Patients’ use of information about medicine side effects in relation to experiences of suspected adverse drug reactions

Background Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are common, and information about medicines is increasingly widely available to the public. However, relatively little work has explored how people use medicines information to help them assess symptoms that may be suspected ADRs. Objective Our objective was to determine how patients use patient information leaflets (PILs) or other medicines information sources and whether information use differs depending on experiences of suspected ADRs. Method This was a cross-sectional survey conducted in six National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in North West England involving medical in-patients taking at least two regular medicines prior to admission. The survey was administered via a questionnaire and covered use of the PIL and other medicines information sources, perceived knowledge about medicines risks/ADRs, experiences of suspected ADRs, plus demographic information. Results Of the 1,218 respondents to the survey, 18.8 % never read the PIL, whilst 6.5 % only do so if something unexpected happens. Educational level was related to perceived knowledge about medicines risks, but not to reading the PIL or seeking further information about medicines risks. Over half the respondents (56.0 %) never sought more information about possible side effects of medicines. A total of 57.2 % claimed they had experienced a suspected ADR. Of these 85.9 % were either very sure or fairly sure this was a reaction to a medicine. Over half of those experiencing a suspected ADR (53.8 %) had read the PIL, of whom 36.2 % did so before the suspected ADR occurred, the remainder afterwards. Reading the PIL helped 84.8 % of these respondents to decide they had experienced an ADR. Educational level, general knowledge of medicines risks and number of regular medicines used all increased the likelihood of experiencing an ADR. Conclusion More patients should be encouraged to read the PIL supplied with medicines. The results support the view that most patients feel knowledgeable about medicines risks and suspected ADRs and value information about side effects, but that reading about side effects in PILs or other medicines information sources does not lead to experiences of suspected ADRs

Screening for Chronic Conditions Using a Patient Internet Portal: Recruitment for an Internet-based Primary Care Intervention

Background: Patient Internet portals have created new opportunities for assessment and management of chronic conditions. Objective: To conduct an online screening survey for a study recruitment using a secure patient Internet portal to identify primary care patients with untreated depression, chronic pain, or mobility difficulty before nonurgent office visits. Design: Internet-based screening survey for a randomized trial. Participants: Patients who were registered portal users who had scheduled primary care appointments. Approach: Electronic study invitations via the portal were sent to 4,047 patients with scheduled visits to 34 primary care physicians participating in the study. After clicking on a link in the study invitation, patients were consecutively shown the study description, consent form, and lastly, the screening survey to determine final eligibility for study participation. Results: Of the 2,113 (52%) patients who opened the study invitation, 1,001 consented online to join the study and 981 (98%) of these completed the screening survey. Of the respondents, 319 (33%) screened positive for 1 or more of the 3 conditions. Conclusions: The online screening survey conducted through the patient portal was effective in identifying patients with chronic conditions in advance of scheduled primary care visits for participation in an intervention study

The Swiss cheese model of safety incidents: are there holes in the metaphor?

BACKGROUND: Reason's Swiss cheese model has become the dominant paradigm for analysing medical errors and patient safety incidents. The aim of this study was to determine if the components of the model are understood in the same way by quality and safety professionals. METHODS: Survey of a volunteer sample of persons who claimed familiarity with the model, recruited at a conference on quality in health care, and on the internet through quality-related websites. The questionnaire proposed several interpretations of components of the Swiss cheese model: a) slice of cheese, b) hole, c) arrow, d) active error, e) how to make the system safer. Eleven interpretations were compatible with this author's interpretation of the model, 12 were not. RESULTS: Eighty five respondents stated that they were very or quite familiar with the model. They gave on average 15.3 (SD 2.3, range 10 to 21) "correct" answers out of 23 (66.5%) – significantly more than 11.5 "correct" answers that would expected by chance (p < 0.001). Respondents gave on average 2.4 "correct" answers regarding the slice of cheese (out of 4), 2.7 "correct" answers about holes (out of 5), 2.8 "correct" answers about the arrow (out of 4), 3.3 "correct" answers about the active error (out of 5), and 4.1 "correct" answers about improving safety (out of 5). CONCLUSION: The interpretations of specific features of the Swiss cheese model varied considerably among quality and safety professionals. Reaching consensus about concepts of patient safety requires further work

