OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a multi-approach strategy to improve the appropriate usage of acid suppressive medication (ASM) in medical inpatients and compare it with the baseline data from 2007. SETTING: Five general medicine wards in a 600-bed teaching hospital in Doha, Qatar. METHOD: A prospective evaluation of the usage of ASM 1 year after a multi-approach strategy. This consisted of four main interventions: audit and feedback method (including awareness lectures to all medical and pharmacy staff), implementation of a usage guideline for medical inpatients, circulating a logarithmic chart on the proper usage of ASM for medical inpatients from admission through to discharge and participation of clinical pharmacists in the multidisciplinary rounds. All medical patients admitted from May through June 2009 were evaluated. Data about the usage of ASM were collected upon and during admission, at discharge and at the next follow-up visit. Justified indications for its usage were based on the approved product information and on evidence-based literature recommendations. Data were compared with the findings of the baseline clinical audit done 2 years earlier. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The usage of ASM in justified and non-justified indications upon and during admission, at discharge and at the next follow up visit. RESULTS: A total of 414 patients were admitted during the study period, 208 patients (50%) received ASM compared to 53% in 2007 (206 patients out of 389). Seventy-four patients (36%) were using ASM upon admission compared to 48 patients (23%) in the 2007 clinical audit. Inappropriate ASM use decreased with 51% during admission (66 to 32%, P < 0.0001), 62% at discharge (34 to 13%, P < 0.0001) and 67% at the next follow up visit (15 to 5%, P = 0.0008). CONCLUSION: Despite the higher number of patients receiving ASM upon admission, the multi-approach strategy used in our institution resulted in a significant improvement in the appropriate usage of ASM in medical inpatients.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a multi-approach strategy to improve the appropriate usage of acid suppressive medication (ASM) in medical inpatients and compare it with the baseline data from 2007. SETTING: Five general medicine wards in a 600-bed teaching hospital in Doha, Qatar. METHOD: A prospective evaluation of the usage of ASM 1 year after a multi-approach strategy. This consisted of four main interventions: audit and feedback method (including awareness lectures to all medical and pharmacy staff), implementation of a usage guideline for medical inpatients, circulating a logarithmic chart on the proper usage of ASM for medical inpatients from admission through to discharge and participation of clinical pharmacists in the multidisciplinary rounds. All medical patients admitted from May through June 2009 were evaluated. Data about the usage of ASM were collected upon and during admission, at discharge and at the next follow-up visit. Justified indications for its usage were based on the approved product information and on evidence-based literature recommendations. Data were compared with the findings of the baseline clinical audit done 2 years earlier. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The usage of ASM in justified and non-justified indications upon and during admission, at discharge and at the next follow up visit. RESULTS: A total of 414 patients were admitted during the study period, 208 patients (50%) received ASM compared to 53% in 2007 (206 patients out of 389). Seventy-four patients (36%) were using ASM upon admission compared to 48 patients (23%) in the 2007 clinical audit. Inappropriate ASM use decreased with 51% during admission (66 to 32%, P < 0.0001), 62% at discharge (34 to 13%, P < 0.0001) and 67% at the next follow up visit (15 to 5%, P = 0.0008). CONCLUSION: Despite the higher number of patients receiving ASM upon admission, the multi-approach strategy used in our institution resulted in a significant improvement in the appropriate usage of ASM in medical inpatients.
Authors: E P M van Vliet; E W Steyerberg; H J A M Otten; A Rudolphus; P D Knoester; H C Hoogsteden; T van Gelder; P M J C Kuijpers; P D Siersema Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2008-10-22 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Claudia C Orelio; Pauline Heus; Judith J Kroese-van Dieren; René Spijker; Barbara C van Munster; Lotty Hooft Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Devada Singh-Franco; David R Mastropietro; Miriam Metzner; Michael D Dressler; Amneh Fares; Melinda Johnson; Daisy De La Rosa; William R Wolowich Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-12-03 Impact factor: 3.240