Feasibility of a pharmacy-led intervention to de-implement non-guideline-concordant proton pump inhibitor use.

BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are among the most prescribed medications and are often used unnecessarily. PPIs are used for the treatment of heartburn and acid-related disorders. Emerging evidence indicates that PPIs are associated with serious adverse events, such as increased risk of Clostridioides difficile infection. In this study, we designed and piloted a PPI de-implementation intervention among hospitalized non-intensive care unit patients. METHODS: Using the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model as the framework, we developed an intervention with input from providers and patients. On a bi-weekly basis, a trainee pharmacist reviewed a random sample of eligible patients' charts to assess if PPI prescriptions were guideline-concordant; a recommendation to de-implement non-guideline-concordant PPI therapy was sent when applicable. We used convergent parallel mixed-methods design to evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of the intervention. RESULTS: During the study period (September 2019 to August 2020), 2171 patients with an active PPI prescription were admitted. We randomly selected 155 patient charts for review. The mean age of patients was 70.9 ± 9 years, 97.4% were male, and 35% were on PPIs for ≥5 years. The average time (minutes) needed to complete the intervention was as follows: 5 to assess if the PPI was guideline-concordant, 5 to provide patient education, and 7 to follow-up with patients post-discharge. After intervention initiation, the week-to-week mean number of PPI prescriptions decreased by 0.5 (S<0.0001). Barriers and facilitators spanned the 5 elements of the SEIPS model and included factors such as providers' perception that PPIs are low priority medications and patients' willingness to make changes to their PPI therapy if needed, respectively. Ready access to pharmacists was another frequently reported facilitator to guideline-concordant PPI. Providers recommended a PPI de-implementation intervention that is specific and tells them exactly what they need to do with a PPI treatment. CONCLUSION: In a busy inpatient setting, we developed a feasible way to assess PPI therapy, de-implement non-guideline-concordant PPI use, and provide follow-up to assess any unintended consequences. We documented barriers, facilitators, and provider recommendations that should be considered before implementing such an intervention on a large scale.

Adherence to recommendations at a Canadian tertiary care Family Travel Clinic - A single centre analysis.

BACKGROUND: Infectious and non-infectious risks associated with international travel can be reduced with adherence to pre-travel advice from practitioners trained in travel medicine. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted in a tertiary care children's hospital to assess adherence to malaria chemoprophylaxis, safe water and food consumption, mosquito bite protection, motor vehicle safety and travel vaccines using structured questionnaires. High risk groups assessed included child travelers and those visiting friends and relatives (VFRs). RESULTS: In total, 290 participants (133 children and 157 adults) were enrolled and completed at least one study questionnaire. In general, with the exception of vaccines, adherence to recommendations was sub-optimal. Among children and adults, adherence to malaria prophylaxis recommendations was lower in VFRs than in non-VFRs. The proportion of children VFRs (cVFRs) and adult VFRs (aVFRs) who adhered to the following recommendations were malaria chemoprophylaxis (47%, 33%), safe water (71%, 74%) and food recommendations (18%, 6%), insect bite avoidance (21%, 12%), and motor vehicle safety (13%, 11%) respectively. Adherence to recommended vaccines uptake was greater than 90% in all groups. CONCLUSION: With the exception of vaccine uptake, sub-optimal adherence levels to travel recommendations was identified in all groups, and in particular VFRs, highlighting the need for proactive discussions around barriers to adherence.

Prevalence of colorectal polyps in pediatric colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: The available data regarding the prevalence, types, and clinical determinants of colonic polyps in children is limited. AIMS: We aimed to estimate the prevalence of colorectal polyps in a large cohort of children. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study to determine the presence, number, and location of colorectal polyps reported in all children (0-20 years) who underwent colonoscopy at 14 pediatric facilities between January 2000 and December 2007 recorded in Pediatric Endoscopy Database System Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative (PEDS-CORI). We compared procedures with and without polyps with respect to procedure indication, age, sex, and race. We also reviewed a sample of histopathologic reports from one participating center. RESULTS: We analyzed 13,115 colonoscopy procedures performed in 11,637 patients. Colorectal polyps were reported in 810 procedures (6.1%; 95% CI: 5.7-6.5%) performed in 705 patients, and in 12% of patients with lower GI bleeding. Children with colorectal polyps were significantly younger (8.9 years vs. 11.9 years; p < 0.0001), male (58.3% vs. 49.0%; p < 0.001), non-white race (27.5% vs. 21.9%; p < 0.001), and had lower GI bleeding (54.4% vs. 26.6%; p < 0.001) as compared to children without polyps. In a sample of 122 patients with polyps from a single center, the histological types were solitary juvenile in 91 (70.5%), multiple juvenile in 20 (15.5%), adenoma in 14 (10.9%) and hyperplastic polyps in four patients (3.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal polyps are detected in 6.1% overall and in 12.0% among those with lower gastrointestinal bleeding during pediatric colonoscopy. Approximately 26% are multiple juvenile or adenoma.