In the process of acquiring new skills, physicians-in-training may expose patients to harm because they lack the required experience, knowledge and technical skills. Yet, most teaching hospitals use inexperienced residents to care for high-acuity patients in complex and dynamic environments and provide limited supervision from experienced clinicians. Multiple efforts in the last few years have started to address the problem of patient safety. Examples include voluntary incident-reporting systems and team training workshops for practising clinicians. Fewer efforts have addressed the deficits in training new physicians, especially related to knowledge, skills and competence. The current apprenticeship or "see one, do one, teach one" model is insufficient because trainees learn by practising on real patients, which is particularly an issue when performing procedures. Residents have expressed that they do not feel adequately trained to perform procedures safely by themselves. In this paper, we conduct an informal review of the impact of current training methods on patient safety. In addition, we propose a new training paradigm that integrates competency-based knowledge and clinical skills, with deliberate attitudinal and behavioural changes focused on patient safety in a safe medically simulated environment. We do so with the hope of creating a better marriage between the missions of training and patient safety.
BackgroundOlder adults are susceptible to adverse effects from the concomitant use of prescription medications and alcohol. This study estimates the prevalence of exposure to alcohol interactive (AI) medications and concomitant alcohol use by therapeutic class in a large, nationally representative sample of older adults.MethodsCross-sectional analysis of a population based sample of older Irish adults aged ≥60 years using data from The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA) (N = 3,815). AI medications were identified using Stockley’s Drug Interactions, the British National Formulary and the Irish Medicines Formulary. An in-home inventory of medications was used to characterise AI drug exposure by therapeutic class. Self-reported alcohol use was classified as non-drinker, light/moderate and heavy drinking. Comorbidities known to be exacerbated by alcohol were also recorded (diabetes mellitus, hypertension, peptic ulcer disease, liver disease, depression, gout or breast cancer), as well as sociodemographic and health factors.ResultsSeventy-two per cent of participants were exposed to AI medications, with greatest exposure to cardiovascular and CNS agents. Overall, 60% of participants exposed to AI medications reported concomitant alcohol use, compared with 69.5% of non-AI exposed people (p < 0.001). Almost 28% of those reporting anti-histamine use were identified as heavy drinkers. Similarly almost one in five, combined heavy drinking with anti-coagulants/anti-platelets and cardiovascular agents, with 16% combining heavy drinking with CNS agents. Multinomial logistic regression showed that being male, younger, urban dwelling, with higher levels of education and a history of smoking, were associated with an increased risk for concomitant exposure to alcohol consumption (both light/moderate and heavier) and AI medications. Current smokers and people with increasing co-morbidities were also at greatest risk for heavy drinking in combination with AI medications.ConclusionsThe concurrent use of alcohol with AI medications, or with conditions known to be exacerbated by alcohol, is common among older Irish adults. Prescribers should be aware of potential interactions, and screen patients for alcohol use and provide warnings to minimize patient risk.
Introduction: The prescribing of opioids has increased internationally in developed countries in recent decades within primary and secondary care. The majority of patients with chronic non-malignant pain (CNMP) are managed by their general practitioner (GP). Recent qualitative studies have examined the issue of opioid prescribing for CNMP from a GP viewpoint. The aim of this study is to identify and synthesise the qualitative literature describing the factors influencing the nature and extent of opioid prescribing by GPs for patients with CNMP in primary care. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, CINAHL and Web of Science were systematically searched from January 1986 to February 2018. The full text of included articles was reviewed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool for qualitative research. The papers were coded by two researchers and themes organised using Thematic Network Analysis. Themes were constructed in a hierarchical manner, basic themes informed organising themes which informed global themes. A theoretical model was derived using global themes to explain the interplay between factors influencing opioid prescribing decisions. Results: From 7020 records, 21 full text papers were assessed, and 13 studies included in the synthesis; 9 were from the United States, 3 from the United Kingdom and 1 from Canada. Four global themes emerged: suspicion, risk, agreement and encompassing systems level factors. These global themes are inter-related and capture the complex decision-making processes underlying opioid prescribing whereby the physician both consciously and unconsciously quantifies the risk–benefit relationship associated with initiating or continuing an opioid prescription. Conclusion: Recognising the inherent complexity of opioid prescribing and the limitations of healthcare systems is crucial to developing opioid stewardship strategies to combat the rise in opioid prescription morbidity and mortality.
Introduction: Pharmacists in the UK can register as Independent Pharmacist Prescribers (IPPs) upon completion of appropriate Higher Education training. IPPs have had the same prescribing privileges as medical doctors since 2009. Despite the years since their introduction, there is little data available to demonstrate the frequency and type of errors made by IPPs. Furthermore, there is no literature available comparing IPPs to doctors with regards to prescribing safety. This study aimed to start to fill this gap in the literature. Methods: Pharmacists working in one NHS Trust, in areas with a large proportion of prescribing undertaken by IPPs, were purposefully recruited to collect data over a one week period in May 2018. They collected data on all prescription items validated that were prescribed by IPPs and doctors. Errors that were identified were recorded in detail. Data collection forms and error definitions were taken from the EQUIP study, a large study looking at prescribing errors by junior doctors in the hospital setting. Results: 5840 prescriptions items were recorded; 1026 (17.6%) were prescribed by an IPP. 479 errors were recorded in total. Experienced IPPs, had a 1% error rate (7 errors); IPPs with less experience had a 0% error rate. Overall the error rate for pharmacists was 0.7% (95% CI 0.0-1.0). In comparison, doctors made an average of 9.8% errors (95% CI 9.0-11.0). Pharmacists made significantly less prescribing errors than doctors (p<0.01). 85.7% of IPP errors were recorded as minor in significance, compared to an average of 31.7% for all A Conclusion: In a single NHS Trust, pharmacists make significantly less prescribing errors than doctors. Embedding IPPs with more integrated roles in the multidisciplinary team is recommended. Further large trials are required to validate the results of this study.
Background Medical schools increasingly incorporate teamwork in their curricula but medical students often have a negative perception of team projects, in particular when there is unequal participation. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether a novel peer evaluation system improves teamwork contributions and reduces the risk of students “free loading”. Methods A cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) with qualitative follow up enrolled 37 teams (n = 223 students). Participating teams were randomised to intervention group (19 teams) or control group (18 teams). The validated Comprehensive Assessment Team Member Effectiveness (CATME) tool was used as the outcome measure, and was completed at baseline (week 2) and at the end of the project (week 10). The team contribution subscale was the primary outcome, with other subscales as secondary outcomes. Six focus group discussions were held with students to capture the team’s experiences and perceptions of peer assessment and its effects on team work. Results The results of the RCT showed that there was no difference in team contribution, and other forms of team effectiveness, between intervention and control teams. The focus group discussions highlighted students’ negative attitudes, and lack of implementation of this transparent, points-based peer assessment system, out of fear of future consequences for relationships with peers. The need to assess peers in a transparent way to stimulate open discussion was perceived as threatening by participants. Teams suggested that other peer assessment systems could work such as rewarding additional or floating marks to high performing team members. Conclusions Other models of peer assessment need to be developed and tested that are non-threatening and that facilitate early acceptance of this mode of assessment.
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.