scholarly journals Comparative, cross-sectional study of the format, content and timing of medication safety letters issued in Canada, the USA and the UK

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e020150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lise M Bjerre ◽  
Simon Parlow ◽  
David de Launay ◽  
Matthew Hogel ◽  
Cody D Black ◽  
...  

ObjectivesTo assess consistency in the format and content, and overlap of subject and timing, of medication safety letters issued by regulatory health authorities to healthcare providers in Canada, the USA and the UK.DesignA cross-sectional study comparing medication safety letters issued for the purpose of alerting healthcare providers to newly identified medication problems associated with medications already on the market.SettingOnline databases operated by Health Canada, the US Food and Drug Administration and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency were searched to select medication safety letters issued between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2014. Format, content and timing of each medication safety letter were assessed using an abstraction tool comprising 21 characteristics deemed relevant by consensus of the research team.Main outcome measuresMain outcome measures included, first, characteristics (format and content) of medication safety letters and second, overlap of subject and release date across countries.ResultsOf 330 medication safety letters identified, 227 dealt with unique issues relating to medications available in all three countries. Of these 227 letters, 21 (9%) medication problems were the subject of letters released in all three countries; 40 (18%) in two countries and 166 (73%) in only one country. Only 13 (62%) of the 21 letters issued in all three countries were released within 6 months of each other.ConclusionsSignificant discrepancies in both the subject and timing of medication safety letters issued by health authorities in three countries (Canada, the USA and the UK) where medical practice is otherwise comparable, raising questions about why, how and when medication problems are identified and communicated to healthcare providers by the authorities. More rapid communication of medication problems and better alignment between authorities could enhance patient safety.

Author(s):  
Eduardo Sánchez-Sánchez ◽  
Ylenia Avellaneda-López ◽  
Esperanza García-Marín ◽  
Guillermo Ramírez-Vargas ◽  
Jara Díaz-Jimenez ◽  
...  

The aim of this study was to determine healthcare providers’ knowledge and practices about dysphagia. A descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out based on a self-administered and anonymous questionnaire addressed to healthcare providers in Spain. A total of 396 healthcare providers participated in the study. Of these, 62.3% knew the definition of dysphagia as a swallowing disorder. In addition, up to 39.2% of the participants reported that they did not know whether the EatingAssessmentTool (EAT-10) dysphagia screening test was usedin their own clinical settings. Similarly, up to 49.1% of them did not know the ClinicalExaminationVolume-Viscosity (MECV-V) method. Nearly all participants (98.8%) reported that thickeners must be used forall liquids administered to patients. A higher percentage of respondents based the choice of texture on patient’s tolerance (78.2%) rather than on the MECV-V result (17.3%). In addition,76.4% of the professionals had witnessed a bronchoaspiration; after it, 44.4% (n = 175) of them reported the appearance of pneumonia, and 14.5% (n = 57) the death of the patient (p = 0.005). The participants revealeda moderate/low knowledge ofthe definition, diagnosis, and clinical management of liquid dysphagia, which indicates some room for improvements.


Antibiotics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 878
Author(s):  
Mohamed A. Baraka ◽  
Amany Alboghdadly ◽  
Samar Alshawwa ◽  
Asim Ahmed Elnour ◽  
Hassan Alsultan ◽  
...  

