July 14, 2007

Do You Take Your Medicines As Prescribed?

 Another clip from Medical News Today about the number of pills and Daily Adherence to medication. Although it focuses on certain conditions, the issue is applicable to everyone and every condition. Compliance (adherence to instructions) is such a big factor in health success that we all (doctors and patients alike) must pay attention to what will improve a person’s ability to follow the advice/instructions:

New Study Suggests Number Of Pills Not A Factor When It Comes To Daily Adherence To Medication

There is no correlation between the daily number of pills a patient is prescribed to take and how well a patient will adhere to a dosing regimen, suggests a new study presented recently at the 19th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) held in San Diego (April 11-14). The large-scale study looked at patients taking a variety of high blood pressure medicines, specifically calcium channel blockers (CCBs), and provides more supportive evidence that adherence to prescribed medication is influenced by a multitude of factors. The study specifically examined dosing regimen to see if there was a relationship between that factor and adherence in patients with a co-payment of at least $20.

More on Do You Take Your Medicines As Prescribed?

Permalink • Print • Comment

May 19, 2007

BlogTalkRadio - Patient Advocacy, Doctors Get Angry Too…

Last night’s radio show was great. We discussed the reason that angry and frustrated doctors pull even further into their communication shell and in so doing, they interfere with a patient’s adherence to instructions and modalities intended to get them well. This discussion was based on research done by Dr. Jodi Halpern

Then we discussed 5 mistakes effective patient advocates can avoid. This discussion came from an article by Dr. Vicki Rackner.

Enjoy the show and see you next Friday night!

 

Terrie

Permalink • Print • Comment

April 19, 2007

Doctor-Patient Communication Has A Real Impact On Health

This is a really good article that I found in Science Daily (and they took it from a press release from Indiana University)

Doctor-Patient Communication Has A Real Impact On Health

Science Daily — Good doctor-patient communication makes a difference not only in patient satisfaction but in patient outcomes including resolution of chronic headaches, changes in emotional states, lower blood sugar values in diabetics, improved blood pressure readings in hypertensives, and other important health indicators.

A systematic review of studies published over the past four decades has confirmed that good doctor-patient communication makes a difference not only in patient satisfaction but in patient outcomes including resolution of chronic headaches, changes in emotional states, lower blood sugar values in diabetics, improved blood pressure readings in hypertensives, and other important health indicators. The review, published by researchers from the Indiana University School of Medicine and the Regenstrief Institute, Inc. and colleagues from the Centers for Disease Control and Emory University, appears in the April 2007 issue of Medical Care, a journal of the American Public Health Association.

"In looking at these 36 studies we learned many things. For example, research on non-adherence to doctor’s instructions has focused on bad or poor behavior by patients rather than on the clarity of the physician’s instructions or whether the physician actually checked to see if his or her instructions were understood by the patient. The physician assumed that the patient understands and thus will comply.

But is this a logical assumption? We don’t assume that when a pilot and an air traffic controller converse that they have understood each until there is an affirmation of understanding. That acknowledgement is lacking in most patient-physician encounters," said Richard Frankel, Ph.D., IU School of Medicine professor of medicine and Regenstrief Institute research scientist, senior author of the study. Dr. Frankel is a sociologist who studies ways to improve the doctor-patient relationship. He is currently investigating how behavioral changes by both doctors and patients impact medical care.

"From previous work, including a well regarded 1999 study from the University of Washington, we know that doctors ask patients whether they understand what was discussed during a medical appointment only about 1.5 percent of the time," said Dr. Frankel. "It is extremely important that a patient be given the opportunity and probably even encouraged to ask questions. Doctors should be trained to routinely check for understanding to ensure that there is neither miscommunication nor mismatch between what the patient wants and what doctors assume the patient wants."

Co-authors of "Communication Interventions Make A Difference in Conversations Between Physicians and Patients: A Systematic Review of the Evidence" are Jaya K. Rao, M.D., M.H.S. of the Centers for Disease Control; Lynda A. Anderson, Ph.D. of Emory University; Thomas S. Inui, M.D. and Richard M. Frankel, Ph.D., both of the IU School of Medicine and the Regenstrief Institute.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Indiana University.

