Implementation of a pharmacist-driven pain management consultation service for hospitalised adults with a history of substance abuse.

BACKGROUND: Pain management in adult patients with concomitant substance use disorders (SUDs) presents a clinical challenge in the absence of objective assessment criteria. Effective pain management is dependent on the clinician's ability to differentiate true pain symptoms from manipulative behaviours. Successful strategies for achieving effective pain control in these patients include implementing a multidisciplinary team approach, use of non-opioid and non-pharmacologic alternatives, and judicious use of opioid analgesics. OBJECTIVE: To describe the implementation of a pharmacist-driven pain management service for patients with concomitant SUDs. METHODS: In an urban teaching hospital located in Trenton, New Jersey, United States, a clinical pharmacist-led pain management service evolved to provide formal consultation. Standardised assessment and treatment approaches were developed to assure consistency. Multidisciplinary education was provided to the medical staff. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The study describes a variety of patterns associated with the program from its pilot period through the first 6 years of service, including opioid utilisation, volume and source of consultations, and multidisciplinary perceptions regarding the program's impact. RESULTS: The establishment of a pharmacist-led pain management consult service successfully addressed patient's needs while modifying drug-seeking behaviours. A significant decrease in opioid usage was noted during the program's pilot period and sustained over time. The program's success has extended the pharmacist's role beyond the program's initial scope to address general pain management needs and to address educational needs of the medical staff. Today, clinical pharmacists are utilised most often for refractory cases for which the most appropriate method of pain management may not be clear.

An alternative strategy for studying adverse events in medical care.

BACKGROUND: Data about the frequency of adverse events related to inappropriate care in hospitals come from studies of medical records as if they represented a true record of adverse events. In a prospective, observational design we analysed discussion of adverse events during the care of all patients admitted to three units of a large, urban teaching hospital affiliated to a university medical school. Discussion took place during routine clinical meetings. We undertook the study to enhance understanding of the incidence and scope of adverse events as a basis for preventing them. METHODS: Ethnographers trained in qualitative observational research attended day-shift, weekday, regularly scheduled attending rounds, residents' work rounds, nursing shift changes, case conferences, and other scheduled meetings in three study units as well as various departmental and section meetings. They recorded all adverse events during patient care discussed at these meetings and developed a classification scheme to code the data. Data were collected about health-care providers' own assessments about the appropriateness of the care that patients received to assess the nature and impact of adverse events and how health-care providers and patients responded to the adverse events. FINDINGS: Of the 1047 patients in the study, 185 (17.7%) were said to have had at least one serious adverse event; having an initial event was linked to the seriousness of the patient's underlying illness. Patients with long stays in hospital had more adverse events than those with short stays. The likelihood of experiencing an adverse event increased about 6% for each day of hospital stay, 37.8% of adverse events were caused by an individual, 15.6% had interactive causes, and 9.8% were due to administrative decisions. Although 17.7% of patients experienced serious events that led to longer hospital stays and increased costs to the patients, only 1.2% (13) of the 1047 patients made claims for compensation. INTERPRETATION: This study shows that there is a wide range of potential causes of adverse events that should be considered, and that careful attention must be paid to errors with interactive or administrative causes. Healthcare providers' own discussions of adverse events can be a good source of data for proactive error prevention.

Compromised consent: deficiencies in the consent process for genetic testing.

Genetic tests are available for an increasing array of disorders. Although the doctrine of informed consent requires that physicians provide sufficient information to patients in advance of testing and allow them to make decisions in a noncoerced way, some studies have shown that physicians do not provide adequate information about the nature of genetic testing and its risks. Some physicians test patients without their consent. This article recommends that physicians address the limitations on their knowledge about genetics and about life with genetic disorders. It also analyzes how the informed consent process for genetic testing can be improved.

Legal aspects of genetic information.

The federally funded Human Genome Initiative will lead to the development of new capabilities to learn about an individual's genetic status. Legal issues are raised concerning patients' and other parties' access to that information. This article discusses the effect of existing statutes and case law on three pivotal questions: To what sort of information are people entitled? What control should people have over their genetic information? Do people have a right to refuse genetic information? The article emphasizes that the law protects a patient's right to obtain or refuse genetic information about oneself, as well as the right to control the dissemination of that information to others.