Skin prick testing in patients using beta-blockers: a retrospective analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Rationale</p> <p>The use of beta-blockers is a relative contraindication in allergen skin testing yet there is a paucity of literature on adverse events in this circumstance. We examined a population of skin tested patients on beta-blockers to look for any adverse effects.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Charts from 2004-2008 in a single allergy clinic were reviewed for any patients taking a beta-blocker when skin tested. Data was examined for skin test reactivity, type of skin test, concomitant asthma diagnosis, allergens tested, and adverse events.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>One hundred and ninety-one patients were taking beta-blockers when skin testing occurred. Seventy-two patients had positive skin tests. No tests resulted in an adverse event.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This data demonstrates the relative safety of administrating of skin prick tests to patients on beta-blocker treatment. Larger prospective studies are needed to substantiate the findings of this study.</p

Assessment of ePrescription quality: an observational study at three mail-order pharmacies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The introduction of electronic transfer of prescriptions (ETP) or ePrescriptions in ambulatory health care has been suggested to have a positive impact on the prescribing and dispensing processes. Thereby, implying that ePrescribing can improve safety, quality, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. In December 2007, 68% of all new prescriptions were transferred electronically in Sweden. The aim of the present study was to assess the quality of ePrescriptions by comparing the proportions of ePrescriptions and non-electronic prescriptions necessitating a clarification contact (correction, completion or change) with the prescriber at the time of dispensing.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A direct observational study was performed at three Swedish mail-order pharmacies which were known to dispense a large proportion of ePrescriptions (38–75%). Data were gathered on all ePrescriptions dispensed at these pharmacies over a three week period in February 2006. All clarification contacts with prescribers were included in the study and were classified and assessed in comparison with all drug prescriptions dispensed at the same pharmacies over the specified period.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 31225 prescriptions dispensed during the study period, clarification contacts were made for 2.0% (147/7532) of new ePrescriptions and 1.2% (79/6833) of new non-electronic prescriptions. This represented a relative risk (RR) of 1.7 (95% CI 1.3–2.2) for new ePrescriptions compared to new non-electronic prescriptions. The increased RR was mainly due to 'Dosage and directions for use', which had an RR of 7.6 (95% CI 2.8–20.4) when compared to other clarification contacts. In all, 89.5% of the suggested pharmacist interventions were accepted by the prescriber, 77.7% (192/247) as suggested and an additional 11.7% (29/247) after a modification during contact with the prescriber.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The increased proportion of prescriptions necessitating a clarification contact for new ePrescriptions compared to new non-electronic prescriptions indicates the need for an increased focus on quality aspects in ePrescribing deployment. ETP technology should be developed towards a two-way communication between the prescriber and the pharmacist with automated checks of missing, inaccurate, or ambiguous information. This would enhance safety and quality for the patient and also improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness within the health care system.</p

Adverse drug reaction reporting by nurses in Sweden

Aim To investigate whether nurses could be a useful tool for improving the reporting rate of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Furthermore, we wanted to study how physicians working at the study departments would respond to nurses as reporters of ADRs and if the reporting from the nurses affected the reporting rate from the physicians. Methods Three departments of internal medicine and one unit for orthopaedics were selected for the study. Nurses with special drug responsibilities were invited to participate. At the start of the study period, the nurses received an introduction with background, objective, method and other practical issues concerning the study. After this, an education programme about ADR reporting, definitions, and ADR classification according to mechanism and organ system was given. To study their knowledge about and attitude towards ADRs, a questionnaire was handed out to the nurses. A questionnaire was also handed out to all physicians at the participating departments in order to investigate their attitude towards nurses as reporters of ADRs. Results Fifty-four nurses participated in the study. During the study period, a total number of 23 reports with 39 ADRs were sent to the regional centres by the nurses. Seventeen (74%) of the reports were assessed as serious. Eight of the 39 ADRs were unlabelled and all reports were considered appropriate. The reporting rate from the physicians during the study period was similar to the previous year, indicating that the nurses contributed with additional reports. At the end of the study, the nurses thought that they had enough knowledge to report ADRs. Sixty-eight percent of the physicians did not object to nurses being included as reporters of suspected ADRs. Conclusion Adverse drug reaction reporting by nurses could improve the overall safety of drugs