Computerized clinical decision support systems for prescribing in primary care: main characteristics and implementation impact-protocol of an evidence and gap map.

BACKGROUND: Computerized clinical decision support systems are used by clinicians at the point of care to improve quality of healthcare processes (prescribing error prevention, adherence to clinical guidelines, etc.) and clinical outcomes (preventive, therapeutic, and diagnostics). Attempts to summarize results of computerized clinical decision support systems to support prescription in primary care have been challenging, and most systematic reviews and meta-analyses failed due to an extremely high degree of heterogeneity present among the included primary studies. The aim of our study will be to synthesize the evidence, considering all methodological factors that could explain these differences, and build an evidence and gap map to identify important remaining research questions. METHODS: A literature search will be conducted from January 2010 onwards in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full text, and abstract data. The study methodological quality and risk of bias will be appraised using appropriate tools if applicable. A flow diagram with the screened studies will be presented, and all included studies will be displayed using interactive evidence and gap maps. Results will be reported in accordance with recommendations from the Campbell Collaboration on the development of evidence and gap maps. DISCUSSION: Evidence behind computerized clinical decision support systems to support prescription use in primary care has so far been difficult to be synthesized. Evidence and gap maps represent an innovative approach that has emerged and is increasingly being used to address a broader research question, where multiple types of intervention and outcomes reported may be evaluated. Broad inclusion criteria have been chosen with regard to study designs, in order to collect all available information. Regarding the limitations, we will only include English and Spanish language studies from the last 10 years, we will not perform a grey literature search, and we will not carry out a meta-analysis due to the predictable heterogeneity of available studies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This study is registered in Open Science Framework https://bit.ly/2RqKrWp.

Intervention effectiveness by pharmacists integrated within an interdisciplinary health team on chronic complex patients.

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, it is difficult to establish a specific method of intervention by the pharmacist and its clinical repercussions. Our aim was to identify interventions by pharmacists integrated within an interdisciplinary team for chronic complex patients (CCPs) and determine which of them produce the best results. METHODS: A systematic review (SR) was performed based on PICO(d) question (2008-18): (Population): CCPs; (Intervention): carried out by health system pharmacists in collaboration with an interdisciplinary team; (Comparator): any; (Outcome): clinical and health resources usage outcomes; (Design): meta-analysis, SR and randomized clinical trials. RESULTS: Nine articles were included: one SR and eight randomized clinical trials. The interventions consisted mainly in putting in order the pharmacotherapy and the review of the medication adequacy, medication reconciliation in transition of care and educational intervention for health professionals. Only one showed significant improvements in mortality (27.9% vs. 38.5%; HR = 1.49; P = 0.026), two in health-related quality of life [according to EQ-5D (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions) and EQ-VAS (European Quality of Life-Visual Analog Scale) tests] and four in other health-related results (subjective self-assessment scales, falls or episodes of delirium and negative health outcomes associated with medication). Significant differences between groups were found in hospital stay and frequency of visits to the emergency department. No better results were observed in hospitalization rate. Otherwise, one study measured cost utility and found a cost of €45 987 per quality-adjusted life year gained due to the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: It was not possible to determine with certainty which interventions produce the best results in CCPs. The clinical heterogeneity of the studies and the short follow-up of most studies probably contributed to this uncertainty.

Continuous versus intermittent piperacillin/tazobactam infusion in infection due to or suspected pseudomonas aeruginosa.

BACKGROUND: There is lack of information on the efficacy and safety of piperacillin­tazobactam administered by continuous infusion. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether continuous infusion of piperacillin­tazobactam is superior in terms of efficacy to a 30 % higher dose administered by intermittent infusion to treat suspected or confirmed infection due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Setting Multicenter clinical trial with 11 third level Spanish hospitals. METHOD: Randomized, double-blind parallel-group clinical trial, controlled by conventional administration of the drug. Patients randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive piperacillin­tazobactam as continuous infusion (CI) or intermittent (II). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Primary efficacy endpoint was percentage of patients having a satisfactory clinical response at completion of treatment, defined as clinical cure or clinical improvement. Adverse events were reported. Results 78 patients were included, 40 in the CI group and 38 in the II group. Mean (standard deviation) duration of treatment was 7 (±4.44) days. 58 patients (74.4 %) experienced cure or improvement at the end of the treatment. There were no statistical differences in cure rates between the two treatment arms and no adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Continuous infusion of piperacillin­tazobactam is an alternative administration drug method at least similar in efficacy and safety to conventional intermittent infusion. Multivariate analysis is needed to determine whether continuous administration might be more beneficial than intermittent in certain patient subgroups.