Permalink • Print • Comment

June 26, 2007

The Patient-Physician Encounter

 What a great article from About.com - even though it’s primarily about arthritis, the concepts are exactly the same for every patient-physician encounter. Read about it.

The Patient-Physician Encounter

From Carol & Richard Eustice 

The good physician treats the disease; the great physician treats the patient who has the disease ~ William Osler (Canadian Physician, 1849-1919) 

The Patient-Physician Encounter 

What do patients want from a medical encounter with a physician?

In the thoughts of one physician (Delbanco,1992)

  • Patients want to be able to trust the competence and efficacy of their caregivers.
  • Patients want to be able to negotiate the health care system effectively and to be treated with dignity and respect.
  • Patients want to understand how their sickness or treatment will affect their lives, and they often fear that their doctors are not telling them everything they want to know.
  • Patients want to discuss the effect their illness will have on their family, friends, and finances.
  • Patients worry about the future.
  • Patients worry about and want to learn how to care for themselves away from the clinical setting.
  • Patients want physicians to focus on their: 
                      pain
                      physical discomfort
                      functional disabilities  

The Relationship Between Patient And Physician 

The relationship between patient and physician has been analyzed since the early 1900’s. Prior to when medicine was more science than art, physicians worked to refine their bedside manner, as cures were often impossible and treatment had limited effect.

In the middle of the century when science and technology emerged, interpersonal aspects of health care were overshadowed. There is currently a renewed interest in medicine as a social process. A physician can do as much harm to a patient with the slip of a word as with the slip of a knife. 

Instrumental And Expressive Components 

The patient-physician encounter crosses two dimensions:

  • The "instrumental" component involves the competence of the physician in performing the technical aspects of care such as:

    • expressive
    • performing diagnostic tests
    • physical examinations
    • prescribing treatments
  • The "expressive" component reflects the art of medicine, including the affective portion of the interaction such as warmth and empathy, and how the physician approaches the patient.

  • 3 Common Patient-Physician Relationship Models

     #1) The Activity-Passivity Model - Not The Best Model For Chronic Arthritis

    It is the opinion of some people that the differential in power between the patient and physician is necessary to the steady course of medical care. The patient seeks information and technical assistance, and the physician formulates decisions which the patient must accept. Though this seems appropriate in medical emergencies, this model, known as the activity-passivity model, has lost popularity in the treatment of chronic conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. In this model the physician actively treats the patient, but the patient is passive and has no control.

    #2) The Guidance-Cooperation Model - The Most Prevelant Model

    The guidance-cooperation model is the most prevalent in current medical practice. In this model, the physician recommends a treatment and the patient cooperates. This coincides with the "doctor knows best" theory whereby the doctor is supportive and non-authoritarian, yet is responsible for choosing the appropriate treatment. The patient, having lesser power, is expected to follow the recommendations of the physician.

    Part 2 of 2 - The Patient-Doctor Relationship Can Impact Success of Treatment

    3 Common Patient-Physician Relationship Models - 

    #3) The Mutual Participation Model - Shared Responsibility

    In the third model, the mutual participation model, the physician and patient share responsibility for making decisions and planning the course of treatment. The patient and physician are respectful of each others expectations and values.

    Some have argued that this is the most appropriate model for chronic illnesses such as rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, where patients are responsible for implementing their treatment and determining its efficacy. The changes in the course of chronic rheumatic conditions require a physician and patient to have open communication so as to determine the success of a treatment plan. 

    What Is The Optimal Patient-Physician Relationship Model For Chronic Arthritis? 

    Some rheumatologists feel that the optimal patient-physician relationship model is somewhere between guidance-cooperation and mutual participation.

    In reality, the nature of the patient-physician relationship likely changes over time. Early on, at the time of diagnosis, education and guidance is useful in learning to manage the disease. Once treatment plans are established the patient moves towards the mutual-participation model as they: 

  • monitor their symptoms
  • report difficulties
  • work with the physician to modify their treatment plan  

    The Efficacy Of Treatment 

    Arthritis is not a single disease. There are over 100 types of arthritis and related conditions. The effectiveness of treatment is largely dependent on the patient carrying out the directions of the physician. Treatment options for arthritis may involve: 

    Non-adherence to the physicians treatment plan does imply a negative outcome. In this regard, non-adherence suggests a complete failure to follow a prescribed treatment. The assumption here is that: 

  • the treatment is appropriate and effective
  • there is an association between adherence and improved health
  • the patient is able to carry out the treatment plan  
  • What Are The Effects Of An Effective Patient-Physician Relationship?