Patient access to complex chronic disease records on the internet

Background: Access to medical records on the Internet has been reported to be acceptable and popular with patients, although most published evaluations have been of primary care or office-based practice. We tested the feasibility and acceptability of making unscreened results and data from a complex chronic disease pathway (renal medicine) available to patients over the Internet in a project involving more than half of renal units in the UK. Methods: Content and presentation of the Renal PatientView (RPV) system was developed with patient groups. It was designed to receive information from multiple local information systems and to require minimal extra work in units. After piloting in 4 centres in 2005 it was made available more widely. Opinions were sought from both patients who enrolled and from those who did not in a paper survey, and from staff in an electronic survey. Anonymous data on enrolments and usage were extracted from the webserver. Results: By mid 2011 over 17,000 patients from 47 of the 75 renal units in the UK had registered. Users had a wide age range (&#60;10 to &#62;90 yrs) but were younger and had more years of education than non-users. They were enthusiastic about the concept, found it easy to use, and 80% felt it gave them a better understanding of their disease. The most common reason for not enrolling was being unaware of the system. A minority of patients had security concerns, and these were reduced after enrolling. Staff responses were also strongly positive. They reported that it aided patient concordance and disease management, and increased the quality of consultations with a neutral effect on consultation length. Neither patient nor staff responses suggested that RPV led to an overall increase in patient anxiety or to an increased burden on renal units beyond the time required to enrol each patient. Conclusions: Patient Internet access to secondary care records concerning a complex chronic disease is feasible and popular, providing an increased sense of empowerment and understanding, with no serious identified negative consequences. Security concerns were present but rarely prevented participation. These are powerful reasons to make this type of access more widely available

Issues potentially affecting quality of life arising from long-term medicines use: a qualitative study

Background Polypharmacy is increasing and managing large number of medicines may create a burden for patients. Many patients have negative views of medicines and their use can adversely affect quality of life. No studies have specifically explored the impact of general long-term medicines use on quality of life. Objective To determine the issues which patients taking long-term medicines consider affect their day-to-day lives, including quality of life. Setting Four primary care general practices in North West England Methods Face-to-face interviews with adults living at home, prescribed four or more regular medicines for at least 1 year. Interviewees were identified from primary care medical records and purposively selected to ensure different types of medicines use. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Results Twenty-one interviews were conducted and analysed. Patients used an average of 7.8 medicines, 51 % were preventive, 40 % for symptom relief and 9 % treatment. Eight themes emerged: relationships with health professionals, practicalities, information, efficacy, side effects, attitudes, impact and control. Ability to discuss medicines with health professionals varied and many views were coloured by negative experiences, mainly with doctors. All interviewees had developed routines for using multiple medicines, some requiring considerable effort. Few felt able to exert control over medicines routines specified by health professionals. Over half sought additional information about medicines whereas others avoided this, trusting in doctors to guide their medicines use. Patients recognised their inability to assess efficacy for many medicines, notably those used for prophylaxis. All were concerned about possible side effects and some had poor experiences of discussing concerns with doctors. Medicines led to restrictions on social activities and personal life to the extent that, for some, life can revolve around medicines. Conclusion There is a multiplicity and complexity of issues surrounding medicines use, which impact on day-to-day lives for patients with long-term conditions. While most patients adapt to long-term medicines use, others did so at some cost to their quality of life

Could chiropractors screen for adverse drug events in the community? Survey of US chiropractors

Abstract Background The "Put Prevention into Practice" campaign of the US Public Health Service (USPHS) was launched with the dissemination of the Clinician's Handbook of Preventive Services that recommended standards of clinical care for various prevention activities, including preventive clinical strategies to reduce the risk of adverse drug events. We explored whether nonprescribing clinicians such as chiropractors may contribute to advancing drug safety initiatives by identifying potential adverse drug events in their chiropractic patients, and by bringing suspected adverse drug events to the attention of the prescribing clinicians. Methods Mail survey of US chiropractors about their detection of potential adverse drug events in their chiropractic patients. Results Over half of responding chiropractors (62%) reported having identified a suspected adverse drug event occurring in one of their chiropractic patients. The severity of suspected drug-related events detected ranged from mild to severe. Conclusions Chiropractors or other nonprescribing clinicians may be in a position to detect potential adverse drug events in the community. These detection and reporting mechanisms should be standardized and policies related to clinical case management of suspected adverse drug events occurring in their patients should be developed

Validation study of a web-based assessment of functional recovery after radical prostatectomy

