Objective. Due to the high prevalence of prescription opioid misuse, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandated a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) requiring manufacturers of extended-release/long-acting (ER/LA) opioid analgesics to fund continuing education based on a FDA Blueprint. This article describes the Safe and Competent Opioid Prescribing Education (SCOPE of Pain) program, an ER/LA opioid analgesic REMS program, and its impact on clinician knowledge, confidence, attitudes, and self-reported clinical practice.Method. Participants of the 3-h SCOPE of Pain training completed pre-, immediate post- and 2-month post-assessments.Subjects. The primary target group (n = 2,850), and a subset (n = 476) who completed a 2-month post-assessment, consisted of clinicians licensed to prescribe ER/LA opioid analgesics, who care for patients with chronic pain and who completed the 3-h training between February 28, 2013 and June 13, 2014.Results. Immediately post-program, there was a significant increase in correct responses to knowledge questions (60% to 84%, P ≤ 0.02) and 87% of participants planned to make practice changes. At 2-months post-program, there continued to be a significant increase in correct responses to knowledge questions (60% to 69%, P ≤ 0.03) and 67% reported increased confidence in applying safe opioid prescribing care and 86% reported implementing practice changes. There was also an improvement in alignment of desired attitudes toward safe opioid prescribing.Conclusions. The SCOPE of Pain program improved knowledge, attitudes, confidence, and self-reported clinical practice in safe opioid prescribing. This national REMS program holds potential to improve the safe use of opioids for the treatment of chronic pain.
BackgroundIn North America and other industrialized countries, heart failure (HF) has become a national public health priority. Studies indicate there is significant heterogeneity in approaches to treat and manage HF and suggest targeted changes in health care delivery are needed to reduce unnecessary health care utilization and to optimize patient outcomes. Most recent published studies have reported on the care of HF patients in tertiary care hospitals and the perspective of non-specialist stakeholders on HF management, such as general practitioners and clinics or hospital administrators is rarely considered. This study explores the current state of community-based HF care in Canada as experienced by various healthcare stakeholders providing or coordinating care to HF patients.MethodsThis study employed a qualitative exploratory research design consisting of semi-structured telephone interviews conducted with health care providers and health care administrators working outside of tertiary care in the four most populous Canadian provinces. A modified thematic analysis process was used and the different data sources were triangulated. Findings were collectively interpreted by the authors.ResultsTwenty-eight participants were recruited in the study: eight cardiologists, five general practitioners/family physicians, eight nurse practitioners/registered nurses, four hospital pharmacists and three health care administrators/directors. Participants reported a lack of stakeholder engagement throughout the continuum of care, which hinders the implementation of a coordinated approach to quality HF care. Four substantive themes emerged that indicated challenges and gaps in the optimal treatment and management of HF in community settings: 1) challenges in the risk assessment and early diagnosis of HF, 2) challenges in ensuring efficient and consistent transition from acute care setting to the community, 3) challenges of primary care providers to optimally treat and manage HF patients, and 4) challenges in promoting a holistic approach in HF management.ConclusionsAs health systems evolve from tertiary-based care to community-based outpatient services for the management of chronic diseases, this study’s findings pinpoint challenges that have been observed in the Canadian context and can stimulate and orient dialogue toward solutions for a more coordinated approach to improve the care of HF patients and reduce pressure on the healthcare system.
Background: Disease-modifying treatment (DMT) selection for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) is challenging. Neurologists and advanced practice nurses (APNs) in MS care may be facing knowledge and confidence gaps when screening patients to initiate or switch between DMTs, assessing the safety of new DMTs and monitoring for adverse events. Healthcare providers are required to demonstrate enhanced patient communication skills, to share treatment decisions and assess treatment adherence. To better inform educational interventions, there is a need to better understand these challenges and uncover their causalities. We undertook an international study across seven countries to identify challenges for neurologists and APNs that may impact DMT choices and optimum care for people with MS (pwMS). Methods: This mixed methods study involved two concurrent data collection phases, a qualitative phase with semi-structured interviews and a quantitative phase using an online survey. Neurologists (n=333) and APNs (n=135) were recruited from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom and the United States. All participants had to have a minimum of two years' experience in the care of pwMS and be currently active in clinical practice. Results: A triangulated analysis of qualitative and quantitative data identified multiple challenges. For APNs, these mainly related to diagnosing MS, integrating new agents in their practice, sequential DMT selection, treatment monitoring and providing personalized care. Specifically, two-thirds of APNs reported no or basic knowledge of the 2017 McDonald criteria and over half reported a knowledge gap of new DMTs available (51%) and a skill gap when integrating them into practice (58%). APNs expressed a knowledge gap of treatment sequencing (46%) and a skill gap in making decisions about sequencing (62%). Forty-four percent of APNs reported a gap in their skills of integrating patient's goals into treatment recommendations. For neurologists, the main challenges included managing side effects, aligning care to their patient's personal goals and quality of life (QoL). Specifically, over a third of neurologists reported no or basic knowledge of the characteristics of treatment failure (35%), and 32% reported no or basic skills identifying treatment failure. Skills needed to integrate patient's individual goals into treatment recommendations were reported as none or low by 39% of neurologists. In addition, there were significant differences according to years of practice in the majority (9 out of 14) of confidence items with respect to discussing specific MS-related topics with patients. Significant differences between countries were also identified. Conclusion:The complexity of diagnosing MS and the variety of available DMTs for pwMS lead to uncertainties, even among specialized healthcare professionals. These should be addressed through focused education and training to optimize care for pwMS.
In two prospective, randomized studies intravenous (IV)/oral (PO) moxifloxacin (400 mg q.i.d.) was compared to IV/PO antimicrobial comparator agents for the treatment of hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Reported here are the pooled data for the sub-population with atypical pathogens. Of 101 intent-to-treat patients with atypical pathogens, a total of 39 moxifloxacin-treated and 47 comparator-treated subjects were microbiologically valid and included in the analysis. Clinical and bacteriological success rates were 95% for the moxifloxacin-treated and 94% for the comparator-treated subjects at the test-of-cure visit. The results indicate IV/PO moxifloxacin (400 mg q.i.d.) is an effective monotherapy for patients with CAP due to atypical pathogens.
Péloquin (2015) International challenges in patient-centred care in fertility clinics offering assisted reproductive technology: providers' gaps and attitudes towards addressing the patients' psychological needs,
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.