    What are the effects of an effective patient-physician relationship? When the PATIENT-PHYSICIAN RELATIONSHIP includes:

  • competence
  • communication
  • an effective style
  • These factors can provide for PATIENT SATISFACTION WITH CARE which leads to better ADHERENCE TO TREATMENT.

  • When better ADHERENCE TO TREATMENT combines with PATIENT SATISFACTION WITH CARE, this often promotes IMPROVED HEALTH with a BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE.

    BOTTOMLINE: The adherence to a treatment plan by a patient and the success of the treatment can be greatly impacted by the patient-physician relationship. 

  • Source: Understanding Rheumatoid Arthritis by Stanton Newman, Ray Fitzpatrick, Tracey A. Revenson, Suzanne Skevington, and Gareth Williams
  • Permalink • Print • Comment

    October 21, 2006

    About Dr. W.

    Dr. Wurzbacher Dr. Terrie Wurzbacher is a retired Naval Officer and an Emergency Physician. She spent 29 1/2 years in the Navy and devoted much of her time trying to teach interns and medical students the fine "art" of communicating with patients. She does NOT claim to be an expert in that field but knows that once she realized that she was not getting the point across to her patients and began to concentrate on ways to help them understand, she was way ahead of most of her peers. There are great doctors out there and some of that greatness is based on technical skill. However, the majority of the great doctors are great because they make the patient a big part of the entire gameplan. Dr. Wurzbacher has always aspired to be that kind of doctor. She knows she's not great but hopes that patients will help their own doctors get to "great".

    Perhaps a more important qualification for authoring materials about doctor-patient communication is that she's been a patient herself. Although she is very fortunate to have had excellent health, she has had to visit the doctor for several things and has had a sampling of pretty poor physicians and also wonderful ones. So, she does have the "credentials" to talk about doctor-patient communication.

    Permalink • Print • Comment

    June 24, 2007

    Choosing a Doctor You Can Talk to…

    This is a pretty cool post from Dr. Levister on Black Voice News Online.

    Choosing a Doctor You Can Talk To

    Dear Dr. Levister:  I get frustrated when I have to see my doctor. He’s usually in a hurry. The communication is always one way. He speaks I listen. Is it time to find a new doctor?  D.C.

    Dear D.C. How well you and your doctor talk to each other is one of the most important parts of getting good health care. Poor communications is the number one driving force behind race and sex based health disparities. Unfortunately, choosing a doctor you can talk to isn’t always easy. It takes time and effort on your part as well as your doctor’s.

    In the past, the doctor typically took the lead and the patient followed. Today with the complexities and costs of health and managed care, a good doctor, patient relationship is more of a partnership with patient and doctor working together to solve medical problems and maintain the patient’s good health. Becoming a strong  advocate for your own health is essential.

    If you are not at ease with the doctor you currently see, now may be the time to find a new doctor. The first step in good communication is finding a doctor with whom you can talk. Having a main doctor (often called a primary doctor) is one of the best ways to ensure your good health. He or she can help you make sound medical decisions and can communicate your health needs with other specialists and health care providers you may need.

    Decide what you are looking for in a doctor. Identify several possible doctors. Consult reference sources. Learn more about the doctors you are considering. Make a choice. Don’t be shy about asking questions. Talking about your health means sharing information about how you feel both physically and emotionally. Knowing how to describe your symptoms, discuss treatments, and talk with specialists will help you become a better partner in your health care. Taking an active role in your  care puts the responsibility for good communication on both you and your doctor. 

    Permalink • Print • 1 Comment

    July 23, 2007

    Choosing A Doctor You Can Talk To….

    This is a pretty cool post from Dr. Levister on Black Voice News Online.

