Extended Reality in Patient Care and Pharmacy Practice: A Viewpoint

2020 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
pp. 22-27
Author(s):  
Jody Takemoto ◽  
Brittany Parmentier ◽  
Rachel Bratelli ◽  
Thayer Merritt ◽  
Leanne California Health Sciences University

The evolution of technology has given practitioners and educators more tools to better treat, manage, and educate both patients and future pharmacists. The objective of this viewpoint publication is to describe the current use of extended reality (XR) in pharmacy and propose ways in which pharmacy practice and education may benefit from incorporation of this technology. While these tools have been used for decades by many other professions, pharmacy is starting to adopt XR in professional and educational practice. XR (virtual reality, mixed reality, and augmented reality) is being used in various aspects of pharmacy care and education, such as pain management, diabetes self-care, cross-checking of prescriptions, treatments for addiction, and (in limited ways) patient and pharmacy education. There is great potential for further integration of XR into pharmacy practice and pharmacy education to ultimately improve patient care and education as well as pharmacy education.

2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
pp. 33-38
Author(s):  
Jody Takemoto ◽  
Brittany Parmentier ◽  
Rachel Bratelli ◽  
Thayer Merritt ◽  
Leanne Coyne

The evolution of technology has given practitioners and educators more tools to better treat, manage, and educate both patients and future pharmacists. The objective of this viewpoint publication is to describe the current use of extended reality (XR) in pharmacy and propose ways in which pharmacy practice and education may benefit from incorporation of this technology. While these tools have been used for decades by many other professions, pharmacy is starting to adopt XR in professional and educational practice. XR (virtual reality, mixed reality, and augmented reality) is being used in various aspects of pharmacy care and education, such as pain management, diabetes self-care, cross-checking of prescriptions, treatments for addiction, and (in limited ways) patient and pharmacy education. There is great potential for further integration of XR into pharmacy practice and pharmacy education to ultimately improve patient care and education as well as pharmacy education.


1999 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 30-34
Author(s):  
Donna Angelucci ◽  
Linda Quinn ◽  
David Handlin

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 199-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Gilron ◽  
Joan Bailey ◽  
Donald F Weaver ◽  
Robyn L Houlden

BACKGROUND:Ongoing research continues to expand the knowledge of neuropathic pain. It is vital that established treatments and valuable discoveries ultimately improve patient care.OBJECTIVES:Attitudes and prior treatments of patients being screened for neuropathic pain trials were evaluated to provide further understanding of the barriers to the management of neuropathic pain.METHODS:A questionnaire was completed by patients with neuropathic pain who were either referred by local physicians or self referred in response to clinical trial advertisements from the authors' facility.RESULTS:In total, 151 patients completed the questionnaire. Diagnoses included diabetic neuropathy (55.6%), postherpetic neuralgia (29.8%), idiopathic peripheral neuropathy (9.3%) and others (5.3%). The mean pain duration was 4.7 years, and the mean daily pain (on a score of 0 to 10) was 7.6. During questioning, 72.8% complained of inadequate pain control and 25.2% had never tried any antineuropathic analgesics (tricyclic antidepressants, opioids or anticonvulsants). New antineuropathic analgesics (eg, gabapentin) were being used by only 16.6%. Opioids, tricyclic antidepressants and anticonvulsants had never been tried by 41.1%, 59.6% and 72.2%, respectively. Fears of addiction and adverse effects were expressed by 31.8% and 48.3%, respectively.CONCLUSIONS:New, and even conventional, therapies are often not pursued, despite inadequate pain control. Several issues are discussed, including patient barriers to seeking pain management, patient and physician barriers to analgesic drug therapy, and appropriate use of and access to multidisciplinary pain centres. Failure to implement therapeutic advances in pain management not only hinders improvement in patient care, but also may render futile decades of research. Widespread professional, patient and public education, as well as continued interdisciplinary research on treatment barriers, is essential.


Circulation ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 144 (Suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra Weissman ◽  
Mariam Bramah Lawani ◽  
Thomas Rohan ◽  
Clifton W CALLAWAY

Introduction: Pneumonia is common after OHCA but is difficult to diagnose in the first 72 hours following ROSC, this results in early untargeted antibiotic administration based on non-specific imaging and laboratory findings. Antibiotic resistance is rising, is influenced by untargeted antibiotic administration, and can increase patient morbidity and mortality as well as healthcare costs. Precision methods of bacterial pathogen detection in OHCA patients are needed to improve patient care. This proof-of-concept pilot study aimed to assess feasibility of bacterial pathogen sequencing and comparability of sequencing results to clinical culture after OHCA. Methods: Blood and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) were obtained from residual clinical specimens collected within 12 hours of ROSC. Bacterial DNA was extracted using the Qiagen PowerLyzer PowerSoil DNA kit, sequenced using the MinION nanopore sequencer, and analyzed with Oxford Nanopore Technologies’ EPI2ME bioinformatics software. Sequencing results were compared to culture results using McNemar’s chi-square statistic. Study-defined pneumonia was based on presence of at least two characteristics within 72 hours of ROSC: fever (temperature ≥38°C); persistent leukocytosis >15,000 or leukopenia <3,500 for 48 hours; persistent chest radiography infiltrates for 48 hours per clinical radiology read; bacterial pathogen cultured. Results: We enrolled 38 consecutive OHCA subjects: mean age 61.8 years (18.0); 16 (42%) female; 25 (66%) White, 7 (18%) Black, 6 (16%) “Other” race; 7 subjects (18%) survived and 31 (82%) died; 16 (42%) subjects had pneumonia. Sequencing results were available in 12 hours while culture results were available in 48-72 hours after collection. There was a non-significant difference in the proportion of the same pathogens identified for each method per McNemar’s chi-square: p = 0.38, difference of 0.095 (-0.095, 0.286). Conclusions: Nanopore sequencing detects pathogenic bacteria comparable to clinical microbiologic culture and in less time. This technology can produce a paradigm shift in early bacterial pathogen detection in OHCA survivors, which can improve patient care. The technology is applicable to other patient populations and for viral and fungal pathogens.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document