47 research outputs found

    Venous thromboembolism in critically ill COVID-19 patients receiving prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Get PDF
    Many aspects of care such as management of hypercoagulable state in COVID-19 patients, especially those admitted to intensive care units is challenging in the rapidly evolving pandemic of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We seek to systematically review the available evidence regarding the anticoagulation approach to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) among COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units. Electronic databases were searched for studies reporting venous thromboembolic events in patients admitted to the intensive care unit receiving any type of anticoagulation (prophylactic or therapeutic). The pooled prevalence (and 95% confidence interval [CI]) of VTE among patients receiving anticoagulant were calculated using the random-effects model. Subgroup pooled analyses were performed with studies reported prophylactic anticoagulation alone and with studies reported mixed prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation. We included twelve studies (8 Europe; 2 UK; 1 each from the US and China) in our systematic review and meta-analysis. All studies utilized LMWH or unfractionated heparin as their pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, either prophylactic doses or therapeutic doses. Seven studies reported on the proportion of patients with the previous history of VTE (range 0–10%). The pooled prevalence of VTE among ICU patients receiving prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation across all studies was 31% (95% CI 20–43%). Subgroup pooled analysis limited to studies reported prophylactic anticoagulation alone and mixed (therapeutic and prophylactic anticoagulation) reported pooled prevalences of VTE of 38% (95% CI 10–70%) and 27% (95% CI 17–40%) respectively. With a high prevalence of thromboprophylaxis failure among COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units, individualised rather than protocolised VTE thromboprophylaxis would appear prudent at interim

    Prophylactic Cefazolin Dosing and Surgical Site Infections: Does the Dose Matter in Obese Patients?

    Get PDF
    Background Most surgical prophylaxis guidelines recommend a 3-g cefazolin intravenous dose in patients weighing ≥ 120 kg. However, this recommendation is primarily based on pharmacokinetic studies rather than robust clinical evidence. This study aimed to compare the prevalence of surgical site infections (SSIs) in obese and non-obese patients (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2 and < 30 kg/m2), and those weighing ≥ 120 kg and < 120 kg, who received 2- g cefazolin preoperatively. Methods A retrospective case-control study was conducted in adult elective surgical patients. Patients receiving 2- g cefazolin were grouped as obese and non-obese, and by weight (≥ 120 kg or < 120 kg). The 90-day prevalence of SSI and potential contributing factors were investigated. Results We identified 152 obese (median 134 kg) and 152 non-obese control (median 73 kg) patients. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except for an increased prevalence in the obese group of diabetes (35.5% vs 13.2%; p < 0.001) and an American Society of Anaesthesiologists Score of 3 (61.8% vs 17.1%; p < 0.001). While not statistically significant, the prevalence of SSI in the obese group was almost double that in the non-obese group (8.6% vs 4.6%; p = 0.25) and in patients weighing ≥ 120 kg (n = 102) compared to those weighing < 120 kg (n = 202) (9.8% vs 5.0%; p = 0.17). Conclusion The prevalence of SSI was not significantly increased in obese patients, or those weighing ≥ 120 kg, who received cefazolin 2- g prophylactically; however, trends toward an increase were evident. Large-scale randomised trials are needed to examine whether a 2-g or 3-g cefazolin is adequate to prevent SSI in obese (and ≥ 120 kg) individuals

    Medication adherence perspectives in haemodialysis patients: a qualitative study

    Get PDF
    Background: End-stage kidney disease patients undergoing haemodialysis are prescribed with multiple complex regimens and are predisposed to high risk of medication nonadherence. The aims of this study were to explore factors associated with medication adherence, and, to examine the differential perspectives on medication-taking behaviour shown by adherent and nonadherent haemodialysis patients. Methods: A qualitative exploratory design was used. One-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 haemodialysis patients at the outpatient dialysis facility in Hobart, Australia. Patient self-reported adherence was measured using 4-item Morisky Green Levine scale. Interview transcripts were thematically analysed and mapped against the World Health Organization (WHO) determinants of medication adherence. Results: Participants were 44–84 years old, and were prescribed with 4–19 medications daily. More than half of the participants were nonadherent to their medications based on self-reported measure (56.7%, n = 17). Themes mapped against WHO adherence model comprised of patient-related (knowledge, awareness, attitude, self-efficacy, action control, and facilitation); health system/ healthcare team related (quality of interaction, and mistrust and collateral arrangements); therapy-related (physical characteristics of medicines, packaging, and side effects); condition-related (symptom severity); and social/ economic factors (access to medicines, and relative affordability). Conclusions: Patients expressed a number of concerns that led to nonadherence behaviour. Many of the issues identified were patient-related and potentially modifiable by using psycho-educational or cognitive-behavioural interventions. Healthcare professionals should be more vigilant towards identifying these concerns to address adherence issues. Future research should be aimed at understanding healthcare professionals’ perceptions and practices of assessing medication adherence in dialysis patients that may guide intervention to resolve this significant issue of medication non-adherence

