The impact of donor cytomegalovirus DNA on transfusion strategies for at-risk patients

Transfusion ◽  
2013 ◽  
pp. n/a-n/a ◽  
Author(s):  
Malte Ziemann ◽  
David Juhl ◽  
Siegfried Görg ◽  
Holger Hennig
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Chen ◽  
Michael Legal ◽  
Stephen Shalansky ◽  
Tamara Mihic ◽  
Victoria Su

Background: Deaths due to overdose from illicit drugs have risen in Canada, despite various community-led harm reduction programs. There have been limited pharmacist-led inpatient initiatives aimed at reducing opioid harm. The authors’ group recently developed and implemented the Medication and Risk Factor Review, Optimize, Refer at Risk Patients, Educate and Plan (MORE) tool, a systematic checklist designed to help pharmacists follow and enhance the safety of in-hospital opioid prescribing. Objectives: To evaluate the impact of a pharmacist-led opioid stewardship program utilizing the MORE tool in the care of patients at one tertiary teaching hospital. Methods: This study involved a review of health care records for patients admitted to general surgery and internal medicine clinical teaching units at a tertiary hospital between September 10 and December 31, 2018, for whom opioids were prescribed during the hospital stay. A descriptive data analysis was performed for patients who underwent assessment with the MORE tool. Results: Of the 210 patients who met the initial eligibility criteria, including in-hospital opioid therapy for at least 3 days, 50 were assessed by a pharmacist using the MORE tool. For 40 (80%) of these patients, the pharmacist recommended an intervention, and 35 (87.5%) of these interventions were accepted by the prescriber. Among all 50 patients, the most common pharmacist interventions were adding or optimizing non-opioid pain medications (23 patients [46%]), decreasing opioid dose or frequency (15 patients [30%]), and adding a bowel regimen (9 patients [18%]). Conclusions: Most patients who underwent assessment by a pharmacist had risk factors for adverse events from opioid prescriptions and/or suboptimal orders and drug combinations. The MORE tool provided a guided approach for pharmacists to make targeted interventions aimed at improving opioid safety. A dedicated opioid stewardship pharmacist might be able to provide additional benefit. RÉSUMÉ Contexte : Les décès provoqués par les surdoses de drogues illégales ont augmenté au Canada, malgré les divers programmes communautaires axés sur la réduction des risques. Le nombre d’initiatives menées par les pharmaciens auprès des patients hospitalisés visant à réduire les dommages causés par les opioïdes est limité. Le groupe d’auteurs de cette étude a récemment élaboré et mis en place l’outil Medication and Risk Factor Review, Optimize, Refer at Risk Patients, Educate and Plan (MORE) : une liste de contrôle systématique conçue pour aider les pharmaciens à respecter et à renforcer la sécurité de la prescription d’opioïdes en milieu hospitalier. Objectifs : Évaluer l’impact d’un programme de gestion des opioïdes dirigé par des pharmaciens à l’aide de l’outil MORE pour les soins des patients résidant dans un hôpital d’enseignement tertiaire. Méthodes : Cette étude impliquait l’examen des dossiers de santé des patients admis dans les unités d’enseignement clinique de chirurgie générale et de médecine interne d’un hôpital tertiaire entre le 10 septembre et le 31 décembre 2018. Des opioïdes ont été prescrits à ces patients lors de leur séjour hospitalier. Une analyse descriptive des données a été menée auprès des patients ayant fait l’objet d’une évaluation à l’aide de l’outil MORE. Résultats : Sur les 210 patients qui répondaient aux critères d’admissibilité initiaux, notamment à celui d’un traitement aux opioïdes à l’hôpital pendant au moins trois jours, 50 ont fait l’objet d’une évaluation à l’aide de l’outil MORE. Le pharmacien a recommandé une intervention auprès de 40 de ces patients (80 %), et le prescripteur a accepté 35 de ces interventions (87,5 %). Les interventions des pharmaciens les plus répandues réalisées auprès des 50 patients consistaient en l’ajout ou en l’optimisation des analgésiques sans opioïdes (23 patients [46 %]); en la diminution de la dose d’opioïdes ou de leur fréquence (15 patients [30 %]); et en l’ajout d’un régime d’hygiène intestinale (9 patients [18 %]). Conclusions : La plupart des patients ayant fait l’objet d’une évaluation menée par un pharmacien présentaient des facteurs de risque d’effets indésirables découlant des prescriptions d’opioïdes et/ou d’ordonnances et de combinaisons médicamenteuses sous-optimales. L’outil MORE a permis aux pharmaciens d’adopter une approche guidée pour qu’ils puissent effectuer des interventions ciblées visant à améliorer l’innocuité des opioïdes. Un pharmacien affecté spécifiquement à la gestion des opioïdes pourrait offrir des avantages supplémentaires.  


