Errors of prescription, transcription and administration according to pharmacological group at hospital

Fundamentos: La mayoría de los estudios sobre errores de medicación se centran sólo en hallar prevalencias globales por pacientes, por fases del proceso o según un determinado grupo de fármacos, por lo que se da una visión parcial. El objetivo de este trabajo fue analizar y comparar la prevalencia de errores en prescripción, trascripción y administración y sus repercusiones clínicas en los principales grupos farmacológicos en un hospital de tercer nivel. Métodos: Estudio de inclusión prospectiva con observación directa disfrazada de la administración de medicamentos y comparación con prescripciones médicas y trascripciones presentes en la historia clínica. Los errores de medicación y sus efectos fueron clasificados por consenso de expertos. Se calcularon las diferentes tasas de errores y sus repercusiones con sus intervalos de confianza al 95% y se compararon utilizando la prueba de Chi cuadrado. Resultados: Se estudiaron 5578 fármacos prescritos, aunque se observó sólo la administración de 1879 dosis. Se encontraron un total de 117 grupos farmacológicos, donde el 50,1% (2795) de las prescripciones pertenecían sólo a 9 tipos. La prevalencia de errores de prescripción global fue de 4,79%, de trascripción de 14,61% y de administración 9,32%. Por grupos, las Heparinas tuvieron una menor prevalencia de errores en la fase de prescripción y en la de trascripción. Se obtuvo mayor número de errores en trascripción de los Analgésicos como el Paracetamol y el Metamizol y de los Laxantes, y una prevalencia de errores en administración superior al resto en Analgésicos como el Paracetamol y en los Inhibidores de la Bomba de Protones. Las repercusiones clínicas de los errores de medicación en la fase de prescripción fueron parecidas entre grupos farmacológicos. En trascripción Heparinas y Corticoides presentaron errores más graves, mientras que en la administración fueron los IECAS y las Estatinas (p<0,05). Conclusiones: Los fármacos considerados clásicamente como de alto riesgo presentaron menos errores (Heparinas, Corticoides), pero más graves. Los fármacos con mayor prevalencia de errores fueron los Analgésicos (Paracetamol) y los Inhibidores de la Bomba de Protones, pero tuvieron una menor repercusión clínica.Background: Most studies of medication errors are focused only on finding global prevalence by patients, by phases or according to a certain group of medication. It’s just a partial view of the problem. To analyze and compare the prevalence of errors in prescription, transcription and administration, and their clinical repercussions in different pharmacological groups in a third-level hospital. Methods: Prospective inclusion study with direct observation disguised as medication administration and comparison with prescriptions and transcriptions at history clinical. The ME and its clinical effects were classified by expert consensus. We calculated the different error rates and their repercussions with their confidence intervals at 95%. Then we compared using Chi-square tests. Results: We studied 5,578 prescribed drugs and we observed the administration of 1,879 doses. A total of 117 different pharmacological groups were found, although 50.1% of the prescriptions belonged to only 9 types. We found heparins had a lower prevalence of errors in prescription and transcription and aspirin also had a lower prevalence of prescription errors. On the opposite side, a greater number of errors were obtained in transcription of Paracetamol, Metamizole and Laxatives and a prevalence of errors in the administration phase superior to rest in Paracetamol and in Proton Pump Inhibitors. The impact of medication error increased as medication process progressed, being similar between groups in prescription. In transcription, Heparins and Corticosteroids presented more serious errors. In administration, medication error are more serious for Diuretics and Statins (p <0.05). Conclusions: Drugs considered potentially dangerous present fewer errors (Heparins, Corticoids), but more serious. Drugs with the highest prevalence of errors were Paracetamol and Inhibitors of proton pump but had a lower impact.Este estudio fue objeto de una beca FIS (Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria) con número PI051524, desarrollado durante 2 año

Remdesivir in Very Old Patients (≥80 Years) Hospitalized with COVID-19: Real World Data from the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry

Background: Large cohort studies of patients with COVID-19 treated with remdesivir have reported improved clinical outcomes, but data on older patients are scarce. Objective: This work aims to assess the potential benefit of remdesivir in unvaccinated very old patients hospitalized with COVID-19; (2) Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of patients >= 80 years hospitalized in Spain between 15 July and 31 December 2020 (SEMI-COVID-19 Registry). Differences in 30-day all-cause mortality were adjusted using a multivariable regression analysis. (3) Results: Of the 4331 patients admitted, 1312 (30.3%) were >= 80 years. Very old patients treated with remdesivir (n: 140, 10.7%) had a lower mortality rate than those not treated with remdesivir (OR (95% CI): 0.45 (0.29-0.69)). After multivariable adjustment by age, sex, and variables associated with lower mortality (place of COVID-19 acquisition; degree of dependence; comorbidities; dementia; duration of symptoms; admission qSOFA; chest X-ray; D-dimer; and treatment with corticosteroids, tocilizumab, beta-lactams, macrolides, and high-flow nasal canula oxygen), the use of remdesivir remained associated with a lower 30-day all-cause mortality rate (adjusted OR (95% CI): 0.40 (0.22-0.61) (p < 0.001)). (4) Conclusions: Remdesivir may reduce mortality in very old patients hospitalized with COVID-19

