Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Clinical Inertia (clinical + inertia)
Selected AbstractsPhysician or Clinical Inertia: What Is It?JOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPERTENSION, Issue 1 2009Is It Really a Problem? First page of article [source] ASH Position Paper: Adherence and Persistence With Taking Medication to Control High Blood PressureJOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPERTENSION, Issue 10 2010Martha N. Hill RN J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2010;12:757-764. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Nonadherence and poor or no persistence in taking antihypertensive medications results in uncontrolled high blood pressure, poor clinical outcomes, and preventable health care costs. Factors associated with nonadherence are multilevel and relate not only to the patient, but also to the provider, health care system, health care organization, and community. National guideline committees have called for more aggressive approaches to implement strategies known to improve adherence and technologies known to enable changes at the systems level, including improved communication among providers and patients. Improvements in adherence and persistence are likely to be achieved by supporting patient self-management, a team approach to patient care, technology-supported office practice systems, better methods to measure adherence, and less clinical inertia. Integrating high blood pressure control into health care policies that emphasize and improve prevention and management of chronic illness remains a challenge. Four strategies are proposed: focusing on clinical outcomes; empowering informed, activated patients; developing prepared proactive practice teams; and advocating for health care policy reform. With hypertension remaining the most common reason for office visits, the time is now. [source] Barriers to Optimal Hypertension ControlJOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPERTENSION, Issue 8 2008Gbenga Ogedegbe MD There is an obvious gap in the translation of clinical trial evidence into practice with regards to optimal hypertension control. The three major categories of barriers to BP control are patient-related, physician-related, and medical environment/health care system factors. Patient-related barriers include poor medication adherence, beliefs about hypertension and its treatment, depression, health literacy, comorbidity, and patient motivation. The most pertinent is medication adherence, given its centrality to the other factors. The most salient physician-related barrier is clinical inertia,defined, as the failure of health care providers to initiate or intensify drug therapy in a patient with uncontrolled BP. The major reasons for clinical inertia are: 1) overestimation of the amount of care that physicians provide; 2) lack of training on how to attain target BP levels; and 3) clinicians' use of soft reasons to avoid treatment intensification by adopting a "wait until next visit" approach in response to patients' excuses. [source] Blood Pressure Components in Clinical HypertensionJOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPERTENSION, Issue 9 2006Michel E. Safar MD This review offers a critical evaluation of the remarkable progress in antihypertensive therapy since its inception. Despite the introduction of newer, more sophisticated drugs, treatment results have remained stable. Problems impeding further improvement include limited patient compliance, clinical inertia, incomplete adherence to guidelines, and dependence on brachial artery cuff pressures for diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment response. Brachial artery systolic and pulse pressures do not reliably represent aortic or carotid artery pressures, which are better risk predictors for the heart and brain. Mean pressure, which is the same throughout the arterial tree, is directly measurable by cuff oscillometry, and might become the best single risk predictor. Available drugs have limited ability to decrease the aortic stiffness that is responsible for the elevated systolic blood pressure of aging. Therefore, to improve risk assessment and therapeutic benefit, we might include mean blood pressure and pulse pressure into blood pressure measurements, pursue efforts to measure central blood pressure, and search for new drugs to reduce arterial stiffness. [source] Is there a downside to customizing care?JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, Issue 6 2009Implications of general, patient-specific treatment strategies Abstract Rationale, aims and objectives, The use of general clinical guidelines versus customization of patient care presents a dilemma for clinicians managing chronic illness. The objective of this project is to investigate the claim that the performance of customized strategies for the management of chronic illness depends on accurate patient categorization, and inaccurate categorization can lead to worse performance than that achievable using a general clinical guideline. Methods, This paper is based on an analysis of a basic utility model that differentiates between the use of general management strategies and customized strategies. Results, The analysis identifies necessary conditions for preferring general strategies to customized strategies as a trade-off between strategy performance and the probability of correct patient categorization. The analysis shows that customized treatment strategies developed under optimal conditions are not necessarily preferred. Conclusions, Results of the analysis have four implications regarding the design and use of clinical guidelines and customization of care: (i) the balance between the applications of more general strategies versus customization depends on the specificity and accuracy of the strategies; (ii) adoption of clinical guidelines may be stifled as the complexity of guidelines increases to account for growing evidence; (iii) clinical inertia (i.e. the failure to intensify an indicated treatment) can be a rational response to strategy specificity and the probability of misapplication; and, (iv) current clinical guidelines and other decision-support tools may be improved if they accommodate the need for customization of strategies for some patients while providing support for proper categorization of patients. [source] Improving glycemic control in medical inpatients: A pilot studyJOURNAL OF HOSPITAL MEDICINE, Issue 1 2008BCPS, Jennifer M. Trujillo PharmD Abstract BACKGROUND Inpatient hyperglycemia is associated with poor patient outcomes. Current