    Choosing a Doctor You Can Talk To

    Dear Dr. Levister:  I get frustrated when I have to see my doctor. He’s usually in a hurry. The communication is always one way. He speaks I listen. Is it time to find a new doctor?  D.C.

    Dear D.C. How well you and your doctor talk to each other is one of the most important parts of getting good health care. Poor communications is the number one driving force behind race and sex based health disparities. Unfortunately, choosing a doctor you can talk to isn’t always easy. It takes time and effort on your part as well as your doctor’s.

    In the past, the doctor typically took the lead and the patient followed. Today with the complexities and costs of health and managed care, a good doctor, patient relationship is more of a partnership with patient and doctor working together to solve medical problems and maintain the patient’s good health. Becoming a strong  advocate for your own health is essential.

    If you are not at ease with the doctor you currently see, now may be the time to find a new doctor. The first step in good communication is finding a doctor with whom you can talk. Having a main doctor (often called a primary doctor) is one of the best ways to ensure your good health. He or she can help you make sound medical decisions and can communicate your health needs with other specialists and health care providers you may need.

    Decide what you are looking for in a doctor. Identify several possible doctors. Consult reference sources. Learn more about the doctors you are considering. Make a choice. Don’t be shy about asking questions. Talking about your health means sharing information about how you feel both physically and emotionally. Knowing how to describe your symptoms, discuss treatments, and talk with specialists will help you become a better partner in your health care. Taking an active role in your  care puts the responsibility for good communication on both you and your doctor. 

    Permalink • Print • Comment

    July 2, 2007

    Health Media Campaign to promote Better Doctor-patient communication

     

    Although a company’s press release, this gives good information.

    HealthMedia(R) Kicks Off National Campaign to Promote Better Doctor/Patient Communications

    ANN ARBOR, Mich., May 21 /PRNewswire/ — As part of its ongoing initiative to promote health awareness and improve healthcare outcomes, HealthMedia(R), Inc., the global leader in the delivery of scalable behavior change interventions for health and wellness, disease management, behavioral health, and medication compliance, is kicking off the first annual Doctor/Patient Advocacy Week.

    "HealthMedia initiated this campaign because there is often a lack of important communication and information sharing between patients and their healthcare professionals," said Ted Dacko, HealthMedia President and CEO. "Patients are often intimidated by their visit with their doctor. They often don’t remember to ask the questions that they wanted to ask, don’t understand parts of what their doctor tells them, don’t know how to use reflective listening (repeating back what they think they heard) to make sure that they understand advice, and can be unsatisfied with their overall relationship with their doctor and their health plan. HealthMedia offers specific products that help patients improve their communication and overall trust with their doctor. This has proven to improve outcomes."

    The video will be used primarily as an advocacy campaign for health professionals and consumers. In addition, it will be used as a tool to help recruit participants into disease management web interventions focused on a better working doctor-patient relationship. Finally, the video will be used as part of the successful HealthMedia Care(TM) for Your Health program, an online intervention designed to improve clinical disease management efforts by helping people with chronic conditions develop the self-management skills necessary to take charge of their health. Current estimates indicate that more than 85 percent of disease management is self-management.

    "Improving the doctor-patient relationship can improve outcomes, medication adherence, and satisfaction with the health care provider and the health plan. Shedding light on this issue, in an unconventional and humorous manner, will help both doctors and patients better appreciate the importance of overcoming fear of doctor’s visits and better communications," said Dacko. "The use of an entertaining and engaging medium is just one more example of HealthMedia’s revolutionary approach to behavior change."

    "The relationship between patient and doctor is the very foundation of the healthcare system," said Vicki Rackner, MD, a surgeon who now focuses on improving the health of the doctor-patient relationship through her company, Medical Bridges. "HealthMedia recognized the importance of the relationship, developed tools that guide patients beyond their comfort zones and collected the data to confirm what I always knew to be true-improving the patient-doctor relationship enhances patient experiences and outcomes."

    In "The Appointment," HealthMedia provides the following tips for patients in creating a successful partnership with their physicians:

    Be honest with your physicianAsk questions if you do not understand something your physician has said — Bring a list of medications and vitamins you are takingTake notes during your appointment — Bring a family member or friend along if you need help — Alert your physician to changes in your life and/or health About HealthMedia, Inc.

