Aspects of Medication and Patient participation-an Easy guideLine (AMPEL). A conversation guide increases patients' and physicians' satisfaction with prescription talks.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kirsch V
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8298249 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: Medication communication from physicians to patients often is poor, by this among others enhancing the risk of non-adherence. In this context, a neglect regarding the prescription talk has been complained. Aim of the project: In a newly developed elective medical students work on physician-patient conversations dealing with drug prescription. Essential aspects related to an effective and safe drug treatment are combined with steps of shared decision-making. Together with a tutor, students develop a (model) conversation guide that might be tailored according to individual needs and views. Description/Methods: In a one-week course 3rd-5th year medical students treat a paper case according to problem-based learning. This is accompanied by a one-hour lecture and literature provided on an online learning platform (ILIAS). During a workshop, aspects of drug treatment and patient participation are integrated into a guide for a prescription talk. At the end of the week the students are invited to apply the (if need be individualized) guide in a simulated physician-patient communication with an actor. The conversation is evaluated using a checklist based upon the (model) conversation guide. Results: Informal and formalized feedback indicate high acceptance and satisfaction of participants with this elective. The checklist turned out to be of acceptable to good reliability with mostly selective items. Portfolio entries and written evaluation suggest that participants' positions and attitudes are influenced.
| S-EPMC5450434 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background: In 2013, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) released a revised guideline on statin therapy initiation. The guideline included a 10-year risk calculation based on regression modeling, which made hand calculation infeasible. Compliance to the guideline has been suboptimal, as many patients were recommended but not prescribed statin therapy. Clinical decision support (CDS) tools may improve statin guideline compliance. Few statin guideline CDS tools evaluated clinical outcome.Objectives: We determined if use of a CDS tool, the statin macro, was associated with increased 2013 ACC/AHA statin guideline compliance at the level of statin prescription versus no statin prescription. We did not determine if each patient's statin prescription met ACC/AHA 2013 therapy intensity recommendations (high vs. moderate vs. low).Methods: The authors developed a clinician-initiated, EHR-embedded statin macro command ("statin macro") that displayed the 2013 ACC/AHA statin guideline recommendation in the electronic health record documentation. We included patients who had a primary care visit during the study period (January 1-June 30, 2016), were eligible for statin therapy based on the ACC/AHA guideline prior to the study period, and were not prescribed statin therapy prior to the study period. We tested the association of macro usage and statin therapy prescription during the study period using relative risk and mixed effect logistic regression.Results: Subjects included 11,877 patients seen in primary care, who were retrospectively recommended statin therapy at study initiation based on the ACC/AHA guideline, but who had not received statin therapy. During the study period, 125 clinicians used the statin macro command for 389 of the 11,877 patients (3.2%). Of the 389 patients for whom that statin macro was used, 108 patients (28%) had a statin prescribed during the study period. Of the 11,488 for whom the statin macro was not used, 1,360 (13%) patients received a clinician-prescribed statin (relative risk 2.3, p?<?0.001). Controlling for patient covariates and clinicians, statin macro usage was significantly associated with statin therapy prescription (odds ratio 2.86, p?<?0.001).Conclusion: Although the statin macro had low uptake, its use was associated with a greater rate of statin prescriptions (dosage not determined) for patients whom 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines required statin therapy.
| S-EPMC6584145 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Evaluation of prescriptions is a necessary process of evaluating the appropriateness of clinical drug usage, discovering existing problems, and formulating solutions. There are challenges for professionals within hospital medical departments and for clinicians and pharmacists who have clinical questions relating to inappropriate or abnormal prescriptions as identified by the electronic evaluation system of prescription. Medications are usually used correctly according to the drug instructions or guidelines. At present, there are no relevant domestic or international guidelines, or principles or standards for identifying inappropriate or abnormal prescriptions. To develop the guideline for evaluation of prescriptions appropriateness in clinical practice, the Pharmaceutical Affairs Commission of the Chinese Hospital Association formed the guideline working group consisting of multidisciplinary experts. The guideline working group summarized clinical questions in the evaluation of prescriptions, searched for supporting evidence, and reached a consensus for recommendations. The guideline contains 6 recommendations for evaluating prescription appropriateness, and the general principle of these recommendations is that clinicians should provide drug instructions, guidelines, or moderate evidence supporting the prescription, and the evaluators will then judge the prescription to be either appropriate or irrational. The recommendations resolve common clinical questions, using supporting examples, explanations and a flow chart. The evaluation of prescription appropriateness could be made more systematic and transparent based on this guideline's conclusions.
