Healthcare is a major global industry accounting for a significant proportion of government spending. Drug and medical device manufacturers are publicly traded companies with a responsibility to their shareholders to maximise profits by increasing sales. In order to achieve this, industry exerts influence over every part of healthcare including academic research, medical education, clinical guideline development, physician prescribing and through direct interactions with patients. In contrast, healthcare services seek to provide effective, safe and evidence-based treatments. This article examines interactions with industry across these domains and seeks to identify mutually beneficial relationships and potential conflict leading to patient harms. Case studies are used to illustrate these interactions.There is no single solution for improving healthcare's relationship with industry, although increased transparency has raised awareness of this issue. We briefly discuss some successful interventions that have been tried at national and regulatory level. While industry influence is widespread in healthcare and this has benefits for shareholders, healthcare practitioners have an ethical obligation to prioritise their patients’ best interests. Industry interactions with healthcare professionals have a valid role in product development and distribution, but industry sponsorship of healthcare education and practice, guideline development or regulatory decision-making can have harmful consequences for patients. Healthcare practitioners need to carefully consider these issues when deciding whether to collaborate with industry.Educational aimsTo explore the many areas where industry influences healthcare and the subsequent effects on patient care. Case studies are used to illustrate examples of beneficial and harmful effects of this influence.To raise awareness of the effects of industry influence and for readers to consider their own potential conflicts of interest.To suggest potential ways to improve the current system with a focus on solutions which have successfully been trialled already.
Background Internationally, the COVID‐19 pandemic severely curtailed access to hospital facilities for those awaiting elective/semi‐elective procedures. For allergic children in Ireland, already waiting up to 4 years for an elective oral food challenge (OFC), the restrictions signified indefinite delay. At the time of the initiative, there were approx 900 children on the Children's Health Ireland (CHI) waiting list. In July 2020, a project was facilitated by short‐term (6 weeks) access to an empty COVID stepdown facility built, in a hotel conference centre, commandeered by the Health Service Executive (HSE), Ireland. The aim of this study was to achieve the rapid roll‐out of an offsite OFC service, delivering high throughput of long waiting patients, while aligning with existing hospital policies and quality standards, international allergy guidelines and national social distancing standards. Methods The working group engaged key stakeholders to rapidly develop an offsite OFC facility. Consultant paediatric allergists, consultant paediatricians, trainees and allergy clinical nurse specialists were seconded from other duties. The facility was already equipped with hospital beds, bedside monitors (BP, pulse and oxygen saturation) and bedside oxygen. All medication and supplies had to be brought from the base hospital. Daily onsite consultant anaesthetic cover was resourced and a resuscitation room equipped. Standardized food challenge protocols were created. Access to the onsite hotel chef facilitated food preparation. A risk register was established. Results After 6 weeks of planning, the remote centre became operational on 7/9/2020, with the capacity of 27 OFC/day. 474 challenges were commenced: 465 (98%) were completed and 9 (2%) were inconclusive. 135 (29%) OFCs were positive, with 25 (5%) causing anaphylaxis. No child required advanced airway intervention. 8 children were transferred to the base hospital. The CHI allergy waiting list was reduced by almost 60% in only 24 days. Conclusions Oral food challenges remain a vital tool in the care of allergic children, with their cost saving and quality‐of‐life benefits negatively affected by a delay in their delivery. This project has shown it is possible to have huge impacts on a waiting list efficiently, effectively and safely with good planning and staff buy‐in—even in a pandemic. Adoption of new, flexible and efficient models of service delivery will be important for healthcare delivery in the post–COVID‐19 era.
Contributors JT and CG were involved in caring for the patient. JT and CG wrote the manuscript and both approved the final submission.
Background Urinary tract infections are common and require prompt treatment. Objective To examine the resistance rates of co-amoxiclav in children with urinary tract infection and whether antimicrobial resistance is influenced by other variables. Methods The records and antibiotic susceptibility data of 209 patients admitted with symptomatic urinary tract infection between January 2018 and December 2019 were reviewed. Results We examined 209 patients [mean (SD) age 23.73 (32.86) months], of whom 176 (84.2%) had first urinary tract infection. Escherichia coli was isolated in 190 (90.1%). Uropathogens were sensitive to co-amoxiclav in 47.8% of patients and gentamicin in 95.2%. Combined co-amoxiclav with gentamicin demonstrated antimicrobial sensitivity in 96.2%. Antimicrobial resistance was associated with longer hospital stay (p-value < 0.02). An association was identified between co-amoxiclav resistance and recurrent urinary tract infections. Uropathogens were resistant to co-amoxiclav in 80/176 (45.5%) and 29/33 (87.9%) patients with first and recurrent urinary tract infections, respectively (p-value 0.001). No link was observed between antimicrobial resistance and atypical urinary tract infection. Conclusion Approximately half of children in this cohort had urinary tract infection due to uropathogens resistant to co-amoxiclav. Co-amoxiclav resistance is associate with recurrent infections and longer hospital stays. A combination of co-amoxiclav and gentamicin demonstrates > 96% susceptibility.
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.