    HealthMedia Inc.

    Permalink • Print • Comment

    June 25, 2007

    Preventing Medication Errors

    The Institute of Medicine (IOM) published findings in 1999 on the quality of healthcare in America. That report, "To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System," concluded that as many as 7000 Americans die from medication errors each year.[1] In July 2006, the IOM released a new report, "Preventing Medication Errors," stating that the frequency of medication errors and related injuries was still a serious concern.[2]

    A common question that arises is: "What drugs are most often involved in medication errors?" Matthew Grissinger, RPh, FASCP, is a medication safety analyst with ISMP, the nation’s oldest voluntary drug error reporting program, located in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania. His session on "The Top 10 Adverse Drug Reactions and Medication Errors" drew an audience that filled the meeting hall.[3]

    Grissinger first referred to a study that identified the 10 drugs most commonly implicated in adverse events requiring treatment in a hospital emergency department (ED).[4] The study also documented the frequency with which each of the 10 drugs was involved:

    1. Insulin (8%);
    2. Anticoagulants (6.2%);
    3. Amoxicillin (s) (4.3%);
    4. Aspirin (2.5%);
    5. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (2.2%);
    6. Hydrocodone/acetaminophen (2.2%);
    7. Ibuprofen (2.1%);
    8. Acetaminophen (1.8%);
    9. Cephalexin (1.6%); and
    10. Penicillin (1.3%).

    Unintentional overdoses made up 40% of these ED visits, representing the most prevalent mechanism of injury by far. Other mechanisms included side effects and allergic reactions. Some of the drugs on this list are especially common (eg, hydrocodone and amoxicillin), so the sheer volume of prescriptions written is a major factor.

    The elderly also play a key role in this issue, as they account for 34% of all written prescriptions. The average number of prescriptions for an elderly person in the United States in 2000 was 28.5 per year. That number is estimated to reach 38.5 by the year 2010. Almost a quarter million seniors are hospitalized every year due to reactions between prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) medications.

    Common misuses that lead to adverse drug events are taking incorrect doses, taking doses at the wrong times, forgetting to take doses, or stopping the medication too soon (all nonadherence issues). An example of commonly misused medications can be seen with arthritis therapies. Seventy million Americans suffer from arthritis and joint pain, which translates into 30 million people taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, either prescription or OTC. Misuse of these drugs leads to 103,000 hospitalizations and 16,000 deaths per year. Unnecessary use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs also increases avoidable side effects, such as dyspepsia, peptic ulcer, and gastrointestinal bleeding.

    Another high-volume prescription class is the antibiotics. This group represents significant inappropriate prescribing: Twenty-three million antibiotic prescriptions are written for colds, bronchitis, and upper respiratory infections each year, Grissinger said, despite the fact that antibiotics don’t kill viruses.

    Top 10 Medications Involved in Drug Errors

    A somewhat different top 10 list identifies medications that are most commonly misused or mishandled in some way by healthcare professionals. This list is based on information from the United States Pharmacopoeia (USP), which maintains a database of medication errors that are reported anonymously. The figures represent drug errors associated with acute hospital care[5]:

    1. Insulin (4% of all medication errors in 2005);
    2. Morphine (2.3%);
    3. Potassium chloride (2.2%);
    4. Albuterol (1.8%);
    5. Heparin (1.7%);
    6. Vancomycin (1.6%);
    7. Cefazolin (1.6%);
    8. Acetaminophen (1.6%);
    9. Warfarin (1.4%); and
    10. Furosemide (1.4%).

    Hospitals and healthcare systems use the USP database to track medication errors and identify trends. Drug errors are defined as unintentional acts committed by healthcare providers involving medications. Grissinger noted that comparable data are unavailable for outpatient care.

    The number 1 error-prone medication is insulin. In fact, a 1998 ISMP study found that 11% of all serious medication errors involve insulin misadministration.[6] Errors include mixing up products with similar packaging (look-alike products); confusing generic listings on computer databases; similarity in names (eg, Humalog and Humulin); and most importantly, confusing the abbreviation "u" for units with the number 0. ISMP reports that these errors have been occurring for over 30 years.