Healthcare workers hospitalized due to COVID-19 have no higher risk of death than general population. Data from the Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 Registry

Aim To determine whether healthcare workers (HCW) hospitalized in Spain due to COVID-19 have a worse prognosis than non-healthcare workers (NHCW). Methods Observational cohort study based on the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, a nationwide registry that collects sociodemographic, clinical, laboratory, and treatment data on patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in Spain. Patients aged 20-65 years were selected. A multivariate logistic regression model was performed to identify factors associated with mortality. Results As of 22 May 2020, 4393 patients were included, of whom 419 (9.5%) were HCW. Median (interquartile range) age of HCW was 52 (15) years and 62.4% were women. Prevalence of comorbidities and severe radiological findings upon admission were less frequent in HCW. There were no difference in need of respiratory support and admission to intensive care unit, but occurrence of sepsis and in-hospital mortality was lower in HCW (1.7% vs. 3.9%; p = 0.024 and 0.7% vs. 4.8%; p<0.001 respectively). Age, male sex and comorbidity, were independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality and healthcare working with lower mortality (OR 0.211, 95%CI 0.067-0.667, p = 0.008). 30-days survival was higher in HCW (0.968 vs. 0.851 p<0.001). Conclusions Hospitalized COVID-19 HCW had fewer comorbidities and a better prognosis than NHCW. Our results suggest that professional exposure to COVID-19 in HCW does not carry more clinical severity nor mortality

Severity Scores in COVID-19 Pneumonia: a Multicenter, Retrospective, Cohort Study.

Identification of patients on admission to hospital with coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia who can develop poor outcomes has not yet been comprehensively assessed. To compare severity scores used for community-acquired pneumonia to identify high-risk patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. PSI, CURB-65, qSOFA, and MuLBSTA, a new score for viral pneumonia, were calculated on admission to hospital to identify high-risk patients for in-hospital mortality, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), or use of mechanical ventilation. Area under receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC), sensitivity, and specificity for each score were determined and AUROC was compared among them. Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia included in the SEMI-COVID-19 Network. We examined 10,238 patients with COVID-19. Mean age of patients was 66.6 years and 57.9% were males. The most common comorbidities were as follows: hypertension (49.2%), diabetes (18.8%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (12.8%). Acute respiratory distress syndrome (34.7%) and acute kidney injury (13.9%) were the most common complications. In-hospital mortality was 20.9%. PSI and CURB-65 showed the highest AUROC (0.835 and 0.825, respectively). qSOFA and MuLBSTA had a lower AUROC (0.728 and 0.715, respectively). qSOFA was the most specific score (specificity 95.7%) albeit its sensitivity was only 26.2%. PSI had the highest sensitivity (84.1%) and a specificity of 72.2%. PSI and CURB-65, specific severity scores for pneumonia, were better than qSOFA and MuLBSTA at predicting mortality in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Additionally, qSOFA, the simplest score to perform, was the most specific albeit the least sensitive

Demographic, clinical, and functional determinants of antithrombotic treatment in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation

Altres ajuts: Alliance Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer.Background: This study assessed the sociodemographic, functional, and clinical determinants of antithrombotic treatment in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) attended in the internal medicine setting. Methods: A multicenter, cross-sectional study was conducted in NVAF patients who attended internal medicine departments for either a routine visit (outpatients) or hospitalization (inpatients). Results: A total of 961 patients were evaluated. Their antithrombotic management included: no treatment (4.7%), vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) (59.6%), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) (21.6%), antiplatelets (6.6%), and antiplatelets plus anticoagulants (7.5%). Permanent NVAF and congestive heart failure were associated with preferential use of oral anticoagulation over antiplatelets, while intermediate-to high-mortality risk according to the PROFUND index was associated with a higher likelihood of using antiplatelet therapy instead of oral anticoagulation. Longer disease duration and institutionalization were identified as determinants of VKA use over DOACs. Female gender, higher education, and having suffered a stroke determined a preferential use of DOACs. Conclusions: This real-world study showed that most elderly NVAF patients received oral anticoagulation, mainly VKAs, while DOACs remained underused. Antiplatelets were still offered to a proportion of patients. Longer duration of NVAF and institutionalization were identified as determinants of VKA use over DOACs. A poor prognosis according to the PROFUND index was identified as a factor preventing the use of oral anticoagulation