Search

Background: Loop diuretic therapy effectively treats edema related to heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and liver impairment; however, evidence supporting other indications is lacking. For indications such as hypertension or dependent edema or treatment of adverse events associated with other medications, the benefits likely do not outweigh the risks, putting patients at an unacceptably high risk of poor outcomes., Study Question: What is the proportion of loop diuretic prescribing that occurs in the absence of a diagnosis of heart failure, chronic kidney disease, liver impairment, or other evidence-based indications?, Study Design: This was a national, retrospective, cross-sectional investigation conducted using the National Ambulatory Care Survey from 2013 to 2016. Outpatient visits for patients aged 18 years or older prescribed with loop diuretics were included., Measures and Outcomes: The primary end point was the frequency of potentially inappropriate loop diuretic prescribing. The secondary end point was a multivariable regression model that identified predictors of potentially inappropriate loop diuretic utilization., Results: This analysis identified 5261 outpatient visits conducted during the study period in which loop diuretics were prescribed. Of these, 3648 visits (65.8% of weighted visits) were of patients without a history of heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or liver impairment. Positive predictors included age older than 65 years (odds ratio [OR] 1.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.38-2.13), concomitant calcium channel blocker (OR 1.42; 95% CI, 1.09-1.84), sodium-containing medication use (OR 2.78; 95% CI, 1.23-6.25), and office visit with a cardiology specialist (OR 2.84; 95% CI, 2.31-3.50)., Conclusions: This analysis identified that loop diuretics are prescribed in the absence of evidence-based indications more frequently than they are prescribed for them. This prescribing pattern creates a unique opportunity for clinicians to optimize patient care. Further study of the outcomes associated with this prescribing pattern is warranted., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

What Is Known and Objective: Current evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of acute low back pain (ALBP) recommend the use of opioid medications only after failure of nonpharmacological therapy, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and skeletal muscle relaxants and after thorough evaluation of risks and benefits. Despite this recommendation and the state of the opioid epidemic in the United States (US), opioids remain a common drug of choice for ALBP in the emergency department (ED). The purpose of this study was to quantify the prevalence and identify predictors of opioid prescribing for acute lower back pain (ALBP) in emergency departments (EDs) in the United States., Methods: This was a national, cross-sectional study of the National Hospital Ambulatory Care Survey from 2013-2016. ED visits for patients aged ≥18 years treated for ALBP were included. Patients presenting with specified reasons that an opioid may be indicated were excluded. The primary endpoint was frequency of opioids prescribed. A multivariate logistic regression model identified patient- and provider-level predictors of opioid use., Results and Discussion: This analysis included 2260 visits for ALBP. Opioids were prescribed in 32.3% of visits. Positive predictors of opioid prescribing were pain score of 7-10 (OR 1.85; 95% CI 1.26-2.70), and patients seen in the Southern (OR 2.53; 95% CI 1.47-4.36) or Western US (OR 2.10; 95% CI 1.19-3.70). Opioids were prescribed less often to patients who received a NSAID or acetaminophen (OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.28-0.52 and OR 0.03; 95% CI 0.01-0.10, respectively)., What Is New and Conclusion: Opioid prescribing rates for ALBP remain high and the predictors identified demonstrate that this prescribing pattern is not uniformly distributed across the patient and provider characteristics studied., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The care of the older adult requires an interprofessional approach to solve complex medical and social problems, but this approach is difficult to teach in our educational silos. We developed an interprofessional educational session in response to national requests for innovative practice models that use collaborative interprofessional teams. We chose geriatric fall prevention as our area of focus as our development of the educational session coincided with the development of an interprofessional Fall Risk Reduction Clinic. Our aim of this study was to evaluate the number and type of students who attended a pilot and 10 subsequent educational sessions. We also documented the changes that occurred due to a Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) rapid-cycle improvement model to modify our educational session. The educational session evolved into an online presession self-study didactic and in-person educational session with a poster/skill section, an interprofessional team simulation, and simulated patient experience. The simulated patient experience included an interprofessional fall evaluation, team meeting, and presentation to an expert panel. The pilot session had 83 students from the three sponsoring institutions (hospital system, university, and medical university). Students were from undergraduate nursing, nurse practitioner graduate program, pharmacy, medicine, social work, physical therapy, nutrition, and pastoral care. Since the pilot, 719 students have participated in various manifestations of the online didactic plus in-person training sessions. Ten separate educational sessions have been given at three different institutions. Survey data with demographic information were available on 524 participants. Students came from ten different schools and represented thirteen different health care disciplines. A large-scale interprofessional educational session is possible with rapid-cycle improvement, inclusion of educators from a variety of learning institutions, and flexibility with curriculum to accommodate learners in various stages of training., Competing Interests: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper., (Copyright © 2020 Colleen Mcquown et al.)

