Comparison of the validity, perceived usefulness, and usability of I-MeDeSA and TEMAS, two tools to evaluate alert system usability.

OBJECTIVE: Two tools are currently available in the literature to evaluate the usability of medication alert systems, the instrument for evaluating human factors principles in medication-related decision support alerts (I-MeDeSA) and the tool for evaluating medication alerting systems (TEMAS). This study aimed to compare their convergent validity, perceived usability, usefulness, strengths, and weaknesses, as well as users' preferences. METHOD: To evaluate convergent validity, two experts mapped TEMAS' items against I-MeDeSA's items with respect to the usability dimensions they target. To assess perceived usability, usefulness, strengths, and weaknesses of both tools, staff with expertise in their medication alerting system were asked to use French versions of the TEMAS and I-MeDeSA. After the use of each tool, participants were asked to complete the System Usability Scale (SUS) and answer questions about the understandability and usefulness of each tool. Finally, participants were asked to name their preferred tool. Numeric scores were statistically compared. Free-text responses were analyzed using an inductive approach. RESULTS: Forty-five participants from 10 hospitals took part in the study. In terms of convergent validity, I-MeDeSA focuses more on the usability of the graphical user interface while TEMAS considers a wider range of usability principles. Both tools have a fair level of perceived usability (I-MeDeSA' SUS score = 61.85 and TEMAS' SUS score = 62.87), but results highlight that revisions are necessary to both tools to improve their usability. Participants found TEMAS more useful than I-MeDeSA (t = -3.63, p =.005) and had a clear preference for TEMAS to identify problems in formative evaluation (39 of 45; 0.867, p <.001) and to compare the usability of alert systems during the procurement process (36 of 45; 0.8, p <.001). CONCLUSIONS: The TEMAS is perceived as more useful and is preferred by participants. The I-MeDeSA seems more relevant for quick evaluations that focus on the graphical user interface. The TEMAS seems to be more suitable for in-depth usability evaluations of alert systems. Even if both tools are perceived to be equally usable, they suffer from wording, instructional, and organizational problems that hinder their use. The results of this study will be used to improve the design of I-MeDeSA and TEMAS.

Evaluation of the tolerance of ceftriaxone by subcutaneous route in patients ≥75 years old in geriatric departments: a prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: The subcutaneous (SC) route provides an alternative to the IV or oral route for drug administration in the elderly. The benefits of SC administration have been proven for hydration but are still debated for antibiotics because tolerance remains uncertain, especially in the frail geriatric population. Here, we aimed to improve current knowledge concerning the tolerance profile of ceftriaxone SC administration at both the systemic and cutaneous level, as well as in terms of pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective descriptive study of SC ceftriaxone tolerance in a geriatric department. We included all patients over 75 years of age who received a prescription for SC ceftriaxone in our hospital over a 5 month period. METHODS: We evaluated the systemic and local tolerance of SC ceftriaxone. Nurses were asked about their perceptions concerning its use. RESULTS: Among 117 patients, 57% presented with pain and 60% with a mild local adverse effect, such as the formation of oedema in one-third of patients, induration or transient erythema. Finally, there were no serious local adverse effects and two systemic adverse effects were observed (one diarrhoea and one Clostridioides difficile colitis). Pain was mainly related to the skin breach and oedema formation. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any worrying signs concerning the use of SC ceftriaxone but this study shows that its wide use must consider pain management, which is often overlooked.

Acceptance Factors for In-Hospital Pharmacist Interventions in Daily Practice: A Retrospective Study.