    Antimicrobial knowledge and confidence amongst final year medical students in Australia

    Get PDF
    Introduction: Inappropriate use of antimicrobials is one of the major modifiable contributors to antimicrobial resistance. There is currently no validated survey tool available to assess knowledge and confidence of medical students in infectious diseases (ID) compared to other diseases states, and little is known about this topic. Materials and methods: A cross-sectional survey of final year medical students attending universities around Australia was conducted between August and September, 2015. A survey unique from other published studies was developed to survey satisfaction in education, confidence and knowledge in ID, and how this compared to these factors in cardiovascular diseases. Results: Reliability and validity was demonstrated in the survey tool used. Students were more likely to rate university education as sufficient for cardiovascular diseases (91.3%) compared to ID (72.5%), and were more confident in their knowledge of cardiovascular diseases compared to ID (74.38% vs. 53.76%). Students tended to answer more cardiovascular disease related clinical questions correctly (mean score 78%), compared to questions on antimicrobial use (mean score 45%). Conclusions: Poor knowledge and confidence amongst final year medical students in Australia were observed in ID. Antimicrobial stewardship agenda should include the provision of additional training in antimicrobial prescribing to the future medical workforce

    Clinical Pathway and Monthly Feedback Improve Adherence to Antibiotic Guideline Recommendations for Community-Acquired Pneumonia

    Get PDF
    Background: Compliance with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) guidelines remains poor despite a substantial body of evidence indicating that guideline-concordant care improves patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare the relative effectiveness of a general educational and a targeted emergency department intervention on improving physicians’ concordance with CAP guidelines. Methods: Two distinct interventions were implemented over specific time periods. The first intervention was educational, focusing on the development of local CAP guidelines and their dissemination through hospital-wide educational programmes. The second intervention was a targeted one for the emergency department, where a clinical pathway for the initial management of CAP patients was introduced, followed by monthly feedback to the emergency department (ED) physicians about concordance rates with the guidelines. Data on the concordance rate to CAP guidelines was collected from a retrospective chart review. Results: A total of 398 eligible patient records were reviewed to measure concordance to CAP guidelines over the study period. Concordance rates during the baseline and educational intervention periods were similar (28.1% vs. 31.2%; p > 0.05). Significantly more patients were treated in accordance with the CAP guidelines after the ED focused intervention when compared to the baseline (61.5% vs. 28.1%; p < 0.05) or educational period (61.5% vs. 31.2%; p < 0.05). Conclusions: A targeted intervention with a CAP clinical pathway and monthly feedback was a successful strategy to increase adherence to empirical antibiotic recommendations in CAP guidelines

    Public knowledge of chronic kidney disease evaluated using a validated questionnaire: a cross-sectional study

    Get PDF
    Background: Screening programs may help to address the burden of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in Australia. Public awareness is an important determinant of the uptake of screening programs. However, data on the public knowledge of CKD in Australia is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a validated questionnaire and assess the Australian public knowledge of CKD. Methods: A CKD knowledge questionnaire was developed after reviewing the literature and discussions with nephrology experts. Content validity was performed by nephrologists (n = 3), renal nurses (n = 3) and research personnel (n = 4). The questionnaire was piloted in 121 public participants. Next, discriminant validation was performed by recruiting two additional groups of participants: final year undergraduate pharmacy students (n = 28) and nephrologists (n = 27). Reliability of the questionnaire was assessed by calculating Cronbach’s alpha. Next, a cross-sectional survey of the Australian public (n = 943) was conducted by using the validated questionnaire. It was administered using an online Omnibus survey. Quota sampling was used for participant selection and to ensure that the final sample would match the key characteristics of the Australian population. Finally, a standard multiple regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of the public knowledge. Results: The median CKD knowledge scores of the public, students and nephrologists were 12, 19 and 23 (maximum score of 24), respectively, with statistically significant differences in the scores across the three groups (p < 0.001; Kruskal-Wallis test). The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.86–0.91), indicating that the questionnaire had good internal consistency. In the cross-sectional survey of the Australian public, the participants’ mean (SD) age was 47.6 (±16.6) years and 51.2% were female. The mean (SD) knowledge score was 10.3 (± 5.0). The multivariate analysis showed that participants with a higher level of education; with a family history of kidney failure; with a personal history of diabetes; and currently or previously living in a relationship had significantly higher knowledge scores. Conclusion: The Australian public knowledge of CKD was relatively poor. Improving public knowledge may assist in increasing early detection and subsequent management of CKD in Australia

    Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

    Get PDF
    Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P &lt; 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

    Confidence in knowledge in different clinical situations.

    No full text
    <p>NB: Answers were classified as ‘not confident’ if student rated their confidence between -5 (Not at all confident) and 0 (Neutral) on the Likert Scale. Answers were classified as ‘somewhat confident/most confident’ if students rated their confidence as 1 or higher.</p

    Reported confidence levels in ID based on different variables (N = 163).

    No full text
    <p>Reported confidence levels in ID based on different variables (N = 163).</p
    corecore