Purpose: An interdisciplinary group developed a care transitions process with a prominent pharmacist role., Methods: The new transitions process was initiated on a 32-bed medical/surgical unit. Demographics, reconciliation data, information on medication adherence barriers, medication recommendations, and time spent performing interventions were prospectively collected for 284 consecutive patients over 54 days after the pharmacy participation was completely implemented. Outcome data, including 30-day readmission rates and length of stay, were retrospectively collected., Results: When comparing metrics for all intervention patients to baseline metrics from the same months of the previous year, the readmission rate was decreased from 21.0% to 15.3% and mean length of stay decreased from 5.3 days to 4.4 days. Further improvement to a 10.2% readmission rate and a 3.6-day average length of stay were observed in the subgroup of intervention patients who received all components of the pharmacy intervention. Additionally, greater improvements were observed in intervention-period patients who received the full pharmacy intervention, as compared to those receiving only parts of the pharmacy intervention, with a 10.2-percentage-point lower readmission rate (10.2% vs 20.4%, P = 0.016) and a 1.7-day shorter length of stay (3.6 days vs 5.3 days; 95% confidence interval, 0.814-2.68 days; P = 0.0003). For patients receiving any component of the pharmacy intervention, an average of 9.56 medication recommendations were made, with a mean of 0.89 change per patient deemed to be required to avoid harm and/or increased length of stay., Conclusion: A comprehensive pharmacy intervention added to a transitions intervention resulted in an average of nearly 10 medication recommendations per patient, improved length of stay, and reduced readmission rates., (© American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 2020. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: One in three people over the age of 65 fall every year, with 1/3 sustaining at least moderate injury. Falls risk reduction requires an interprofessional health team approach. The literature is lacking in effective models to teach students how to work collaboratively in interprofessional teams for geriatric falls prevention. The purpose of this paper is to describe the development, administration and outcome measures of an education programme to teach principles of interprofessional care for older adults in the context of falls prevention., Methods: Students from three academic institutions representing 12 health disciplines took part in the education programme over 18 months (n=237). A mixed method one-group pretest and post-test experimental design was implemented to measure the impact of a multistep education model on progression in interprofessional collaboration competencies and satisfaction., Results: Paired t -tests of pre-education to posteducation measures of Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale scores (n=136) demonstrated statistically significant increase in subscales and total scores (p<0.001). Qualitative satisfaction results were strongly positive., Discussion: Results of this study indicate that active interprofessional education can result in positive student attitude regarding interprofessional team-based care, and satisfaction with learning. Lessons learnt in a rapid cycle plan-do-study-act approach are shared to guide replication efforts for other educators., Conclusion: Effective models to teach falls prevention interventions and interprofessional practice are not yet established. This education model is easily replicable and can be used to teach interprofessional teamwork competency skills in falls and other geriatric syndromes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background: Increasing numbers of survivors of critical illness are at risk for physical, cognitive, and/or mental health impairments that may persist for months or years after hospital discharge. The post-intensive care syndrome framework encompassing these multidimensional morbidities was developed at the 2010 Society of Critical Care Medicine conference on improving long-term outcomes after critical illness for survivors and their families., Objectives: To report on engagement with non-critical care providers and survivors during the 2012 Society of Critical Care Medicine post-intensive care syndrome stakeholder conference. Task groups developed strategies and resources required for raising awareness and education, understanding and addressing barriers to clinical practice, and identifying research gaps and resources, aimed at improving patient and family outcomes., Participants: Representatives from 21 professional associations or health systems involved in the provision of both critical care and rehabilitation of ICU survivors in the United States and ICU survivors and family members., Design: Stakeholder consensus meeting. Researchers presented summaries on morbidities for survivors and their families, whereas survivors presented their own experiences., Meeting Outcomes: Future steps were planned regarding 1) recognizing, preventing, and treating post-intensive care syndrome, 2) building strategies for institutional capacity to support and partner with survivors and families, and 3) understanding and addressing barriers to practice. There was recognition of the need for systematic and frequent assessment for post-intensive care syndrome across the continuum of care, including explicit "functional reconciliation" (assessing gaps between a patient's pre-ICU and current functional ability at all intra- and interinstitutional transitions of care). Future post-intensive care syndrome research topic areas were identified across the continuum of recovery: characterization of at-risk patients (including recognizing risk factors, mechanisms of injury, and optimal screening instruments), prevention and treatment interventions, and outcomes research for patients and families., Conclusions: Raising awareness of post-intensive care syndrome for the public and both critical care and non-critical care clinicians will inform a more coordinated approach to treatment and support during recovery after critical illness. Continued conceptual development and engagement with additional stakeholders is required.