Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Hosp Med ; 12(5): 310-316, 2017 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28459898

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines and sedative hypnotics are commonly used to treat insomnia and agitation in older adults despite significant risk. A clear understanding of the extent of the problem and its contributors is required to implement effective interventions. OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of hospitalized older adults who are inappropriately prescribed benzodiazepines or sedative hypnotics, and to identify patient and prescriber factors associated with increased prescriptions. DESIGN: Single-center retrospective observational study. SETTING: Urban academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Medical-surgical inpatients aged 65 or older who were newly prescribed a benzodiazepine or zopiclone. MEASUREMENTS: Our primary outcome was the proportion of patients who were prescribed a potentially inappropriate benzodiazepine or sedative hypnotic. Potentially inappropriate indications included new prescriptions for insomnia or agitation/anxiety. We used a multivariable random-intercept logistic regression model to identify patient- and prescriber-level variables that were associated with potentially inappropriate prescriptions. RESULTS: Of 1308 patients, 208 (15.9%) received a potentially inappropriate prescription. The majority of prescriptions, 254 (77.4%), were potentially inappropriate. Of these, most were prescribed for insomnia (222; 87.4%) and during overnight hours (159; 62.3%). Admission to a surgical or specialty service was associated with significantly increased odds of potentially inappropriate prescription compared to the general internal medicine service (odds ratio [OR], 6.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.70-16.17). Prescription by an attending physician or fellow was associated with significantly fewer prescriptions compared to first-year trainees (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.08-0.93). Nighttime prescriptions did not reach significance in initial bivariate analyses but were associated with increased odds of potentially inappropriate prescription in our regression model (OR, 4.48; 95% CI, 2.21-9.06). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of newly prescribed benzodiazepines and sedative hypnotics were potentially inappropriate and were primarily prescribed as sleep aids. Future interventions should focus on the development of safe sleep protocols and education targeted at first-year trainees.Journal of Hospital Medicine 2017;12:310-316.


Subject(s)
Benzodiazepines/therapeutic use , Hospitalization/trends , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Inappropriate Prescribing/trends , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Benzodiazepines/adverse effects , Drug Prescriptions , Female , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/adverse effects , Male , Prevalence , Retrospective Studies , Sleep Wake Disorders/drug therapy , Sleep Wake Disorders/epidemiology
2.
Cardiovasc Ultrasound ; 13: 44, 2015 Nov 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26573578

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Responding to concerns regarding the growth of cardiac testing, the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) published Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for various cardiac imaging modalities. Single modality cardiac imaging appropriateness has been reported but there have been no studies assessing the appropriateness of multiple imaging modalities in an inpatient environment. METHODS: A retrospective study of the appropriateness of cardiac tests ordered by the inpatient General Internal Medicine (GIM) and Cardiology services at three Canadian academic hospitals was conducted over two one-month periods. Cardiac tests characterized were transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), single-photon emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT), and diagnostic cardiac catheterization. RESULTS: Overall, 553 tests were assessed, of which 99.8% were classifiable by AUC. 91% of all studies were categorized as appropriate, 4% may be appropriate and 5% were rarely appropriate. There were high rates of appropriate use of all modalities by GIM and Cardiology throughout. Significantly more appropriate diagnostic catheterizations were ordered by Cardiology than GIM (93% vs. 82%, p = <0.01). Cardiology ordered more appropriate studies overall (94% vs. 88%, p = 0.03) but there was no difference in the rate of rarely appropriate studies (3% vs. 6%, p = 0.23). CONCLUSION: The ACCF AUC captured the vast majority of clinical scenarios for multiple cardiac imaging modalities in this multi-centered study on Cardiology and GIM inpatients in the acute care setting. The rate of appropriate ordering was high across all imaging modalities. We recommend further work towards improving appropriate utilization of cardiac imaging resources focus on the out-patient setting.


Subject(s)
Academic Medical Centers/statistics & numerical data , Cardiac Imaging Techniques/statistics & numerical data , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Medical Overuse/statistics & numerical data , Multimodal Imaging/statistics & numerical data , Utilization Review , Canada/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...