ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The need to preserve operating room (OR) scheduling flexibility can challenge adherence to the 2-h pre-operative fasting period recommendation before elective surgery. Our primary objective was to assess the feasibility of a pre-operative carbohydrate (CHO) drink delivery strategy preserving OR scheduling flexibility. METHODS: During the 1st study phase, patients admitted for elective surgery fasted overnight (Control group); during the 2nd phase, patients fasted overnight and received a pre-operative CHO drink (CHO group). CHO delivery time was set to allow any patient to be ready for surgery 30 min ahead of the scheduled time and any patient with an operation scheduled in the afternoon to be ready at 13:00 hours; patients admitted the morning of an early morning operation would not be allowed to take a CHO drink. RESULTS: We included 194 patients in the Control group and 199 in the CHO group. In the CHO group, the morning CHO dose was delivered to 66.3% of the patients (95% CI 59.3-72.9%), with a median pre-operative fasting time period of 4 h 57 min. After excluding patients admitted the morning of an operation scheduled before 10:00 hours, the delivery rate was 77.2% (70.2-83.3%). Patients in the CHO group experienced significantly less pre-operative thirst (median 2 vs. 5 on a 0-10 scale, P < 0.0001) and hunger (0 vs. 2, P < 0.0001) than those in the Control group. CONCLUSION: Although preservation of OR scheduling flexibility resulted in a longer fasting time than recommended, CHO drink can be made available to a large proportion of patients with significantly reduced perioperative discomfort.
Subject(s)
Elective Surgical Procedures , Fasting , Operating Rooms , Preoperative Care , Adult , Aged , Drinking , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Personnel Staffing and Scheduling , Time FactorsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Highly active anti-retroviral therapies (HAART) in HIV treatment can result in complex treatment regimens. We surveyed HIV patients followed in the infectious disease department of Saint-Germain-en-Laye Hospital to assess the interest of offering patients a consultation with a pharmacist. METHODS: The 3-part questionnaire enabled us to assess the medical and pharmaceutical information given to the patient, adherence, and risk factors for poor observance. The questionnaire was distributed to all patients, regardless of whether they were receiving treatment. A simple adherence score was computed as well as a score for the risk of poor adherence. RESULTS: Ninety patients returned analyzable questionnaires: 65 (72.2%) thought a pharmaceutical consultation would be useful. They felt it should cover in priority the following subjects: drug interactions (51%), secondary effects (49%), and what to do after forgetting a dose (44%). Treatment was perceived as positive by 82 patients (91%) and tolerated well by 57 (65%). Sixty patients (66.3%) reported that they occasionally forgot a dose, 37 (41.3%) that they regularly did. The results showed good adherence by 61.3% and poor adherence by 38.5%. Risk of non-adherence was significantly associated with three factors: the number of pills to take, the number of daily doses, and the length of the treatment. CONCLUSION: Our survey shows the interest of consultations with pharmacists as a clinical service. By reinforcing the patient's understanding, these can complete and supplement the physician's explanation and instructions on pharmaceutical topics, especially those that could not be addressed during the clinical visit. The main aim of this process is to improve adherence, which is a key element in treatment efficacy.
