The experiences and needs of relatives of intensive care unit patients during the transition from the intensive care unit to a general ward: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Relatives of intensive care unit (ICU) patients play an important role as caregivers and can experience emotional distress, also referred to as post-intensive care syndrome-family. A deeper understanding of what relatives go through and what they need may provide input on how to strengthen family-centred care and, in the end, contribute to the reduction of symptoms of post-intensive care syndrome-family. METHOD: This is a qualitative descriptive study with semistructured face-to-face interviews after ICU transfers. FINDINGS: A total of 13 relatives of ICU patients participated. Relatives of ICU patients expressed five types of experiences after transfer from the ICU to the general ward: (1) relief, (2) uncertainty, (3) need to be acknowledged in becoming a caregiver, (4) sharing expectations, and (5) need for continuity in care. Relatives experience major uncertainties and prefer to be more actively involved in care and care decisions. CONCLUSION: Relatives of ICU patients experience gaps in care during the transition from the ICU to a general ward. Nurses can play a crucial role in the need for continuity of care by proactively involving relatives during the care pathway of ICU patients.

Comparison of two methods for performing treatment reviews by pharmacists and general practitioners for home-dwelling elderly people.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: There is room for improvement in pharmacotherapy for elderly outpatients. Studies have shown that collaborating health care professionals [e.g. pharmacists in cooperation with general practitioners (GPs)] are able to resolve prescription-related pharmaceutical care issues by means of treatment reviews. The aim of the study was to describe the feasibility of two methods for treatment review (results were given to the GP either in case conferences or in written feedback), and to determine if and how the process of treatment review can be improved. SETTING: Local pharmacists and GPs cooperated in performing treatment reviews for outpatients aged 75 years or more who were using five or more medicines chronically. METHOD: Written questionnaires, structured telephone interviews and analysis of various features of the treatment reviews that were recorded during the intervention study were used. RESULTS: The pharmacists in the case conference group made more recommendations to the GPs (non-significant). Significantly more recommendations were identified by the pharmacists themselves in the case conference group. Health care professionals accepted an intervention with personal contact in case conferences better than an intervention with feedback in writing. They were more positive about the process of treatment review presented personally, although there were not always as many medication changes as they had hoped for. They also had concrete suggestions for improving the intervention, such as using a combination of written feedback and case conferences, and reserving the case conferences for the most complex cases. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment reviews for the elderly in normal primary care are feasible. Health care professionals agree that the process for treatment review can be improved.

Treatment reviews of older people on polypharmacy in primary care: cluster controlled trial comparing two approaches.

BACKGROUND: Older people are prone to problems related to use of medicines. As they tend to use many different medicines, monitoring pharmacotherapy for older people in primary care is important. AIM: To determine which procedure for treatment reviews (case conferences versus written feedback) results in more medication changes, measured at different moments in time. To determine the costs and savings related to such an intervention. DESIGN OF STUDY: Randomised, controlled trial, randomisation at the level of the community pharmacy. SETTING: Primary care; treatment reviews were performed by 28 pharmacists and 77 GPs concerning 738 older people (> or =75 years) on polypharmacy (>five medicines). METHOD: In one group, pharmacists and GPs performed case conferences on prescription-related problems; in the other group, pharmacists provided results of a treatment review to GPs as written feedback. Number of medication changes was counted following clinically-relevant recommendations. Costs and savings associated with the intervention at various times were calculated. RESULTS: In the case-conference group significantly more medication changes were initiated (42 versus 22, P = 0.02). This difference was also present 6 months after treatment reviews (36 versus 19, P = 0.02). Nine months after treatment reviews, the difference was no longer significant (33 versus 19, P = 0.07). Additional costs in the case-conference group seem to be covered by the slightly greater savings in this group. CONCLUSION: Performing treatment reviews with case conferences leads to greater uptake of clinically-relevant recommendations. Extra costs seem to be covered by related savings. The effect of the intervention declines over time, so performing treatment reviews for older people should be integrated in the routine collaboration between GPs and pharmacists.

Analysis of polypharmacy in older patients in primary care using a multidisciplinary expert panel.

BACKGROUND: Many older patients suffer from chronic diseases for which medicines should be used. Because of the higher number of medicines used and decline in hepatic and renal function, older patients are more prone to problems caused by these medicines. Therefore, it is important to review pharmacotherapy concerning older patients in primary care in a reliable way. AIM: To determine the nature, volume and clinical relevance of prescription-related points of attention in the elderly. DESIGN OF STUDY: Analysis of pharmacotherapy by a multidisciplinary expert panel consisting of GPs, geriatric specialists, clinical pharmacists and community pharmacists. SETTING: Pharmacotherapy of 102 home-dwelling older patients on polypharmacy (> or =75 years, using > or =4 medicines continually) living in the Netherlands. METHOD: The analysis of medication-profiles was based on a two-round consensus method. RESULTS: When performing medication reviews for older people it seemed that for almost all (98%) improvement in pharmacotherapy could be made. For 94% of all patients points of attention could be identified in prescribed medicines, of which 30% was considered to be of direct clinical relevance. In 61% of all patients a medicine could be added to improve pharmacotherapy, 25% of these prescribing omissions were considered to be of direct clinical relevance. CONCLUSION: The regular performance of medication reviews should be part of routine in primary care as it yields significant numbers of prescription-related points of attention. Although they were not all considered to be of direct clinical relevance, all points of attention do ask for a signal to the prescribing physician. This paper is not implying poor practice or poor reviewing practice but documenting the need for performing regular medication reviews.

Donor selection criteria to maximize double platelet products (DPP) by platelet apheresis.

Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease brought us to perform a study to diminish donor exposure from transfusion of platelet concentrates. The current study aimed to develop donor selection criteria that maximize the likelihood of deriving single donor platelets and producing double platelet products (DPP). Donors were recruited among plasmapheresis donors and among other donors when the selected donors did not show up. Donor precount and body weight and haematocrit were examined as determinants of higher split-rates combined with procedure time. When the criterion was set on 225; 82% of the procedures (n=717) with a precount of >225 yielded DPP compared to 54% of the procedures with a precount <225 (p<.01). Body weight >65 kg gave good results in split-rate. Procedure time showed an inverse correlation with the highest correlating precount (r=-.14; p<.001). Eighty one percent of the donors reported a willingness to donate at least seven times a year and 75% accepted the mean procedure time. This confirmed logistical feasibility of the conversion to AP-PC although profits would be reduce 13% compared to platelets from pooled buffy coats.

Testing a European set of indicators for the evaluation of the management of primary care practices.

BACKGROUND: Effective practice management is an important prerequisite for offering good clinical care. Internationally valid, reliable and feasible indicators and instruments are needed to describe and compare the management of primary care practices in Europe. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes development and evaluation of the European Practice Assessment instrument and indicators (Engels Y, Campbell S, Dautzenberg M et al. Developing a framework of, and quality indicators for, general practice management in Europe. Fam Pract 2005; 22(2): 215-22). METHODS: The study design was a validation and feasibility study set in 273 general practices in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Israel, The Netherlands, Slovenia, Switzerland and the UK. Use was made of a set of 62 valid quality indicators derived previously from an international Delphi procedure. The EPA instrument, based on this set of indicators, was used to collect data in the 273 practices. This instrument consists of self-completed questionnaires for doctors, staff managers and patients. In addition, there is an interview schedule for use by an outreach visitor, to be held with the lead GP or manager, and a visitor checklist. The instrument was analysed using expert review by the project partners, factor and reliability analyses, ANOVA analyses and by determining intraclass correlations. RESULTS: Fifty-seven indicators were found to be valid, feasible, reliable and discriminative in all participating countries. The instrument was able to determine differences in practice management within and between countries. All (but one) practices completed the assessment procedure. The data collection method appeared to be feasible, although some aspects can be improved. CONCLUSION: The EPA instrument provides feedback to practices that facilitates quality improvement and can compare primary care practices on a national and an international level.

Developing a framework of, and quality indicators for, general practice management in Europe.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a framework for general practice management made up of quality indicators shared by six European countries. METHODS: Two-round postal Delphi questionnaire in the setting of general practice in Belgium, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Six national expert panels, each consisting of 10 members, primarily primary care practitioners and experts in the field of quality in primary care participated in the study. The main outcome measures were: (a) a European framework with indicators for the organization of primary care; and (b) ratings of the face validity of the usefulness of the indicators by expert panels in six countries. RESULTS: Agreement was reached about a definition of practice management across five domains (infrastructure, staff, information, finance, and quality and safety), and a common set of indicators for the organization of general practice. The panellist response rate was 95%. Sixty-two indicators (37%) were rated face valid by all six panels. Examples include out of hours service, accessibility, the content of doctors' bags and staff involvement in quality improvement. No indicators were rated invalid by all six panels. CONCLUSIONS: It proved to be possible to develop a European set of indicators for assessing the quality of practice management, despite the differences in health care systems and cultures in the six different countries. These indicators will now be used in a quality assessment procedure of practice management in nine European countries. While organizational indicators are part of the new GMS contract in the UK, this research shows that many practice management issues within primary care are also of relevance in other European countries.

Repeat prescribing: scale, problems and quality management in ambulatory care patients.

The reported scale of repeat prescriptions ranges from 29% to 75% of all items prescribed, depending on the definition of repeat prescribing and other variables. It is likely that a substantial part of repeat prescribing by general practitioners (GPs) occurs without direct doctor-patient contact. While this reduces the workload for the GP and is convenient for the patient, it does not provide the adequate control that is needed to ensure that every repeat prescription is still appropriate, effective and well tolerated, and that it is still being viewed upon and taken by the patient as intended. Infrequent therapy reviews may lead to failure to prevent, identify and solve drug-related problems and drug wastage, and may, thereby, have a negative impact on the effectiveness, safety or cost of the medications prescribed. Studies evaluating the repeat prescribing process have shown that GPs and medical practices vary widely in their degree of administrative and clinical control of repeat prescriptions. Contrary to the opinion that GPs cannot change prescribing behaviour when the prescription is initiated by a medical specialist, GPs have their own responsibility for controlling the repeats of such prescriptions. Intervention studies suggest that a medication review by a pharmacist can help to reduce drug-related problems with repeat prescriptions, and the effectiveness of the intervention may be increased by combining the medication review with a consultation of the patient's medical records and a patient interview. In several studies, such an intervention was relatively inexpensive and, therefore, feasible. However, these conclusions should be viewed with appropriate caution because a number of caveats pertain. There is still no evidence that these types of intervention improve health-related quality of life or reduce healthcare cost, and so far only a few trials have produced any evidence of clinical improvement. As implicit and explicit screening criteria have their own benefits and limitations, a combined application may offer a more thorough assessment but may also be more complex and time consuming. Further studies on the development and evaluation of repeat prescription management models are needed, preferably focussing on improving clinical, humanistic and economic outcomes. New studies should investigate the effects of: different types of interventions; different organisational models; different target populations; and selecting and training different types of healthcare professionals. Future studies should also assess whether results are sustained, the optimal time interval between reviews of repeat prescriptions, and the possibilities offered by new computerised support technologies.