There is much variation in the implementation of the best available evidence into clinical practice. These gaps between evidence and practice are often a result of multiple individual decisions. When making a decision, there is so much potentially relevant information available, it is impossible to know or process it all (so called ‘bounded rationality’). Usually, a limited amount of information is selected to reach a sufficiently satisfactory decision, a process known as satisficing. There are two key processes used in decision making: System 1 and System 2. System 1 involves fast, intuitive decisions; System 2 is a deliberate analytical approach, used to locate information which is not instantly recalled. Human beings unconsciously use System 1 processing whenever possible because it is quicker and requires less effort than System 2. In clinical practice, gaps between evidence and practice can occur when a clinician develops a pattern of knowledge, which is then relied on for decisions using System 1 processing, without the activation of a System 2 check against the best available evidence from high quality research. The processing of information and decision making may be influenced by a number of cognitive biases, of which the decision maker may be unaware. Interventions to encourage appropriate use of System 1 and System 2 processing have been shown to improve clinical decision making. Increased understanding of decision making processes and common sources of error should help clinical decision makers to minimize avoidable mistakes and increase the proportion of decisions that are better.
Aims and objectivesThe aim of the 2018 EAHP Survey on Medicines Shortages was to provide a clearer picture on the issue of medicines shortages, including the impact on hospital pharmacists’ time, budgets and the effect on patient care.MethodsA survey was conducted by the EAHP, collecting information from European hospital pharmacists on the shortage situation in their respective countries. The survey ran from 19 March 2018 to 11 June 2018. Keele University, UK analysed and compared the results to those of the 2014 survey.ResultsThere were 1666 responses to the 2018 survey, which represented a threefold increase from the 2014 survey which received 607 responses. Ninety per cent of respondents answered ‘Yes’ when asked if shortages of medicines are a current problem in delivering the best care to patients, while only 7% of respondents answered ‘No’, and 3% ’Unsure'.Problems with shortages of antimicrobials were most commonly reported (77% of respondents reporting this as an issue in 2018 vs 57% in 2014), followed by preventative medicines (43% in 2018 vs 20% in 2014) and anaesthetics (39% in 2018 vs 27% in 2014). Fifty-nine per cent of respondents have seen care delayed as a consequence of medication shortages, with cancellations of care (31% of respondents), medication errors (25% of respondents) and suboptimal treatment for patients (25% of respondents) also being frequently reported.Sixty-three per cent of respondents reported having had to pay a higher price to procure from alternate sources most of the time or always when there was a shortage of a medicine.ConclusionsMedicines shortages is an increasing problem across Europe and is having an adverse impact on patient care. Medicines shortages are adding to hospital pharmacists’ time pressures and have an adverse budgetary impact. More timely information about impending shortages and how long they will last is seen as necessary to help manage the problem.
The clinical, public health and economic implications of antimicrobial resistance present a major threat to future healthcare. Antimicrobial use is a major driver of resistance, and antimicrobial stewardship programmes are increasingly being advocated as a means of improving the quality of prescribing. However, to increase their impact and assess their success, a better understanding of antimicrobial usage, both in primary and secondary care, and linkage with antimicrobial resistance data are required. In England, national summaries of primary care dispensing data are issued annually by the Health and Social Care Information Centre. However, there is currently no routine public reporting of antimicrobial usage in hospitals. In response to the threat posed by antimicrobial resistance, as highlighted in the Report of the Chief Medical Officer and on the request of the Department of Health, Public Health England has developed a new national programme, the English Surveillance Programme for Antimicrobial Utilization and Resistance (ESPAUR). The programme will bring together the elements of antimicrobial utilization and resistance surveillance in both primary and secondary care settings, alongside the development of quality measures and methods to monitor unintended outcomes of antimicrobial stewardship and both public and professional behaviour interventions. This article reports on the background to the programme development, the current oversight group membership and the public reporting structure.
Primary aldosteronism is an underdiagnosed cause of hypertension. Although inadequate screening is one reason for underdiagnosis, another important contributor is that clinicians may inappropriately exclude the diagnosis when screening aldosterone concentrations fall below traditionally established thresholds. We evaluated the intraindividual variability in screening aldosterone concentrations and aldosterone-to-renin ratios, and how this variability could impact case detection, among 51 patients with confirmed primary aldosteronism who had 2 or more screening measurements of renin and aldosterone on different days. There were a total of 137 screening measurements with a mean of 3 (range 2–6) per patient. The mean intraindividual variability, expressed as coefficients of variation, was 31% for aldosterone and 45% for the aldosterone-to-renin ratio. Aldosterone concentrations ranged from 4.9 to 51 ng/dL; 49% of patients had at least one aldosterone measurement below 15 ng/dL, 29% had at least 2 aldosterone measurements below 15 ng/dL, and 29% had at least one measurement below 10 ng/dL. Individual aldosterone-to-renin ratios ranged from 8.2 to 427 ng/dL per ng/mL·hour; 57% had at least one ratio below 30 ng/dL per ng/mL·hour, 27% had at least 2 ratios below 30 ng/dL per ng/mL·hour, and 24% had at least one ratio below 20 ng/dL per ng/mL·hour. Aldosterone concentrations and aldosterone-to-renin ratios are highly variable in patients with primary aldosteronism, with many screening values falling below conventionally accepted diagnostic thresholds. The diagnostic yield for primary aldosteronism may be substantially increased by recalibrating the definition of a positive screen to include more liberal thresholds for aldosterone and the aldosterone-to-renin ratio.
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.