The authors tested the effectiveness and estimated the cost of several interventions aimed at reducing drug interactions in primary care by designing a 15-month cluster-controlled trial. The trial involved 265 family physicians and their patients who were randomized into 4 groups: control, report (received feedback reports), session (group sessions), and face-to-face (personal interviews). The outcome was the mean of relevant interactions detected on electronic medical records. Cost-effectiveness was defined as the incremental cost to reduce drug interactions by 1%. The authors detected a baseline mean of 6.7 interactions per 100 patients, which was reduced to 5.3 interactions after follow-up. No improvement was seen in the report group when compared with the control group, whereas progressive improvement in the other groups was noted (P < .001). Incremental cost was higher in the face-to-face group (69.4€ vs 50.7€); cost-effectiveness results were slightly better in the session group (4.2€ vs 4.5€).

1 in 20 Spanish citizens is currently undergoing a potential drug interaction, including a high rate of clinically relevant ones that should be avoided. These results confirm the existence of a serious safety issue that should be approached and where all parties involved (physicians, health services, medical societies and patients) must do our bit to improve. Health services should foster the implementation of prescription alert systems linked with electronic medical records including clinical data.

No abstract

Although the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has generated a large amount of studies, the patient-perceived quality of care (PQ) in this context is still not well known, so more studies intending to focus on this issue are strongly needed. This study assesses changes on PQ in patients hospitalized in Spain during the first month of the COVID-19 pandemic and investigates differences between those admitted for this cause and the rest a descriptive study using the “Net Promoters Score” and the hospital regular monitoring plan. Due to this point of view, ethical approval is not applicable. Four PQ dimensions (nurse, physician, and nurse assistant actions [NA], and discharge information [DI]) were measured in all COVID patients (57) and in a sample of non-COVID patients (60) discharged at home during the first month of the pandemic, and also compared with another sample (384) from an immediately previous period. The COVID patients scored worse (8.2) than non-COVID ones (9.0; P < .0001), especially in NA and DI, and were more likely to be detractors (odds ratio [OR]: 3.05, P < .0001) and less to be promoters (OR: 0.64, P < .05). Global and DI net promoters score values before the pandemic were higher than afterward. In conclusion, the COVID-19 pandemic negatively and significantly influenced the health care quality as perceived by inpatients, both in COVID and in non-COVID ones, but more intensely in the former. As a health care organization, this knowledge meant an opportunity from improvement and to be better qualified to face the pandemic.

No abstract

e-PIG is a logarithmic expression of the risk that prescribing a particular drug may produce a severe interaction in a determined setting and time. Its monitoring could become a prioritisation element that may assist the design of strategies for improving the safety of the use of drugs.

The aim of the project this paper is part of was to propose quality and safety procedures and indicators to facilitate quality improvement in digestive endoscopy units. In this second issue, procedures and indicators are suggested regarding colonoscopy. First, a diagram charting the previous and subsequent steps of colonoscopy was designed. A group of experts in health care quality and/or endoscopy, under the auspices of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (SEPD), performed a qualitative review of the literature regarding colonoscopy-related quality indicators. Subsequently, using a paired-analysis method, the aforementioned literature was selected and analyzed. A total of 13 specific indicators were found aside of the common markers elsewhere described, ten of which are process-related (one pre-procedure, seven procedure, and two post-procedure markers) while the remaining three are outcome-related. Quality of evidence was assessed for each one of them using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) classification.

The goal of the project encompassing the present paper is to propose useful quality procedures and indicators in order to improve quality in digestive endoscopy units. In this third part outcome procedures and indicators are suggested for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). First, a diagram of pre- and post-ERCP steps was developed. A group of experts in healthcare quality and/or endoscopy, under the shelter of the Spanish Society of Digestive Diseases (Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva - SEPD), carried out a qualitative review of the literature regarding quality indicators for ERCP. Then, a paired analysis was used for the selection of identified references. A total of six specific indicators, apart from the common indicators already described, were identified, all of them process indicators (two pre-procedure and four post-procedure). Evidence quality was analyzed for each indicator using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) classification.