    The second drug on this list is morphine, which can be extrapolated to include all opioids, Grissinger said. Similar names for some of these drugs often cause confusion, such as:

    • Avinza and Evista;
    • Morphine and hydromorphone;
    • Oxycontin and MS Contin;
    • Hydrocodone and oxycodone; and
    • Oxycodone and codeine.

    In the community pharmacy, these drugs often are stacked close together in a locked area, and many have similar packaging, making it easy to grab the wrong one when dispensing. Another common mistake is mixing up oxycodone with oxycodone ER (extended release), especially in handheld device order entry.

    Morphine oral solutions cause many problems because of the multiple concentrations that are available, all stored close to each other. For example, it would be easy to confuse "mL" with "mg"; using 5 mL of morphine 20 mg/mL (100 mg) instead of the prescribed 5 mg (0.25 mL) would lead to overdosing the patient. Alternatively, an intended dose of 1 mL of morphine 20 mg/mL (20 mg) might be given as 1 mL of 10 mg/5 mL (2 mg), thus underdosing the patient. Grissinger also reported a case in which Avinza (morphine ER caps) 30 mg was misinterpreted and dispensed as "qid" (4 times daily) instead of "qd" (once daily), causing a near-fatal overdose.

    Acetaminophen is another drug on the error list that causes many problems. It is available in many different strengths, and various measuring devices are available for dispensing it. In addition, it is found in many combination medications, both prescription and OTC. Prescription labels of combination products with acetaminophen can be very confusing for the patient. For example, hydrocodone 10/650 has 650 mg of acetaminophen, but many patients would not know how to interpret that.

    Grissinger reminded the audience that acetaminophen can be toxic, even though it is sold OTC. A recent study showed that acetaminophen-induced liver toxicity accounts for more than 40% of US cases of acute liver failure.[7]

    Antibiotics are the next big group of drugs associated with medication errors. As with opioids, the liquid dose concentrations increase the risk for mistakes. Confusion over measurements in "mL" vs "tsp" (teaspoons) can cause a 5-fold overdose or underdose if undetected. In one case, for example, azithromycin suspension was dispensed with directions to take 2.5 tsp daily (equivalent to 12.5 mL) instead of the intended 2.5 mL daily, Grissinger reported. The entire contents of the bottle were administered according to the labeled instructions, and the child developed diarrhea.

    Reconstituting antibiotics can also be problematic. Pharmacists have mistakenly reconstituted antibiotic suspensions with alcohol instead of distilled water.

    System Errors May Interfere With Individual Efforts

    Most healthcare professionals have learned the "5 rights" of safe medication use: the right patient, the right drug, the right time, the right dose, and the right route of administration.

    However, in his book Medication Errors, Michael Cohen wrote that these "rights" focus on individual performance and can overlook system errors. Examples of system errors are poor lighting, inadequate staffing, handwritten orders, doses with trailing zeros, and ambiguous drug labels. All of these can prevent healthcare professionals from verifying the 5 rights.[8]

    Experts at ISMP have identified 10 key "system" elements that most influence medication use, reported Donna Horn, RPh, DPh, ISMP Director, Patient Safety - Community Pharmacy. Systems factors play a major role in increasing the likelihood that an individual will make an error. Deficiencies in any of these system elements can lead to medication errors[9]:

    1. Patient information (age, weight, allergies, diagnoses, and pregnancy status);
    2. Drug information (up-to-date information readily available);
    3. Communication (collaborative teamwork between all healthcare members and the patient);
    4. Drug labeling, packaging, and nomenclature (limit look-alike and sound-alike drug names, confusing packaging);
    5. Drug standardization, storage, and distribution (restricting access to high-alert drugs);
    6. Medication delivery device acquisition, use, and monitoring;
    7. Environmental factors (poor lighting, cluttered work spaces, noise, interruptions, nonstop activity, and deficient staffing);
    8. Staff competency and education;
    9. Patient education; and
    10. Quality processes and risk management (systems are needed for identifying, reporting, analyzing, and reducing the risk for medication errors with a nonpunitive culture of safety).

