scholarly journals Identification of primary care patients at risk of nonadherence to antidepressant treatment

2009 ◽  
pp. 379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann-Charlotte Akerblad ◽  
Bengtsson ◽  
Holgersson ◽  
von Knorring
2012 ◽  
Vol 38 (5) ◽  
pp. 216-AP2 ◽  
Author(s):  
David G. Bundy ◽  
Jill A. Marsteller ◽  
Albert W. Wu ◽  
Lilly D. Engineer ◽  
Sean M. Berenholtz ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elke Theodora Antonia Maria van Delft ◽  
Deirisa Lopes Barreto ◽  
Annette Helena Maria van der Helm‐van Mil ◽  
Celina Alves ◽  
Johanna Maria Wilhelmina Hazes ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (7) ◽  
pp. 638-644 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Keohane ◽  
Thomas Dennehy ◽  
Kenneth P. Keohane ◽  
Eamonn Shanahan

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to reduce inappropriate non-steroidal anti-inflammatory prescribing in primary care patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Once diagnosed, CKD management involves delaying progression to end stage renal failure and preventing complications. It is well established that non-steroidal anti-inflammatories have a negative effect on kidney function and consequently, all nephrology consensus groups suggest avoiding this drug class in CKD. Design/methodology/approach The sampling criteria included all practice patients with a known CKD risk factor. This group was refined to include those with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)<60 ml/min per 1.73m2 (stage 3 CKD or greater). Phase one analysed how many prescriptions had occurred in this group over the preceding three months. The intervention involved creating an automated alert on at risk patient records if non-steroidal anti-inflammatories were prescribed and discussing the rationale with practice staff. The re-audit phase occurred three months’ post intervention. Findings The study revealed 728/7,500 (9.7 per cent) patients at risk from CKD and 158 (2.1 per cent) who were subsequently found to have an eGFR<60 ml/min, indicating=stage 3 CKD. In phase one, 10.2 per cent of at risk patients had received a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory prescription in the preceding three months. Additionally, 6.2 per cent had received non-steroidal anti-inflammatories on repeat prescription. Phase two post intervention revealed a significant 75 per cent reduction in the total non-steroidal anti-inflammatories prescribed and a 90 per cent reduction in repeat non-steroidal anti-inflammatory prescriptions in those with CKD. Originality/value The study significantly reduced non-steroidal anti-inflammatory prescription in those with CKD in primary care settings. It also created a CKD register within the practice and an enduring medication alert system for individuals that risk nephrotoxic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory prescription. It established a safe, reliable and efficient process for reducing morbidity and mortality, improving quality of life and limiting the CKD associated health burden.


2018 ◽  
Vol 68 (669) ◽  
pp. e279-e285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Margham ◽  
Natalie Symes ◽  
Sally A Hull

BackgroundIdentifying patients at risk of harm in general practice is challenging for busy clinicians. In UK primary care, trigger tools and case note reviews are mainly used to identify rates of harm in sample populations.AimThis study explores how adaptions to existing trigger tool methodology can identify patient safety events and engage clinicians in ongoing reflective work around safety.Design and settingMixed-method quantitative and narrative evaluation using thematic analysis in a single East London training practice.MethodThe project team developed and tested five trigger searches, supported by Excel worksheets to guide the case review process. Project evaluation included summary statistics of completed worksheets and a qualitative review focused on ease of use, barriers to implementation, and perception of value to clinicians.ResultsTrigger searches identified 204 patients for GP review. Overall, 117 (57%) of cases were reviewed and 62 (53%) of these cases had patient safety events identified. These were usually incidents of omission, including failure to monitor or review. Key themes from interviews with practice members included the fact that GPs’ work is generally reactive and GPs welcomed an approach that identified patients who were ‘under the radar’ of safety. All GPs expressed concern that the tool might identify too many patients at risk of harm, placing further demands on their time.ConclusionElectronic trigger tools can identify patients for review in domains of clinical risk for primary care. The high yield of safety events engaged clinicians and provided validation of the need for routine safety checks.


2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew D. Schreiner ◽  
Sherry Livingston ◽  
Jingwen Zhang ◽  
Mulugeta Gebregziabher ◽  
Justin Marsden ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document