| S-EPMC8422117 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBuprenorphine is a critically important treatment for addressing the opioid epidemic, but there are virtually no studies of physicians' job satisfaction with providing buprenorphine. Physicians' job satisfaction has been linked to burnout and turnover as well as patients' adherence to treatment recommendations, so it is important to understand how physicians' satisfaction with providing buprenorphine treatment compares to their overall job satisfaction.MethodsAs part of a cluster randomized clinical trial (RCT) focused on expanding access to medication for opioid use disorder, 55 physicians working in 38 organizations in Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin completed a baseline web-based survey. Study measures included global job satisfaction, career satisfaction, and specialty satisfaction. Physicians who were waivered to prescribe buprenorphine were asked to rate their satisfaction with their current buprenorphine practice.ResultsOverall, physicians were generally satisfied with their jobs, their careers, and their specialties. When waivered physicians (n = 40) were compared to non-waivered physicians (n = 15) on 13 satisfaction items, there were no statistically significant differences. Among waivered physicians, ratings for buprenorphine work were significantly lower than ratings for general medical practice for finding such work personally rewarding, being pleased with such work, and overall satisfaction.ConclusionsAlthough waivered and non-waivered physicians both reported high global job satisfaction, these data suggest that some waivered physicians may view their buprenorphine work as somewhat less satisfying than their global medical practice. Given that job dissatisfaction is a risk factor for turnover and burnout, managers of treatment organizations should consider whether strategies may be able to mitigate some sources of lower satisfaction in the context of buprenorphine treatment. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT02926482. Date of registration: September 9, 2016. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02926482.
| S-EPMC6709557 | biostudies-literature
Project description:During medical consultations, physicians need to share a substantial amount of information with their patients. How this information is framed can be crucial for patient understanding and outcomes, but little is known about the details of how physicians frame information in practice. Using an inductive microanalysis approach in the study of videotaped medical interactions, we aimed to identify the information frames (i.e., higher-level ways of organizing and structuring information to reach a particular purpose) and the information-framing devices (i.e., any dialogic mechanism used to present information in a particular way that shapes how the patient might perceive and interpret it) physicians use spontaneously and intuitively while sharing information with their patients. We identified 66 different information-framing devices acting within nine information frames conveying: (1) Do we agree that we share this knowledge?, (2) I don't like where I (or where you are) am going with this, (3) This may be tricky to understand, (4) You may need to think, (5) This is important, (6) This is not important, (7) This comes from me as a doctor, (8) This comes from me as a person, and (9) This is directed to you as a unique person. The kaleidoscope of information-framing devices described in this study reveals the near impossibility for neutrality and objectivity in the information-sharing practice of medical care. It also represents an inductively derived starting point for further research into aspects of physicians' information-sharing praxis.
| S-EPMC10714701 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Non-interventional post-marketing studies (NIPMSs) sponsored by pharmaceutical companies are controversial because, while they are theoretically useful instruments for pharmacovigilance, some authors have hypothesized that they are merely marketing instruments used to influence physicians' prescription behavior. So far, it has not been shown, to our knowledge, whether NIPMSs actually do have an influence on prescription behavior. The objective of this study was therefore to investigate whether physicians' participation in NIPMSs initiated by pharmaceutical companies has an impact on their prescription behavior. In addition, we wanted to analyze whether specific characteristics of NIPMSs have a differing impact on prescription behavior. METHODS AND FINDINGS:In a retrospective 2-armed cohort study, the prescription behavior of 6,996 German physicians, of which 2,354 had participated in at least 1 of 24 NIPMSs and 4,642 were controls, was analyzed. Data were acquired between 6 October 2016 and 8 June 2018. Controls were matched by overall prescription volume and number of prescriptions of the drug studied in the NIPMS in the year prior to the NIPMS. Primary outcome was the relative rate of prescriptions of the drug studied in the NIPMS by participating physicians compared to controls during the NIPMS and the following year. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of prescriptions of the studied drug compared to alternative drugs used for the same indication, the revenue generated by these prescriptions, and the association between the marketing characteristics of the NIPMS and prescription habits. Of the 24 NIPMSs, the 2 largest drug groups studied were antineoplastic and immunomodulatory agents (7/24, 29.2%) and agents for the nervous system (4/24, 16.7%). Physicians participating in an NIPMS prescribed more of the studied drug during and in the year after the NIPMS, at a relative rate of 1.08 (95% CI 1.07-1.10; p < 0.001) and 1.07 (95% CI 1.05-1.09); p < 0.001), respectively. Participating physicians were more likely than controls to prescribe one of the studied drugs rather than alternative drugs used for the same indication (odds ratio 1.04; 95% CI 1.03-1.05). None of the marketing characteristics studied were significantly associated with prescription practices. The main limitation was the difficulty in controlling for confounders due to privacy laws, with a resulting lack of information regarding the included physicians, which was mainly addressed by the matching process. CONCLUSIONS:Physicians participating in NIPMSs prescribe more of the investigated drug than matching controls. This result calls the alleged non-interventional character of NIPMSs into question and should lead to stricter regulation of NIPMSs.
| S-EPMC7319278 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Building strong relationships among physicians and staff improves the practice's ability to deal with the uncertainties of a rapidly changing environment. Interacting proactively with the economic, social, political, and cultural environment-the practice landscape-provides opportunities for adaptation and ongoing learning.