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Good clinical care of prostate cancer patients after radical prostatectomy depends on careful assessment of post-operative morbidities, yet physicians do not always judge patient symptoms accurately. Logistical problems associated with using paper questionnaire limit their use in the clinic. We have implemented a web-interface ("STAR") for patient-reported outcomes after radical prostatectomy.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We analyzed data on the first 9 months of clinical implementation to evaluate the validity of the STAR questionnaire to assess functional outcomes following radical prostatectomy. We assessed response rate, internal consistency within domains, and the association between survey responses and known predictors of sexual and urinary function, including age, time from surgery, nerve sparing status and co-morbidities.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 1581 men sent an invitation to complete the instrument online, 1235 responded for a response rate of 78%. Cronbach's alpha was 0.84, 0.86 and 0.97 for bowel, urinary and sexual function respectively. All known predictors of sexual and urinary function were significantly associated with survey responses in the hypothesized direction.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We have found that web-based assessment of functional recovery after radical prostatectomy is practical and feasible. The instrument demonstrated excellent psychometric properties, suggested that validity is maintained when questions are transferred from paper to electronic format and when patients give responses that they know will be seen by their doctor and added to their clinic record. As such, our system allows ready implementation of patient-reported outcomes into routine clinical practice.</p

Patient safety in primary care: a survey of general practitioners in the Netherlands

Contains fulltext : 89814.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Primary care encompasses many different clinical domains and patient groups, which means that patient safety in primary care may be equally broad. Previous research on safety in primary care has focused on medication safety and incident reporting. In this study, the views of general practitioners (GPs) on patient safety were examined. METHODS: A web-based survey of a sample of GPs was undertaken. The items were derived from aspects of patient safety issues identified in a prior interview study. The questionnaire used 10 clinical cases and 15 potential risk factors to explore GPs' views on patient safety. RESULTS: A total of 68 GPs responded (51.5% response rate). None of the clinical cases was uniformly judged as particularly safe or unsafe by the GPs. Cases judged to be unsafe by a majority of the GPs concerned either the maintenance of medical records or prescription and monitoring of medication. Cases which only a few GPs judged as unsafe concerned hygiene, the diagnostic process, prevention and communication. The risk factors most frequently judged to constitute a threat to patient safety were a poor doctor-patient relationship, insufficient continuing education on the part of the GP and a patient age over 75 years. Language barriers and polypharmacy also scored high. Deviation from evidence-based guidelines and patient privacy in the reception/waiting room were not perceived as risk factors by most of the GPs. CONCLUSION: The views of GPs on safety and risk in primary care did not completely match those presented in published papers and policy documents. The GPs in the present study judged a broader range of factors than in previously published research on patient safety in primary care, including a poor doctor-patient relationship, to pose a potential threat to patient safety. Other risk factors such as infection prevention, deviation from guidelines and incident reporting were judged to be less relevant than by policy makers

Psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ), Generic version (Short Form 2006)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>How to protect patients from harm is a question of universal interest. Measuring and improving safety culture in care giving units is an important strategy for promoting a safe environment for patients. The Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) is the only instrument that measures safety culture in a way which correlates with patient outcome. We have translated the SAQ to Norwegian and validated the translated version. The psychometric properties of the translated questionnaire are presented in this article.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The questionnaire was translated with the back translation technique and tested in 47 clinical units in a Norwegian university hospital. SAQ's (the Generic version (Short Form 2006) the version with the two sets of questions on perceptions of management: on unit management and on hospital management) were distributed to 1911 frontline staff. 762 were distributed during unit meetings and 1149 through the postal system. Cronbach alphas, item-to-own correlations, and test-retest correlations were calculated, and response distribution analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were performed, as well as early validity tests.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>1306 staff members completed and returned the questionnaire: a response rate of 68%. Questionnaire acceptability was good. The reliability measures were acceptable. The factor structure of the responses was tested by confirmatory factor analysis. 36 items were ascribed to seven underlying factors: Teamwork Climate, Safety Climate, Stress Recognition, Perceptions of Hospital Management, Perceptions of Unit Management, Working conditions, and Job satisfaction. Goodness-of-Fit Indices showed reasonable, but not indisputable, model fit. External validity indicators – recognizability of results, correlations with "trigger tool"-identified adverse events, with patient satisfaction with hospitalization, patient reports of possible maltreatment, and patient evaluation of organization of hospital work – provided preliminary validation.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Based on the data from Akershus University Hospital, we conclude that the Norwegian translation of the SAQ showed satisfactory internal psychometric properties. With data from one hospital only, we cannot draw strong conclusions on its external validity. Further validation studies linking the SAQ-scores to patient outcome data should be performed.</p