IntroductionClinical pharmacy improves patient safety and secures drug management using information, education and good clinical practices. However, medical device management is still unexplored, and proof of effectiveness is needed. A PICC line (peripherally inserted central catheter) is a medical device for infusion. It accesses the central venous system after being implanted in a peripheral vein. However, complications after implantation often interfere with smooth execution of the treatment. We hypothesise that clinical pharmacy for medical devices could be as effective as clinical pharmacy for medications. The main objective is to assess the effectiveness of clinical pharmacy activities on the complication rate after PICC line implantation.Methods and analysisThis is a before–after prospective study. The study will begin with an observational period without clinical pharmacy activities, followed by an interventional period where pharmacists will intervene on drug and medical device management and provide personalised follow-up and advice. Sixty-nine adult patients will be recruited in each 6-month period from all traditional care units. The main inclusion criteria will be the implantation of a PICC line. The primary outcome is the decrease in the number of complications per patient and per month. Secondary outcomes are the consultation and hospital readmission rates, the acceptance rate of pharmaceutical interventions, the patients’ quality of life, the direct hospital induced or avoided costs and the participants’ satisfaction. Data will be collected using case report forms during hospitalisation and telephone follow-up after discharge. The analysis will compare these criteria during the two periods.Ethics and disseminationThe study has received the approval of our Ethics Committee (Clermont-Ferrand Southeast VI, France, number AU1586). Results will be made available to the patients or their caregivers, the sponsor and other researchers when asked, as described in the consent form.Trial registration numberNCT04359056.
BackgroundBiotherapies are mostly used in the treatment of chronic inflammatory rheumatism, such as rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis. Because they expose patients to a higher risk of infection, a urinary dipstick test (UDT) is performed in all patients who receive biotherapies.PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the relevance of systematically performing a UDT in patients in the rheumatology day hospitalisation unit.Material and methodsA UDT was done for each patient during hospitalisation. When they were positive (positive nitrites and/or leukocytes strong), a cytobacteriological examination of urine (CBEU) was performed as well as a summary of clinical information.Results553 UDT were performed in 354 patients over 2 months. Median age of the patients was 56 years and 66% were female.From the 553 UDT performed, only 15 (3%) were positive: 10 UDT had only strong leukocytes and 5 had only positive nitrites. 3 positive UDT did not lead to a CBEU: 2 of them did not show any clinical signs and biotherapies were injected. The third patient was already septic on arrival and was receiving antibiotics. Of the 12 CBEU performed, 6 showed significant bacteriuria: 5 positive for Escherichia coli and 1 for Enterococcus faecalis.Among these 6 patients: 3 had asymptomatic bacteriuria and received their biotherapy and 3 were symptomatic. 2 patients were diagnosed with cystitis and pyelonephritis was discovered in a third patient. All were treated with an appropriate dose of ofloxacin. Only the patient with pyelonephritis did not receive biotherapy; for the other 2, the injection was delayed.ConclusionGiven the low frequency of abnormalities in the UDT, the therapeutic approach was modified in 3 cases and each time patients showed clinical signs. According to the literature, the risk of infection is higher during the first 6 months of treatment with biotherapies: 2 of the 3 patients had started their biotherapy less than a year before the onset of the urinary tract infection. Examination and clinical review should remain the primary elements in the diagnosis of a possible UTI and the therapeutic decision making.No conflict of interest.
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.