EVALUATION OF PRESCRIBING PATTERN OF FIXED DOSE COMBINATIONS OF ANTIHYPERTENSIVES AND ANTIDIABETIC AGENTS

  Objective: The objective of this research was to evaluate prescribing pattern of fixed dose combinations (FDCs) of antihypertensives and antidiabetic agents among patients of private hospitals.Methods: An observational study was carried out in the outpatient department of two hospitals. Data of patients being diagnosed with the symptoms of hypertension and diabetes were enrolled which mainly included information related to prescribe FDCs, i.e., antihypertensives and antidiabetics, respectively. Descriptive analysis of collected information was done which involved representation of demographical data, number of comorbidities, number of FDCs prescribed, and type of FDCs consequently.Results: Combination drug therapy was prescribed in maximum patients, which was enumerated as 93% among hypertensive patients and about 91% in diabetics. Average age of patients suffering more from hypertension was 64.5±18 years and that in case of diabetes sufferers was 54.5±18 years. The most frequent combination prescribed in hypertensive patients was of angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) and calcium channel blocker (CCB) which were about 53%, and in diabetic patients, it was of biguanides and sulfonylureas about 63%. Comorbidity too was notified, and its estimation was 61% in hypertensive patients and 72% in diabetic patients, respectively.Conclusion: The study here demonstrates that the most often prescribed antihypertensive combination is of ARB and CCB, and subsequently for diabetes, the oral hypoglycemic combination is of biguanides and sulfonylureas. Most of FDCs contained medications of these two classes. Positive results were also observed in levels of blood pressure and glucose within the normal range

Measuring what matters: A proposal for reframing how we evaluate and improve experience in healthcare

The conversation on measuring experience has been a long and thoughtful one. It has reflected a dynamic tension between measures used as a lever for action in some health systems and as a mechanism to determine reimbursable dollars in others. Yet underlying all the conversation, the question of what we measure, to what end we measure and what truly matters to those who experience care remains. Through a series of conversations over the last two years senior experience leaders across healthcare organizations determined it is time to assess the current landscape of patient experience measurement, to acknowledge what the existing system of measurement has inspired in effort and outcomes and to look forward to what could really make a difference in providing actionable insight and sustainable improvement in the future. While there are policy requirements for what organizations measure and report along with financial implications, this need not be the universal means by which patient feedback is captured and issues are addressed. This is paralleled by a global call for a clear, simple, comparable and actionable system of measurement to both understand and improve experience efforts in healthcare. This article reflects those conversations and frames the opportunity we have. It acknowledges all that the current system of measurement has helped us do, offers a new view on what measurement can be and presents a call to action to convene a diverse range of voices to shape experience measurement for the future. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Policy & Measurement lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework. (https://www.theberylinstitute.org/ExperienceFramework). Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens

Care to Share? Patients in Private Rooms Are More Likely to Recommend a Hospital to Others

A patient's likelihood to recommend a hospital is used to assess the quality of their experience. This study investigated whether room type influences patients’ likelihood to recommend Stanford Health Care using Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey data from November 2018 to February 2021 ( n  = 10,703). The percentage of patients who gave the top response was calculated as a top box score, and the effects of room type, service line, and the COVID-19 pandemic were represented as odds ratios (ORs). Patients in private rooms were more likely to recommend than patients in semi-private rooms (aOR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.16–1.51; 86% vs 79%, p  < .001), and service lines with only private rooms had the greatest increases in odds of a top response. The new hospital had significantly higher top box scores than the original hospital (87% vs 84%, p  < .001), indicating that room type and hospital environment impact patients’ likelihood to recommend