Factors reported in the literature associated with inappropriate prescribing of antimicrobials include physicians with less experience, uncertain diagnosis, and patient caregiver influences on physicians’ decisions. Monitoring antimicrobial resistance is critical for identifying emerging resistance patterns, developing, and assessing the effectiveness of mitigation strategies. Improvement in prescribing antimicrobials would minimize the risk of resistance and, consequently, improve patients’ clinical and health outcomes. The purpose of the study is to delineate factors associated with antimicrobial resistance, describe the factors influencing prescriber’s choice during prescribing of antimicrobial, and examine factors related to consequences of inappropriate prescribing of antimicrobial. A cross-sectional study was conducted among healthcare providers (190) in six tertiary hospitals in the Eastern province of Saudi Arabia. The research panel has developed, validated, and piloted survey specific with closed-ended questions. A value of p < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. All data analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (IBM SPSS version 23.0). 72.7% of the respondents have agreed that poor skills and knowledge are key factors that contribute to the inappropriate prescribing of antimicrobials. All of the respondents acknowledged effectiveness, previous experience with the antimicrobial, and reading scientific materials (such as books, articles, and the internet) as being key factors influencing physicians’ choice during antimicrobial prescribing. The current study has identified comprehensive education and training needs for healthcare providers about antimicrobial resistance. Using antimicrobials unnecessarily, insufficient duration of antimicrobial use, and using broad spectrum antimicrobials were reported to be common practices. Furthermore, poor skills and knowledge were a key factor that contributed to the inappropriate use and overuse of antimicrobials, and the use of antimicrobials without a physician’s prescription (i.e., self-medication) represent key factors which contribute to AMR from participants’ perspectives. Furthermore, internal policy and guidelines are needed to ensure that the antimicrobials are prescribed in accordance with standard protocols and clinical guidelines.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. e148-e157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Rader ◽  
Laura F White ◽  
Michael R Burns ◽  
Jack Chen ◽  
Joseph Brilliant ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 187-194
Author(s):  
Gasmelseed Ahmed ◽  
Zainab Almoosa ◽  
Dalia Mohamed ◽  
Janepple Rapal ◽  
Ofelia Minguez ◽  
...  

Background: During the long wait and the global anxiety for a vaccine against COVID-19, impressively high-safety and effective vaccines were invented by multiple pharmaceutical companies. Aim: We aimed to assess the attitudes of healthcare providers and evaluate their intention to advocate for the vaccine. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in a tertiary private hospital where an electronic survey was distributed among healthcare providers (HCPs). The survey contained two sections: socio-demographic characteristics and Likert-scale perception, with 72% internal consistency. Results: The response rate to the email survey was 37% (n = 236). In addition, 169 (71.6%) of respondents were women, with more than half (134, 56.8%) aged ≤35 years. A total of 110 (46.6%) had over 10 years of experience, and most of them were nurses (146, 62%). Univariate analysis revealed that older participants significantly accepted and advocated for the new vaccine more than the younger ones. In the multivariate analysis, men were significantly more likely than women to accept and advocate for the new vaccine, as were those with chronic illnesses. Participants with allergy were significantly less likely to accept the vaccine than others. odds ratio (OR) and p-values were 2.5, 0.003; 2.3, 0.04; and 0.4, 0.01, respectively. Conclusion: The acceptance rate for the newly-developed COVID-19 vaccines was average among HCPs. Sex, age, presence of chronic illnesses, and allergy were significant predictors of accepting the vaccine.


2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 84
Author(s):  
Katie Waine ◽  
Rachel S. Dean ◽  
Chris Hudson ◽  
Jonathan Huxley ◽  
Marnie L. Brennan

Clinical audit is a quality improvement tool used to assess and improve the clinical services provided to patients. This is the first study to investigate the extent to which clinical audit is understood and utilised in farm animal veterinary practice. A cross-sectional study to collect experiences and attitudes of farm animal veterinary surgeons in the UK towards clinical audit was conducted using an online nationwide survey. The survey revealed that whilst just under three-quarters (n = 237/325; 73%) of responding veterinary surgeons had heard of clinical audit, nearly 50% (n = 148/301) had never been involved in a clinical audit of any species. The participants’ knowledge of what a clinical audit was varied substantially, with many respondents reporting not receiving training on clinical audit at the undergraduate or postgraduate level. Respondents that had participated in a clinical audit suggested that protected time away from clinical work was required for the process to be completed successfully. This novel study suggests that clinical audit is undertaken to some extent in farm animal practice and that practitioner perception is that it can bring benefits, but was felt that more resources and support were needed for it to be implemented successfully on a wider scale.


BMJ Open ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (8) ◽  
pp. e010551 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare Quigley ◽  
Cristina Taut ◽  
Tamara Zigman ◽  
Louise Gallagher ◽  
Harry Campbell ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document