ObjectivesTo evaluate outcomes following implementation of a checklist with criteria for switching from intravenous (iv) to oral antibiotics on unselected patients on two general medical wards.MethodsDuring a 12 month intervention study, a printed checklist of criteria for switching on the third day of iv treatment was placed in the medical charts. The decision to switch was left to the discretion of the attending physician. Outcome parameters of a 4 month control phase before intervention were compared with the equivalent 4 month period during the intervention phase to control for seasonal confounding (before–after study; April to July of 2006 and 2007, respectively): 250 episodes (215 patients) during the intervention period were compared with the control group of 176 episodes (162 patients). The main outcome measure was the duration of iv therapy. Additionally, safety, adherence to the checklist, reasons against switching patients and antibiotic cost were analysed during the whole year of the intervention (n = 698 episodes).ResultsIn 38% (246/646) of episodes of continued iv antibiotic therapy, patients met all criteria for switching to oral antibiotics on the third day, and 151/246 (61.4%) were switched. The number of days of iv antibiotic treatment were reduced by 19% (95% confidence interval 9%–29%, P = 0.001; 6.0–5.0 days in median) with no increase in complications. The main reasons against switching were persisting fever (41%, n = 187) and absence of clinical improvement (41%, n = 185).ConclusionsOn general medical wards, a checklist with bedside criteria for switching to oral antibiotics can shorten the duration of iv therapy without any negative effect on treatment outcome. The criteria were successfully applied to all patients on the wards, independently of the indication (empirical or directed treatment), the type of (presumed) infection, the underlying disease or the group of antibiotics being used.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Medication errors in patients with reduced creatinine clearance are harmful and costly; however, most studies have been conducted in large academic hospitals. As there are few studies regarding this issue in smaller community hospitals, we conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study in six community hospitals (100 to 300 beds) to assess the incidence and severity of adverse drug events (ADEs) in patients with reduced creatinine clearance. A chart review was performed on adult patients hospitalized during a 20-month study period with serum creatinine over 1.5 mg/dl who were exposed to drugs that are nephrotoxic or cleared by the kidney. Among 109,641 patients, 17,614 had reduced creatinine clearance, and in a random sample of 900 of these patients, there were 498 potential ADEs and 90 ADEs. Among these ADEs, 91% were preventable, 51% were serious, 44% were significant, and 4.5% were life threatening. Of the potential ADEs, 54% were serious, 44% were significant, 1.6% were life threatening, and 96.6% were not intercepted. All 82 preventable events could have been intercepted by renal dose checking. Our study shows that ADEs were common in patients with impaired kidney function in community hospitals, and many appear potentially preventable with renal dose checking.

Clinical decision support (CDS) systems link patient data with an electronic knowledge base in order to improve decision-making and computerised physician order entry (CPOE) is a requirement to set up electronic CDS. The medical informatics literature suggests categorising CDS tools into medication dosing support, order facilitators, point-of-care alerts and reminders, relevant information display, expert systems and workflow support. To date, CDS has particularly been recognised for improving processes. CDS successfully fostered prevention of deep-vein thrombosis, improved adherence to guidelines, increased the use of vaccinations, and decreased the rate of serious medication errors. However, CDS may introduce errors, and therefore the term "e-iatrogenesis" has been proposed to address unintended consequences. At least two studies reported severe treatment delays due to CPOE and CDS. In addition, the phenomenon of "alert fatigue" - arising from a high number of CDS alerts of low clinical significance - may facilitate overriding of potentially critical notifications. The implementation of CDS needs to be carefully planned, CDS interventions should be thoroughly examined in pilot wards only, and then stepwise introduced. A crucial feature of CPOE in combination with CDS is speed, since time consumption has been found to be a major factor determining failure. In the near future, the specificity of alerts will be improved, notifications will be prioritised and offer detailed advice, customisation of CDS will play an increasing role, and finally, CDS is heading for patient-centred decision support. The most important research question remains whether CDS is able to improve patient outcomes beyond processes.

We consider the PCNE system to be a practical tool in the hospital setting, which demonstrates the values of a clinical pharmacy service in terms of identifying and reducing DRPs and also has the potential to reduce prescribing costs.

This study focusing on community-acquired pneumonia patients with different severities found a 20% shorter LOS in hospitals with DRG financing compared to FFS hospitals without apparent harmful effects on patient outcomes, satisfaction with care and different quality of life measures. Further studies are required to validate these findings for other medical and surgical patient populations.