guidelines recommend that in an inpatient non-ICU setting there be treatment to achieve a glucose level below 180 mg/dL. METHODS Objectives of this prospective quality-improvement pilot study were to implement a subcutaneous insulin protocol on a general medicine service, to identify barriers to implementation, and to determine the effect of this protocol on glycemic control. Eighty-nine patients with a preexisting diagnosis of type 2 diabetes or inpatient hyperglycemia were eligible. Study outcomes included resident acceptance of the protocol, insulin-ordering practices, and mean rate of hyperglycemia (glucose > 180 mg/dL) per person. Results were compared with those of a previously conducted observational study. RESULTS Residents agreed to use the protocol in 56% of cases. Reasons for declining the protocol included severity of a patient's other disease states, desire to titrate oral medications, and fear of hypoglycemia. Basal and nutritional insulin were prescribed more often in the pilot group compared with at baseline (64% vs. 49% for basal, P = .05; 13% vs. 0% for nutritional, P < .001). Basal insulin was started after the first full hospital day in 42% of patients, and only one-third of patients with any hypo- or hyperglycemia had any subsequent changes in their insulin orders. The mean rate of hyperglycemia was not significantly different between groups (31.6% of measurements per patient vs. 33.3%, P = .85). CONCLUSIONS Adherence to a new inpatient subcutaneous insulin protocol was fair. Barriers included fear of hypoglycemia, delays in starting basal insulin, and clinical inertia. Quality improvement efforts likely need to target these barriers to successfully improve inpatient glycemic control. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2008;3:55,63. © 2008 Society of Hospital Medicine. [source] Barriers to physician adherence to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug guidelines: a qualitative studyALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, Issue 6 2008J. M. CAVAZOS Summary Background, Despite wide availability of physician guidelines for safer use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and widespread use of these drugs in the US, NSAID prescribing guidelines have been only modestly effective. Aim, To identify and describe comprehensively barriers to provider adherence to NSAID prescribing guidelines. Methods, We conducted interviews with 25 physicians, seeking to identify the major influences explaining physician non-adherence to guidelines. Interviews were standardized and structured probes were used for clarification and detail. All interviews were audio-taped and transcribed. Three independent investigators analysed the transcripts, using the constant-comparative method of qualitative analysis. Results, Our analysis identified six dominant physician barriers explaining non-adherence to established NSAID prescribing guidelines. These included (i) lack of familiarity with guidelines, (ii) perceived limited validity of guidelines, (iii) limited applicability of guidelines among specific patients, (iv) clinical inertia, (v) influences of prior anecdotal experiences and (vi) medical heuristics. Conclusions, A heterogeneous set of influences are barriers to physician adherence to NSAID prescribing guidelines. Suggested measures for improving guideline-concordant prescribing should focus on measures to improve physician education and confidence in guidelines, implementation of physician/pharmacist co-management strategies and expansion of guideline scope. [source] Knowledge Translation at the Macro Level: Legal and Ethical ConsiderationsACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, Issue 11 2007Gregory Luke Larkin MD, MSPH Macro-level legal and ethical issues play a significant role in the successful translation of knowledge into practice. The medicolegal milieu, in particular, can promote clinical inertia and stifle innovation. Embracing new clinical practice guidelines and best practice models has not protected physicians from superfluous torts; in some cases, emerging evidence has been used as the dagger of trial lawyers rather than the scalpel of physicians. Beyond the legal challenges are overarching justice issues that frame the broad goals of knowledge translation (KT) and technology diffusion. Optimal implementation of the latest evidence requires attention to be paid to the context of the candidate community and the key opinion leaders therein, characterized by the "8Ps" (public, patients, press, physicians, policy makers, private sector, payers, and public health). Ethical and equitable KT also accounts for the global burdens and benefits of implementing innovation such that disparities and gaps in health experienced by the least advantaged are prioritized. Researchers and thought leaders must attend to questions of fairness, economics, and legal risk when investigating ways to promote equity-oriented KT. [source] Impact of therapeutic advances on hypoglycaemia in type 2 diabetesDIABETES/METABOLISM: RESEARCH AND REVIEWS, Issue 4 2008Patrick J. Boyle Abstract Patients with type 2 diabetes experience hypoglycaemia less frequently than those with type 1 diabetes. Some protection against hypoglycaemia is afforded by the relatively intact glucose counter-regulatory pathways that characterize the pathophysiology of early type 2 diabetes. To some extent, this protection explains why hypoglycaemic episodes in intensively treated individuals with type 2 diabetes, when they occur, are rarely severe. As diabetes progresses and therapy intensifies to achieve recommended glycaemic goals, hypoglycaemia frequency and severity increase. Thus, when it comes to instituting intensive therapy, fear of hypoglycaemia may contribute to health-care providers' ,clinical inertia'. Because maintaining glycaemic control is so important to both public and individual health, many new therapies and technologies have been developed. This manuscript reviews and considers whether these advancements in therapy make glycaemic goals easier to achieve by minimizing hypoglycaemia. Putting the hypoglycaemia experienced by type 2 diabetes patients into appropriate clinical perspective, the impact of recent progress made in pharmacotherapy, drug delivery systems, and BG monitoring on hypoglycaemia incidence is largely positive. The extent to which this progress can effect improvement over traditional therapies will, however, depend upon patient (and provider) education, motivation and behaviour change. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] | ||||||||||