ≥ 8 days of 1.25 (1.04–1.48), p = 0.015 and 1.31 (1.11–1.55), p = 0.001, respectively. Isolation before elective surgery might be associated with a small but clinically important increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. Longer periods of isolation showed no reduction in the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. These findings have significant implications for global provision of elective surgical care. We aimed to determine the impact of pre-operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery during the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We performed an international prospective cohort study including patients undergoing elective surgery in October 2020. Isolation was defined as the period before surgery during which patients did not leave their house or receive visitors from outside their household. The primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications, adjusted in multivariable models for measured confounders. Pre-defined sub-group analyses were performed for the primary outcome. A total of 96,454 patients from 114 countries were included and overall, 26,948 (27.9%) patients isolated before surgery. Postoperative pulmonary complications were recorded in 1947 (2.0%) patients of which 227 (11.7%) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients who isolated pre-operatively were older, had more respiratory comorbidities and were more commonly from areas of high SARS-CoV-2 incidence and high-income countries. Although the overall rates of postoperative pulmonary complications were similar in those that isolated and those that did not (2.1% vs 2.0%, respectively), isolation was associated with higher rates of postoperative pulmonary complications after adjustment (adjusted OR 1.20, 95%CI 1.05–1.36, p = 0.005). Sensitivity analyses revealed no further differences when patients were categorised by: pre-operative testing; use of COVID-19-free pathways; or community SARS-CoV-2 prevalence. The rate of postoperative pulmonary complications increased with periods of isolation longer than 3 days, with an OR (95%CI) at 4–7 days or ≥ 8 days of 1.25 (1.04–1.48), p = 0.015 and 1.31 (1.11–1.55), p = 0.001, respectively. Isolation before elective surgery might be associated with a small but clinically important increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. Longer periods of isolation showed no reduction in the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. These findings have significant implications for global provision of elective surgical care

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline