RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To draft a list of actions and quality indicators for pharmacist care in hospital emergency departments, based on consensus among a panel of experts regarding which actions to prioritize in this setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A panel of experts from the Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy (SEFH) and the Spanish Society of Emergency Medicine (SEMES) evaluated a preliminary list of potential actions and quality of care indicators. The experts used a questionnaire to assess the proposals on the basis of available evidence. In the first round, each expert individually assessed the importance of each proposed action based on 4 dimensions: evidence base, impact on clinical response and patient safety, ease of implementation, and priority. In the second round the experts attended a virtual meeting to reach consensus on a revised list of proposals; suggestions and comments that had been made anonymously in the first round were included. The group then prioritized each action as basic, intermediate, or advanced. RESULTS: The experts evaluated a total of 26 potential actions and associated quality indicators. No items were eliminated in the analysis of scores and comments from the first round. After the second round, 25 actions survived. Nine were considered basic, 10 intermediate, and 6 advanced. CONCLUSION: The expert panel's list of pharmacist actions and care quality indicators provides a basis for developing a pharmacist care program in Spanish emergency departments on 3 levels of priority. The list can serve as a guide to pharmacists, managers, physicians, and nurses involved in the effort to improve drug therapy in this hospital setting.
OBJETIVO: Desarrollar un conjunto de actividades e indicadores de atención farmacéutica en los servicios de urgencias hospitalarios mediante un consenso colectivo de un panel de expertos que permita priorizar las actividades a realizar por los farmacéuticos en estas unidades. METODO: Un comité formado por miembros de la Sociedad Española de Farmacia Hospitalaria (SEFH) y de la Sociedad Española de Medicina de Urgencias y Emergencias (SEMES) evaluó una propuesta inicial de actividades e indicadores potenciales, basados en la evidencia científica disponible, en formato de cuestionario. En una primera ronda, cada uno de los expertos del panel clasificó de forma individual la relevancia de cada una de las actividades propuestas en cuatro dimensiones: evidencia científica, impacto en la respuesta clínica y seguridad para el paciente, facilidad de implementación y grado de prioridad. La segunda ronda se realizó mediante una reunión grupal de forma virtual, a partir del cuestionario modificado de acuerdo con las sugerencias planteadas, así como los comentarios vertidos por los participantes del panel de forma anónima. En esta ronda, cada actividad fue clasificada por consenso como básica, intermedia o avanzada en función del grado de prioridad de implantación considerado por el grupo de expertos. RESULTADOS: Se propusieron un total de 26 potenciales actividades a los expertos, con indicadores asociados. Tras el análisis de las puntuaciones y los comentarios realizados en la primera ronda, no se eliminó ninguna de las actividades propuestas. Tras la segunda ronda, se mantuvieron 25 actividades, de las cuales se puntuaron 9 como actividades básicas, 10 actividades como intermedias y 6 actividades como avanzadas. CONCLUSIONES: El desarrollo del conjunto de actividades e indicadores de atención farmacéutica en urgencias, priorizados por grado de relevancia para la unidad, es la base para el desarrollo de esta cartera de servicios en los hospitales españoles, y sirve como guía tanto para farmacéuticos como para gestores, médicos y enfermeros de la unidad a fin de mejorar la farmacoterapia los pacientes atendidos en los servicios de urgencias.
Assuntos
Medicina de Emergência, Serviço de Farmácia Hospitalar, Humanos, Farmacêuticos, Consenso, Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência, HospitaisRESUMO
Objetivo: Desarrollar un conjunto de actividades e indicadores de atención farmacéutica en los servicios de urgencias hospitalarias mediante un consenso colectivo de un panel de expertos que permita priorizar las actividades a realizar por los farmacéuticos en estas unidades. Método: Un comité formado por miembros de la Sociedad Española de Farmacia Hospitalaria (SEFH) y de la Sociedad Española de Medicina de Urgencias y Emergencias (SEMES) evaluó una propuesta inicial de actividades e indicadores potenciales, basados en la evidencia científica disponible, en formato de cuestionario. En una primera ronda, cada uno de los expertos del panel clasificó de forma individual la relevancia de cada una de las actividades propuestas en cuatro dimensiones: evidencia científica, impacto en la respuesta clínica y seguridad para el paciente, facilidad de implementación y grado de prioridad. La segunda ronda se realizó mediante una reunión grupal de forma virtual, a partir del cuestionario modificado de acuerdo con las sugerencias planteadas, así como los comentarios vertidos por los participantes del panel de forma anónima. En esta ronda, cada actividad fue clasificada por consenso como básica, intermedia o avanzada en función del grado de prioridad de implantación considerado por el grupo de expertos. Resultados: Se propusieron un total de 26 potenciales actividades a los expertos, con indicadores asociados. Tras el análisis de las puntuaciones y los comentarios realizados en la primera ronda, no se eliminó ninguna de las actividades propuestas. Tras la segunda ronda, se mantuvieron 25 actividades, de las cuales se puntuaron 9 como actividades básicas, 10 actividades como intermedias y 6 actividades como avanzadas. (AU)
Objective: To draft a list of actions and quality indicators for pharmacist care in hospital emergency departments, based on consensus among a panel of experts regarding which actions to prioritize in this setting. Material and methods: A panel of experts from the Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy (SEFH) and the Spanish Society of Emergency Medicine (SEMES) evaluated a preliminary list of potential actions and quality of care indicators. The experts used a questionnaire to assess the proposals on the basis of available evidence. In the first round, each expert individually assessed the importance of each proposed action based on 4 dimensions: evidence base, impact on clinical response and patient safety, ease of implementation, and priority. In the second round the experts attended a virtual meeting to reach consensus on a revised list of proposals; suggestions and comments that had been made anonymously in the first round were included. The group then prioritized each action as basic, intermediate, or advanced. Results: The experts evaluated a total of 26 potential actions and associated quality indicators. No items were eliminated in the analysis of scores and comments from the first round. After the second round, 25 actions survived. Nine were considered basic, 10 intermediate, and 6 advanced. (AU)
Assuntos
Humanos, Assistência Farmacêutica, Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência, Farmacêuticos, Espanha, Sociedades Científicas, Consenso, Inquéritos e QuestionáriosRESUMO
Background: Nonadherence to medication is common in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and can result in disease complications, therapy escalation, and the need for corticosteroids. The aim of this study was to assess the adherence to self-administered subcutaneous biologic medications prescribed for IBD and to identify the risk factors for nonadherence.Methods: A retrospective cohort study on IBD patients initiated on subcutaneous biologic therapy between January 2016 and July 2019 was performed. Medical records were retrospectively reviewed for collection of demographic and IBD data. Medication possession ratios (mMPRs) during the first 12 months of treatment and at the end of the follow-up period (global, 42 months) were calculated. Nonadherence was defined as an mMPR of <90%. Multiple regression analysis was performed to assess the risk factors for nonadherence to therapy.Results: A total of 154 patients (84 male and 70 female; mean age at biologic treatment initiation, 36±14 years; Crohn's disease, n=118; ulcerative colitis, n=31; indeterminate colitis, n=5) were included; 121 received adalimumab (ADA) and 33 received ustekinumab (UST); 63% were naive to anti-TNF therapy, while 16.9% previously received more than two biologic treatments. Mean time from IBD diagnosis to subcutaneous biological agent use was 16±10 months. Mean duration of subcutaneous agent use was 17.6 (SD, 11.0) and 17.08 (SD, 6.8) months for ADA and UST, respectively. Global nonadherence (mMPR≤90%) rate was 6.6% for all patients receiving subcutaneous treatment, 6.3% for ADA, and 6.5% for UST. Nonadherence during the first 12 months of treatment (n=98) was 6.1% for all patients, 2.7% for ADA, and 16% for UST. In the multivariate analysis, UST use was independently associated with higher nonadherence only within the first 12 months (OR, 6.7; 95% CI, 1.139.5).(AU)
Antecedentes y objetivos: La falta de adherencia al tratamiento médico es muy frecuente en los pacientes con enfermad inflamatoria intestinal (EII), puede determinar el desarrollo de complicaciones, el uso de corticoides y la necesidad de escalar tratamientos en estos pacientes. Los objetivos de este estudio son analizar la adherencia al tratamiento biológico de administración subcutánea en pacientes con EII e identificar factores de riesgo para la no-adherencia al tratamiento.Métodos: Estudio unicéntrico retrospectivo de cohorte en pacientes con EII que recibieron tratamiento biológico subcutáneo (adalimumab y ustekinumab) entre enero de 2016 y julio de 2019. Se realizó revisión retrospectiva de la historia clínica para recoger datos demográficos y de la EII. Se calculó el ratio modificado de posesión de la medicación (mMPR) para los primeros 12 meses de tratamiento y para el final del seguimiento (global-42 meses). Se definió como no-adherencia (adherencia inadecuada) si el mMPR era <90%. Se realizó un análisis de regresión logística para evaluar los factores de riesgo asociados con la no-adhesión.Resultados: Se incluyeron 154 pacientes (84/70; edad media de inicio de tratamiento biológico 36±14 años; enfermedad de Crohn n=118, Colitis Ulcerosa n=31, Colitis Indeterminada n=5). De ellos, 121 (78,6%) recibieron adalimumab (ADA) y 33 (21,4%) ustekinumab (UST); 97/154 (63%) de los pacientes no recibieron tratamiento biológico previo y 26/154 (16,9%) recibieron >2 agentes biológicos antes del tratamiento subcutáneo. El tiempo medio entre el diagnóstico de EII y el uso del biológico subcutáneo fue de 16±10 meses. El tiempo medio de uso de tratamiento subcutáneo se prolongó durante 17,6±11,0 y 17,08±6,8 meses para ADA y UST, respectivamente. La tasa global de no-adherencia al tratamiento fue 6,5% (10/154 pacientes) y específicamente del 6,1% (8/121 pacientes) y del 6,6% (2/33 pacientes) para el uso de ADA y UST, respectivamente.(AU)
Assuntos
Humanos, Adolescente, Cooperação e Adesão ao Tratamento, Produtos Biológicos, Estudos Retrospectivos, Estudos de Coortes, Prontuários Médicos, Doenças Inflamatórias Intestinais/tratamento farmacológico, Ustekinumab, Gastroenterologia, Interpretação Estatística de DadosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Nonadherence to medication is common in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and can result in disease complications, therapy escalation, and the need for corticosteroids. The aim of this study was to assess the adherence to self-administered subcutaneous biologic medications prescribed for IBD and to identify the risk factors for nonadherence. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study on IBD patients initiated on subcutaneous biologic therapy between January 2016 and July 2019 was performed. Medical records were retrospectively reviewed for collection of demographic and IBD data. Medication possession ratios (mMPRs) during the first 12 months of treatment and at the end of the follow-up period (global, 42 months) were calculated. Nonadherence was defined as an mMPR of <90%. Multiple regression analysis was performed to assess the risk factors for nonadherence to therapy. RESULTS: A total of 154 patients (84 male and 70 female; mean age at biologic treatment initiation, 36±14 years; Crohn's disease, n=118; ulcerative colitis, n=31; indeterminate colitis, n=5) were included; 121 received adalimumab (ADA) and 33 received ustekinumab (UST); 63% were naive to anti-TNF therapy, while 16.9% previously received more than two biologic treatments. Mean time from IBD diagnosis to subcutaneous biological agent use was 16±10 months. Mean duration of subcutaneous agent use was 17.6 (SD, 11.0) and 17.08 (SD, 6.8) months for ADA and UST, respectively. Global nonadherence (mMPR≤90%) rate was 6.6% for all patients receiving subcutaneous treatment, 6.3% for ADA, and 6.5% for UST. Nonadherence during the first 12 months of treatment (n=98) was 6.1% for all patients, 2.7% for ADA, and 16% for UST. In the multivariate analysis, UST use was independently associated with higher nonadherence only within the first 12 months (OR, 6.7; 95% CI, 1.1-39.5). CONCLUSIONS: High global adherence to self-administered subcutaneous biologic treatment was shown in our study, with higher rates of adherence to ADA than to UST within the first 12 months.