Introduction: Performing pharmacist interventions (PIs) during the medication review helps to improve the quality of care. The acceptance by the physician of these PIs is a good indicator of the quality of this clinical pharmacy activity. The objective of this study was to determine, in the Amiens-Picardie teaching hospital (France), factors of acceptance in a variable environment of activity (central pharmacy, in the care units, computer assisted). Methods: All PIs transcribed by pharmacists on the Act-IP© site between November 2018 and April 2019 were analyzed using a complementary search in patient records. The environment, type, and clinical impact on patient health of each PI was collected. Linear mixed-effects models with a random pharmacist intercept were used to investigate the relationship between PI modalities and their chance of being accepted. Results: A total of 3,100 PIs were traced, of which 2,930 had been followed over time. Of these, 2,930 PIs, 1,504 (51.3%) were performed by a postgraduate pharmacist and 1,426 (48.7%) by a pharmacy resident, 1,623 (55.4%) were performed by verbal exchange, 455 (15.5%) by telephone, 846 (28.9%) by computer software, and 6 (0.2%) by paper. The clinical impact on patient health was major for 976 PIs (33.3%) and vital for 26 PIs (0.9%). According to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification (ATC), they were mainly related to anti-infectives (30.3%), the nervous system (18.7%), and blood and blood-forming organs (17.3%). In total, 2,415 PIs (82.4%) were accepted. According to the multivariate model, a PI was more often accepted when it was transmitted orally rather than by software (+27.7%, 95% CI: +23.2 to +32.1%) and when it was transmitted to a medical resident rather than a postgraduate physician (+4.4%, 95% CI: 1.2-7.6%). In these cases, there was a major rather than a moderate clinical impact on patient health (+4.3%, 95% CI: +1.1-+7.6%). Conclusion: This study highlights the importance of the quality of the exchange with the prescriber and the prioritization of high-risk interventions as key points of medication review to improve rate of pharmacist interventions accepted by physician.

Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing for Prostatic Hyperplasia in Older Persons.

OBJECTIVES: In the context of improved medication management of older patients, we wished to evaluate the overprescription of potentially inappropriate drugs [α1-blockers and 5α-reductase inhibitors (5-ARI)] for benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). These drugs are considered by geriatricians to increase the risk of falls and pharmacodynamic interactions, but these properties have not yet been proven. DESIGN: This was a descriptive study of drug prescriptions in a geriatric academic center. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We included all patients older than 75 years who received a prescription for α1-blockers or 5-ARIs for 2 weeks in our hospital. METHODS: We evaluated the prevalence of the potentially inappropriate prescription of α1-blockers and 5-ARI in older people during hospitalization using a new tool consisting of an 8-item list of explicit indicators developed using the most recent summary of product characteristics (SmPC) and latest European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines. RESULTS: A population of 117 patients (≥75 years) was included in the study. The median age was 84.5 (±6.3) years. The average time since urological medication prescription was 1.2 ± 1.6 years. According to explicit criteria, 84 patients (71.8%) received at least 1 potentially inappropriate urologic medication, 77 (91.7%) related to α1-blockers. Patients with a potentially inappropriate prescription for α1-blockers and/or 5-ARIs more frequently had urological assessments (P = .026), more frequently showed pharmacological interactions, with the risk of orthostatic hypotension (P = .005) or arrhythmia (P = .028), and experienced more falls in their history (P = .043). The misuse group was associated with an increased risk of falls, with an odds ratio of 3.22 (P = .039, 95% confidence interval 1.08-10.2). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: In our study, potentially inappropriate prescriptions for older individuals for BPH was close to 72% and mainly involved α1-blockers. Potentially inappropriate prescriptions for BPH were associated with a threefold higher frequency of falls.

Cefixime-Induced Oromandibular Dystonia in an Adult: A Case Report.

INTRODUCTION: Cefixime, a third-generation cephalosporin, is commonly used in different infections. Tolerance is pretty good even if some side effects can be frequent like digestive disorders. Other effects, not mentioned in the Summary of Product Characteristics, can occur. METHODS: We report a case of recurrent, acute oromandibular dystonia in a cefixime-treated adult. CASE-REPORT: After the third dose of cefixime, prescribed for a bronchial infection, a patient experienced a first episode of oromandibular dystonia. Then, after each ingestion, the same effects appeared. After the discontinuation of cefixime, there was no recurrence. The diagnosis of acute oromandibular dystonia has been confirmed by a neurologist. DISCUSSION: Some cases of dystonia have been published with other ß-lactams antibiotics and with cefixime but they concerned children. Different mechanisms are proposed to explain the occurrence of dystonia during a treatment with cefixime. They involved certain neurotransmitters like dopamine, acetylcholine or GABA. CONCLUSION: Even if dystonia is not a side effect mentioned in the SPC, the drug's potential causal role must always be considered in case of involuntary contraction of muscles in a patient treated with cefixime or any other ß-lactam antibiotics.