    When an error occurs, it is tempting to blame individuals, Horn said. A "systems approach," however, looks at the whole system rather than individual errors. For instance, failures in the design or implementation of systems can lead to excessive reliance on memory, lack of standardization, inadequate access to information, and poor work schedules. Thus, with a systems approach, accountability is expanded to include anyone who had any influence over the error, setting the stage for broader solutions.

    How Can We Prevent Medication Errors?

    Nearly half of all adverse drug events have some form of "preventability," and many do not represent errors of commission but, rather, errors of omission. This implies a failure on the part of someone (pharmacist, physician, patient, or the interactions between these groups) to detect certain factors that most likely led to the adverse event. These factors include:

    1. Failure to detect a disease state contraindication to the drug therapy;
    2. Failure to detect a significant drug interaction;
    3. Failure to detect a significant drug allergy;
    4. Failure to prescribe the correct dose for a specific patient;
    5. Failure to monitor drugs with narrow therapeutic indexes; and
    6. Patient knowledge deficits.

    Many of these can be avoided by spending a few minutes counseling the prescriber and/or the patient. Communication is key, Horn said. Barriers to effective communication include illegible handwriting, abbreviations, verbal orders, ambiguous orders, and fax or ePrescribing problems.

    When communicating with prescribers, pharmacists should identify the issues clearly and concisely, said Marialice Bennett, RPh, FAPhA, Professor and Pharmacy Director of the University Health Connection at Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio.[10] She offered these suggestions for such discussions:

    • Outline the specifics of the problem;
    • Keep focused on the patient;
    • Provide possible solutions;
    • Ask for prescriber feedback; and
    • Document the final decision.

    Conflict can lead to poor communication, which can hinder the discovery of medication errors, she said. Conflicting opinions about patient care should be handled objectively and professionally. The ISMP recommends that healthcare organizations create a code of conduct that encourages behaviors supportive of team cohesion, staff morale, and sense of self-worth and safety.

    Permalink • Print • Comment

    August 30, 2007

    Satire - But, Oh So True!

    This is very long but well worth the read (to me anyway). Although it’s about the mental health professionals, it could certainly be applied to any physician. Know anyone who fits this bill?

    This article received a Thinking Blogger Award!

     This is my proposal for the DSM inclusion of a new section that outlines and categorizes the features of Mental Health Professional Personality Disorders or MHPPDs.

    This proposal begins with a general definition of Mental Health Professional Personality Disorder that applies to each of the 4 specific MHPPDs. An MHPPD is an enduring pattern of inability to empathize with or understand the inner experience and behavior of certain patient populations that deviate markedly from the MHP’s own expectations, individual culture, life experience, values, and personal lifestyle preferences. MHPPD is pervasive, inflexible, prejudicial and has an onset upon reading educational psychiatric literature, engaging in disparaging prejudicial discussion with “more experienced” colleagues, may be triggered by reading a chart with which includes a previous undesirable diagnosis for a patient, is stable over time, and leads to further distress or impairment in the condition of the MHP’s patient. The Mental Health Professional Personality Disorders included in this proposal are listed below.

    Mental Health Professional Paranoid Personality Disorder is a pattern of distrust and suspiciousness such that patients’ motives are interpreted as malevolent or manipulative.

    Mental Health Professional Antisocial Personality Disorder is a pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of patients.

    Mental Health Professional Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a pattern of grandiosity, need for the compliance of one’s patients, and a lack of empathy for the experience or suffering of those patients.

    Mental Health Professional Coercive Personality Disorder is a pattern of dominant and aggressive authoritarian behavior related to an excessive need to be in control of patient treatment decisions.

    Mental Health Professional Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified is a category provided for two situations: 1) the MHP’s personality pattern meets the general criteria for an MHPPD and the traits of several different MHPPDs are present, but the criteria for any specific MHPPD are not met; or 2) the MHP’s personality pattern meets the general criteria for an MHPPD that is not included in the Classification (e.g., mental health professional passive-aggressive personality disorder). It should be noted that MHPs frequently present with co-occurring personality disorders.

    More on Satire - But, Oh So True!

    Permalink • Print • Comment
    Made with WordPress and a healthy dose of Semiologic • Boxed skin by Denis de Bernardy