| S-EPMC3140165 | biostudies-other
Project description:PurposeOff-label medications have been challenging in healthcare systems, and their significance is emphasized throughout pandemics. The study was designed to develop an ethics guideline for prescribing off-label medications and also aimed to develop a valid instrument for evaluating physicians' and clinical pharmacists' knowledge and attitudes regarding off-label medication use.MethodsIn 2021, the two-phase study was done. A gap analysis study and a review of relevant guidelines and peer-reviewed papers were conducted in the first phase. There were three hybrid expert panel discussions with nine specialists until a consensus was reached. In the second phase, a questionnaire was developed to assess physicians' and pharmacists' knowledge and attitudes toward off-label prescribing medications. An expert panel of nine ethicists, physicians, and pharmacists determined the face and content validity. To evaluate the reliability and construct validity of the instrument, 201 physicians and clinical pharmacists participated.ResultsThis guideline provides 24 recommendations classified into seven themes to assist clinicians, pharmacists, and policymakers in managing off-label medication use. The preliminary questionnaire contained 72 items. Items were removed if their I-CVI and CVR were less than 0.79 and 0.78, respectively. The S-CVI/Average ratio was 0.937. The Cronbach α was 0.848. Ten factors were identified through exploratory factor analysis. These ten factors comprised 64.652% of the variance. There was no significant difference between general physicians, specialist physicians, and clinical pharmacists in one-way ANOVA [F = 0.584, P = 0.559].ConclusionWe developed an ethical guideline for off-label medication use that can integrate ethical principles into related practice. Moreover, our valid and reliable questionnaire can evaluate the ethical adherence of physicians and pharmacists to scientific and ethical challenges of off-label medications in the country, especially during pandemics.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40200-023-01288-0.
| S-EPMC10638311 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSkilled physician communication is a key component of patient experience. Large-scale studies of exposure to communication skills training and its impact on patient satisfaction have not been conducted.ObjectiveWe aimed to examine the impact of experiential relationship-centered physician communication skills training on patient satisfaction and physician experience.DesignThis was an observational study.SettingThe study was conducted at a large, multispecialty academic medical center.ParticipantsParticipants included 1537 attending physicians who participated in, and 1951 physicians who did not participate in, communication skills training between 1 August 2013 and 30 April 2014.InterventionAn 8-h block of interactive didactics, live or video skill demonstrations, and small group and large group skills practice sessions using a relationship-centered model.Main measuresHospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS), Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CGCAHPS), Jefferson Scale of Empathy (JSE), Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), self-efficacy, and post course satisfaction.Key resultsFollowing the course, adjusted overall CGCAHPS scores for physician communication were higher for intervention physicians than for controls (92.09 vs. 91.09, p < 0.03). No significant interactions were noted between physician specialty or baseline CGCAHPS and improvement following the course. Significant improvement in the post-course HCAHPS Respect domain adjusted mean was seen in intervention versus control groups (91.08 vs. 88.79, p = 0.02) and smaller, non-statistically significant improvements were also seen for adjusted HCAHPS communication scores (83.95 vs. 82.73, p = 0.22). Physicians reported high course satisfaction and showed significant improvement in empathy (116.4 ± 12.7 vs. 124 ± 11.9, p < 0.001) and burnout, including all measures of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment. Less depersonalization and greater personal accomplishment were sustained for at least 3 months.ConclusionsSystem-wide relationship-centered communication skills training improved patient satisfaction scores, improved physician empathy, self-efficacy, and reduced physician burnout. Further research is necessary to examine longer-term sustainability of such interventions.
| S-EPMC4907940 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although doctor-patient communication is essential for drug prescription, the literature reveals deficits in this area. An educational approach at the Cologne medical faculty aims at identifying and addressing those deficits in medical students.Fifth-year medical students first conducted a simulated prescription talk spontaneously. Subsequently, the conversation was discussed with peer students. A pharmacist moderated the discussion based upon a previously developed conversation guide. Afterwards, the same student had the conversation again, but as if for the first time. Conversations were video-recorded, transcribed and subjected to quantitative content analysis. Four days after the simulation, the students who conducted the talk, those who observed and discussed it, and students who did neither, completed a written test that focused on the content of an effective prescription talk.Content analysis revealed clear deficits in spontaneously led prescription talks. Even essential information as on adverse drug reactions were often lacking. Prescription talks became clearly more informative and comprehensive after the short, guided peer discussion. With regard to a comprehensive, informative prescription talk, the written test showed that both the students who conducted the talk and those who only observed it performed clearly better than the students who did not participate in the educational approach.Deficits regarding prescription talks are present in 5th year medical students. We provide an approach to both identify and address these deficits. It thus may be an example for training medical students in simulated and clinical environments like the EACPT recommended to improve pharmacology education.
| S-EPMC8514349 | biostudies-literature