BackgroundTo address the opioid crisis, much work has focused on minimizing opioid supply to surgical patients upon hospital discharge. Research is limited regarding handover to primary care providers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the communication of post‐operative opioid prescribing information provided by hospitals to general practitioners (GPs).MethodsThis study comprised two components. First, a retrospective audit of discharge summaries for opioid‐naïve surgical patients supplied with an opioid on discharge was conducted to evaluate accuracy of opioid documentation and presence of an opioid management plan. Second, a survey was distributed to GPs to seek their opinions regarding adequacy of communication about hospital‐initiated opioids in discharge summaries, challenges experienced in opioid management and suggestions for improvement.ResultsDischarge summaries for 285 patients were audited. Twenty‐seven (9.5%) patients had no discharge summary completed. Of the remaining 258, 63 (24.4%) summaries had at least one discrepancy between the opioid(s) listed and the opioid(s) dispensed. Only 33 (12.8%) summaries contained an opioid management plan. From 57 GP‐completed surveys, 41 (71.9%) GPs rarely or never received an opioid management plan from hospital surgical units and 34 (59.7%) were dissatisfied/very dissatisfied with information provided about opioid supply and management. Qualitative responses highlighted difficulties GPs experience managing opioid treatment for post‐surgical patients after discharge, differing patient expectations and the need to improve communication at times of transition.ConclusionWhen opioid‐naive patients are discharged from hospital on opioids, communication from hospitals to GPs is poor. Future interventions should focus on strategies to improve this.
Dapsone may be used for Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP) prophylaxis in hematology patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy or after hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) in the setting of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) adverse drug reaction (ADR) history. Dapsone-induced hematological toxicities such as oxidative hemolysis may limit use in these patients and modern assessments of dapsone allergy cross-reactivity in non-HIV patients with a sulfonamide allergy are largely absent. The aim of this single-centre, retrospective study was to describe dapsone usage in hematology patients requiring PJP prophylaxis, including HSCT recipients, over a 12-month period in terms of indications, incidence of dapsone-attributed oxidative hemolysis, and immune cross-reactivity in those previously labeled with a sulfonamide allergy, as well as describing potential opportunities for first-line TMP-SMX PJP prophylaxis reintroduction. Of 24 patients meeting the study inclusion criteria, 12 (50%) were receiving dapsone PJP prophylaxis post-HSCT. No cases of breakthrough PJP infection were noted. Sixteen patients (67%) were initiated on dapsone to avoid the perceived risk of further myelosuppression with TMP-SMX and five patients (21%) because of prior delayed immune-mediated allergy to TMP-SMX. None experienced rash with dapsone therapy. Six patients (25%) were successfully rechallenged on TMP-SMX, including one patient with prior TMP-SMX-associated rash. Four (17%) patients had confirmed oxidative hemolysis, all resulting in dapsone cessation. Dapsone PJP prophylaxis in hematology patients was effective and safe, with nonlife threatening dapsone-related hemolysis noted in a small number. An absence of sulfonamide allergy cross-reactivity was noted, suggesting greater TMP-SMX rechallenges or desensitization could be considered in those receiving dapsone.
Introduction: The aim of this study was to describe the nature of regular medications taken by active comorbid scuba divers (having a declared medical comorbidity) and scuba divers and snorkellers who died following a diving incident. Methods: We undertook a retrospective, observational study from July to October, 2020. Data on 268 active comorbid divers were obtained through a 2013 survey of Divers Alert Network Asia-Pacific members. Data on 126 deceased scuba divers and 175 deceased snorkellers were obtained predominantly from 2001–2013 reports to Australian State Coronial Services. Results: The active comorbid divers were significantly older, less likely to be male, and more likely to be taking one or more medications than the two deceased subject groups (P < 0.001). Cardiovascular, endocrine and psychotropic medications accounted for 53.4%, 9.9% and 6.4% of all medications taken, respectively. Almost one tenth of the deceased divers took at least one psychotropic medication, a proportion significantly greater than the other groups (P = 0.01). Conclusions: Medication use among active comorbid divers is common which likely reflects their declared medical condition. Nevertheless, they appear to be diving relatively safely, often with conditions once thought to be absolute contradictions to scuba diving. The deceased divers took significantly more psychotropic medications. It is possible that their underlying psychological/psychiatric conditions rendered them more at risk of a diving incident. Increased vigilance for psychological conditions may need to be considered during diving medical examinations.
Objective: To describe the magnitude of ketamine doses administered in the ED, to identify an appropriate product to minimise risk of administration errors and diversion. Methods: Retrospective audit of patients prescribed ketamine in two mixed adult/paediatric EDs over 12 months. Results: Ketamine was administered to 386 patients (722 doses). The most common dose was ≤20 mg (52.1%), followed by 21-50 mg (30.5%). Overall, 215 patients required one dose only (71 received a dose ≤20 mg), while 299 required no more than two doses. Conclusion: Over three-quarters of ketamine doses were ≤50 mg; therefore, 50 mg in 1 mL may be an appropriate product.
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.