The 2014 National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention has recognized adverse drug events (ADEs) as a national priority in order to facilitate a nationwide reduction in patient harms from these events. Throughout this effort, it will be integral to identify populations that may be at particular risk in order to improve care for these patients. We have undertaken a systematic review to evaluate the evidence regarding racial or ethnic disparities in ADEs with particular emphasis on anticoagulants, diabetes agents, and opioids due to the clinical significance and preventability of ADEs associated with these medication classes. From an initial search yielding 3302 studies, we identified 40 eligible studies. Twenty-seven of these included studies demonstrated the presence of a racial or ethnic disparity. There was no consistent evidence for racial or ethnic disparities in the eight studies of ADEs in general. Asians were most frequently determined to be at higher risk of anticoagulant-related ADEs, and black patients were most frequently determined to be at higher risk for diabetes agents-related ADEs. Whites were most frequently identified as at increased risk for opioid-related ADEs. However, few of these studies were specifically designed to evaluate racial or ethnic disparities, lacking a standardized approach to racial/ethnic categorization as well as control for potential confounders. We suggest the need for targeted interventions to reduce ADEs in populations that may be at increased risk, and we suggest strategies for future research.
Nonprofit hospital community health needs assessments in Philadelphia predominantly identify needs related to access to care and to some extent health behaviors. There is incomplete alignment between the needs identified in hospital assessments and the needs targeted in implementation strategies, underscoring a need for regional coordination in community benefit investments. Improved regional coordination between hospitals serving the region may offer the opportunity to eliminate duplicative efforts and increase the amount of funds available to address unmet needs.
Objective Many people with new‐onset focal epilepsy initially seek evaluation in emergency departments (EDs), and treatment decisions in EDs can influence likelihood of seizure recurrence. Using data collected for the Human Epilepsy Project (HEP), we assessed the effect of clinical seizure characteristics on ED clinical management. Methods There were 447 participants with new‐onset focal epilepsy seen within 4 months of treatment initiation who were eligible and enrolled in HEP. Seizure calendars and medical records were collected. Based on clinical descriptions, seizures were categorized by semiology according to International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) classifications as either focal nonmotor or focal motor seizures. Results Overall, 279 of 447(62%) of participants had presented to an ED prior to or at time of epilepsy diagnosis. A total of 132 of 246 (53%) with initial nonmotor seizures presented to an ED. Of these, eight (6%) presented with a first‐lifetime nonmotor seizure. The other 124 (94%) presented after multiple seizures: seven (5%) with multiple nonmotor seizures and 117 (89%) with a first‐lifetime motor seizure after having prior nonmotor seizures. A total of 147 of 201 (73%) participants with initial motor seizures presented to an ED. Of these, 134 (92%) presented with a first‐lifetime motor seizure and 13 (9%) with multiple motor seizures. There was no difference in the likelihood of antiseizure medication initiation between participants who had multiple prior nonmotor seizures followed by a motor seizure (thereby fulfilling the criterion for an epilepsy diagnosis) versus those presenting with a single lifetime motor seizure (39% vs. 43%). There was no difference in recognition of seizures as the presenting complaint (85% vs. 87%) or whether the participant was admitted or referred to a neurologist (87% vs. 79%). Conclusions This study contributes to evidence of underrecognition of nonmotor focal seizure semiologies in ED settings, which can support large‐scale interventions aimed at improving recognition, specialist consultation, and treatment in ED settings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.