Development and evaluation of a medication counseling workshop for physicians: can we improve on ‘take two pills and call me in the morning’?

Physicians often do not provide adequate medication counseling.To develop and evaluate an educational program to improve physicians’ assessment of adherence and their medication counseling skills, with attention to health literacy.We compared internal medicine residents’ confidence and counseling behaviors, measured by self-report at baseline and one month after participation in a two-hour interactive workshop.Fifty-four residents participated; 35 (65%) completed the follow-up survey. One month after training, residents reported improved confidence in assessing and counseling patients (p<0.001), including those with low health literacy (p<0.001). Residents also reported more frequent use of desirable behaviors, such as assessing patients’ medication understanding and adherence barriers (p<0.05 for each), addressing costs when prescribing (p<0.01), suggesting adherence aids (p<0.01), and confirming patient understanding with teach-back (p<0.05).A medication counseling workshop significantly improved residents’ self-reported confidence and behaviors regarding medication counseling one month later

Simulated medication errors: A means of evaluating healthcare professionals' knowledge and understanding of medication safety

OBJECTIVE: To determine multi-disciplinary perceptions of the clinical significance of medication errors (MEs), the responsible health professional(s), the contributing factors and potential preventive strategies. METHODS: The five simulated ME cases represented errors from five wards at a children's hospital in Australia. Pre-determined answers for each case were developed through consensus among the researchers. The root cause analysis (RCA) was undertaken via a questionnaire disseminated to physicians, nurses and pharmacists at the study hospital to seek their opinions on the ME cases. Agreement model between the participants and pre-determined responses regarding the contributing factors was conducted using general estimating equation (GEE) analysis. RESULTS: Of the 111 RCA questionnaires distributed, 25 were returned. The majority (93%) of respondents rated the significance of the MEs as either 'moderate' or 'life-threatening'. Furthermore, they correctly identified two contributing factors relevant to all cases: dismissal of policies/procedures or guidelines (90%) and human resources issues (87%). GEE analysis revealed varied agreement patterns across the contributing factors. Suggested prevention strategies focused on policy and procedures, staffing and supervision, and communication. CONCLUSION: Simulated case studies had potential use to seek front-line healthcare professionals' understanding of the clinical significance and contributing factors to MEs, along with preventive measures

Sphingomonas paucimobilis Bloodstream Infections Associated with Contaminated Intravenous Fentanyl1

Compounding pharmacies should be required to follow good manufacturing practices, including end-product sterility testing

Antibiotic prophylaxis for endocarditis: time to reconsider

The document attached has been archived with permission from the Australian Dental Association. An external link to the publisher’s copy is included.Some cardiac conditions require antibiotic prophylaxis for some types of dental treatment to reduce the risk of infective endocarditis (IE). All medical and dental practitioners are familiar with this practice but tend to use different regimens in apparently similar circumstances. Generally, the trend has been to prescribe antibiotics if in doubt. This review explores the evidence for antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent IE: does it work and is it safe? The changing nature of IE, the role of bacteraemia of oral origin and the safety of antibiotics are also reviewed. Most developed countries have national guidelines and their points of similarity and difference are discussed. One can only agree with the authority who describes antibiotic guidelines for endocarditis as being ‘like the Dead Sea Scrolls, they are fragmentary, imperfect, capable of various interpretations and (mainly) missing!’ Clinical case-controlled studies show that the more widely antibiotics are used, the greater the risk of adverse reactions exceeding the risk of IE. However, the consensus is that antibiotic prophylaxis is mandatory for a small number of high-risk cardiac and high-risk dental procedures. There are a large number of low-risk cardiac and dental procedures in which the risk of adverse reactions to the antibiotics exceeds the risk of IE, where prophylaxis should not be provided. There is an intermediate group of cardiac and dental procedures for which careful individual evaluation should be made to determine whether IE or antibiotics pose the greater risk. These categories are presented. All medical and dental practitioners need to reconsider their approach in light of these current findings.J Singh, I Straznicky, M Avent and AN Gos