Author(s):  
Justin J. Boutilier ◽  
Jónas Oddur Jónasson ◽  
Erez Yoeli

Problem definition: Lack of patient adherence to treatment protocols is a main barrier to reducing the global disease burden of tuberculosis (TB). We study the operational design of a treatment adherence support (TAS) platform that requires patients to verify their treatment adherence on a daily basis. Academic/practical relevance: Experimental results on the effectiveness of TAS programs have been mixed; and rigorous research is needed on how to structure these motivational programs, particularly in resource-limited settings. Our analysis establishes that patient engagement can be increased by personal sponsor outreach and that patient behavior data can be used to identify at-risk patients for targeted outreach. Methodology: We partner with a TB TAS provider and use data from a completed randomized controlled trial. We use administrative variation in the timing of peer sponsor outreach to evaluate the impact of personal messages on subsequent patient verification behavior. We then develop a rolling-horizon machine learning (ML) framework to generate dynamic risk predictions for patients enrolled on the platform. Results: We find that, on average, sponsor outreach to patients increases the odds ratio of next-day treatment adherence verification by 35%. Furthermore, patients’ prior verification behavior can be used to accurately predict short-term (treatment adherence verification) and long-term (successful treatment completion) outcomes. These results allow the provider to target and implement behavioral interventions to at-risk patients. Managerial implications: Our results indicate that, compared with a benchmark policy, the TAS platform could reach the same number of at-risk patients with 6%–40% less capacity, or reach 2%–20% more at-risk patients with the same capacity, by using various ML-based prioritization policies that leverage patient engagement data. Personal sponsor outreach to all patients is likely to be very costly, so targeted TAS may substantially improve the cost-effectiveness of TAS programs.


2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 208-215
Author(s):  
Donald Stewart ◽  
John Kinsella ◽  
Joanne McPeake ◽  
Tara Quasim ◽  
Alex Puxty

Purpose Patients with alcohol-related disease constitute an increasing proportion of those admitted to intensive care unit. There is currently limited evidence regarding the impact of alcohol use on levels of agitation, delirium and sedative requirements in intensive care unit. This study aimed to determine whether intensive care unit-admitted alcohol-abuse patients have different sedative requirements, agitation and delirium levels compared to patients with no alcohol issues. Methods This retrospective analysis of a prospectively acquired database (June 2012–May 2013) included 257 patients. Subjects were stratified into three risk categories: alcohol dependency (n = 69), at risk (n = 60) and low risk (n = 128) according to Fast Alcohol Screening Test scores and World Health Organisation criteria for alcohol-related disease. Data on agitation and delirium were collected using validated retrospective chart-screening methods and sedation data were extracted and then log-transformed to fit the regression model. Results Incidence of agitation (p = 0.034) and delirium (p = 0.041) was significantly higher amongst alcohol-dependent patients compared to low-risk patients as was likelihood of adverse events (p = 0.007). In contrast, at-risk patients were at no higher risk of these outcomes compared to the low-risk group. Alcohol-dependent patients experienced suboptimal sedation levels more frequently and received a wider range of sedatives (p = 0.019) but did not receive higher daily doses of any sedatives. Conclusions Our analysis demonstrates that when admitted to intensive care unit, it is those who abuse alcohol most severely, alcohol-dependent patients, rather than at-risk drinkers who have a significantly increased risk of agitation, delirium and suboptimal sedation. These patients may require closer assessment and monitoring for these outcomes whilst admitted.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 1944-1955 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Schwarz ◽  
Elizabeth C. Ward ◽  
Petrea Cornwell ◽  
Anne Coccetti ◽  
Pamela D'Netto ◽  
...  

Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine (a) the agreement between allied health assistants (AHAs) and speech-language pathologists (SLPs) when completing dysphagia screening for low-risk referrals and at-risk patients under a delegation model and (b) the operational impact of this delegation model. Method All AHAs worked in the adult acute inpatient settings across three hospitals and completed training and competency evaluation prior to conducting independent screening. Screening (pass/fail) was based on results from pre-screening exclusionary questions in combination with a water swallow test and the Eating Assessment Tool. To examine the agreement of AHAs' decision making with SLPs, AHAs ( n = 7) and SLPs ( n = 8) conducted an independent, simultaneous dysphagia screening on 51 adult inpatients classified as low-risk/at-risk referrals. To examine operational impact, AHAs independently completed screening on 48 low-risk/at-risk patients, with subsequent clinical swallow evaluation conducted by an SLP with patients who failed screening. Results Exact agreement between AHAs and SLPs on overall pass/fail screening criteria for the first 51 patients was 100%. Exact agreement for the two tools was 100% for the Eating Assessment Tool and 96% for the water swallow test. In the operational impact phase ( n = 48), 58% of patients failed AHA screening, with only 10% false positives on subjective SLP assessment and nil identified false negatives. Conclusion AHAs demonstrated the ability to reliably conduct dysphagia screening on a cohort of low-risk patients, with a low rate of false negatives. Data support high level of agreement and positive operational impact of using trained AHAs to perform dysphagia screening in low-risk patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document