PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Saul N Weingart

Publications and source records attributed to Saul N Weingart.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2007

Oral chemotherapy safety practices at US cancer centres: questionnaire survey.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise current safety practices for the use of oral chemotherapy. DESIGN: Written questionnaire survey of pharmacy directors of cancer centres. SETTING: Comprehensive cancer centres in the United States. RESULTS: Respondents from 42 (78%) of 54 eligible centres completed the survey, after consulting with 89 colleagues. Clinicians at 29 centres used handwritten prescriptions, two used preprinted paper prescriptions, and six used electronic systems for most oral chemotherapy prescribing. For six commonly used oral chemotherapies, on average 10 centres required a diagnosis on the prescription, 11 required the protocol number, four required the cycle number, nine required double checking by a second clinician, 14 required a calculation of body surface area, and 14 required a calculation of dose per square metre of body surface area. Only a third of centres requested patients' written informed consent when oral chemotherapy was given off protocol. Nearly a quarter (10) of centres had no formal process for monitoring patients' adherence. In the past year respondents at 10 centres reported at least one serious adverse drug event related to oral chemotherapy, and respondents at 13 centres reported a serious near miss. CONCLUSION: Few of the safeguards routinely used for infusion chemotherapy have been adopted for oral chemotherapy at US cancer centres. There is currently no consensus at these centres about safe medication practices for oral chemotherapy.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2006

Beyond the comfort zone: residents assess their comfort performing inpatient medical procedures.

PURPOSE: Resident physicians learn to perform inpatient bedside procedures in a manner that is neither standardized nor rigorous. As a result, residents may be unskilled and uncomfortable performing procedures. This study characterizes residents' comfort performing medical procedures and identifies factors associated with lack of comfort. SUBJECTS: Study subjects were internal medicine resident physicians who performed one of four medical procedures (central line, lumbar puncture, paracentesis, or thoracentesis) on adult medical inpatients between July 1, 2003, and June 30, 2004. METHODS: This prospective cohort study was conducted at a 556-bed Boston teaching hospital. Resident physicians evaluated their comfort with 9 aspects of 4 medical procedures, recording this information in an electronic log. We also abstracted operator characteristics and patient demographic data. We analyzed residents' comfort with each aspect of the procedure and defined "overall comfort" as comfort with each of the 9 aspects. RESULTS: A majority of resident physicians reported lack of comfort with at least one aspect of the procedure. Residents reported lack of comfort with 37% of unsupervised procedures. They also reported lack of comfort with the prospect of managing complications in 35% of procedures. In the multivariable analysis, overall comfort was associated with the use of a dedicated medical procedure service (odds ratio [OR] 1.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-3.4) and inversely associated with postgraduate year 1 status (OR 0.3, CI 0.1-0.5), first time performing the procedure (OR 0.4, CI 0.2-0.8), thoracenteses (OR 0.4, CI 0.2-0.8), and emergent procedures (OR 0.6, CI 0.3-1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Many resident physicians are uncomfortable performing common bedside procedures. Experience and supervision mitigate some, but not all, discomfort.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Medication errors: not just a few "bad apples"

Objective: The purpose of this study is to describe the distribution of medication errors among physicians.Design: Data on a cohort of internal medicine physicians were gathered prospectively over a seven-month period.Setting: The study was conducted in four adult primary care practices.Participants: Twenty-four physicians from Boston, MA participated in this study. A total of 661 patients agreed to participate in the study. The researchers surveyed patients to identify possible adverse drug events (ADEs). This information was supplemented by a chart review for each participating patient.Measurements: The principal measurement collected in this study was total medication errors per physician. The number of prescriptions written during the study period was also collected.Results: Twenty-two of the 24 physicians made at least one error. Although there was one outlier, the error rate among this cohort of physician was evenly distributed.Conclusion: The wide distribution of errors among this group of physicians undermines the argument that the majority of medication errors are due to a "few bad apples,"

Journal Article↗
PubMed2005

Patient-reported service quality on a medicine unit.

PURPOSE: Service quality, defined as patients' self-reported experience of care, is used as a metric for evaluating quality. Most studies rely on retrospective consumer surveys rather then more intensive data collection methods, possibly underestimating the incidence of service quality incidents. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The objective of the study was to characterize patient-reported service quality deficiencies on a general medicine unit. We studied a cohort of 228 adult inpatients at a Boston teaching hospital. Investigators reviewed medical records and interviewed patients during the hospitalization and by telephone after discharge. Physician investigators classified patients' incident reports. We calculated the rate of service incidents, characterized incident types, and used multivariable Poisson and logistic regression models to examine factors associated with patient reporting and overall rating of the hospitalization. RESULTS: Eighty-eight (38.6%) of 228 patients experienced 157 service quality incidents during the admission, for a rate of 68.9 incidents per 100 admissions. The most common service quality problems involved waits and delays (n = 45), problems with communication between staff and patients (n = 36), and environmental issues and amenities (n = 35). In the multivariable analysis, men (IRR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.2), patients covered by hospitalists (1.5, 1.1-2.2), and patients with more medication allergies (1.1 per allergy, 1.1-1.2) reported more service incidents; patients with Medicaid or free care reported fewer (0.5, 0.3-0.9). Patients with service quality incidents were more likely to describe the hospitalization as other than excellent (adjusted OR 1.8 per incident, 95% CI 1.3-2.5). CONCLUSION: Service quality deficiencies are common among medical inpatients, and are strongly associated with patients' dissatisfaction with the hospitalization.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Who uses the patient internet portal? The PatientSite experience.

OBJECTIVE: Although the patient Internet portal is a potentially transformative technology, there is little scientific information about the demographic and clinical characteristics of portal enrollees and the features that they access. DESIGN: We describe two pilot studies of a comprehensive Internet portal called PatientSite. These pilots include a prospective one-year cohort study of all patients who enrolled in April 2003 and a case-control study in 2004 of enrollees and nonenrollees at two hospital-based primary care practices. MEASUREMENTS: The cohort study tracked patient enrollment and features in PatientSite that enrollees accessed, such as laboratory and radiology results, prescription renewals, appointment requests, managed care referrals, and clinical messaging. The case-control study used medical record review to compare the demographic and clinical characteristics of 100 randomly selected PatientSite enrollees and 100 nonenrollees. RESULTS: PatientSite use grew steadily after its introduction. New enrollees logged in most frequently in the first month, but 26% to 77% of the cohort continued to access the portal at least monthly. They most often examined laboratory and radiology results and sent clinical messages to their providers. PatientSite enrollees were younger and more affluent and had fewer medical problems than nonenrollees. CONCLUSION: Expanding the use of patient portals will require an understanding of obstacles that prevent access for those who might benefit most from this technology.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Patient-reported medication symptoms in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the prevalence and character of medication-related symptoms in primary care and their relationship to adverse drug events (ADEs) or about factors that affect patient-physician communication regarding medication symptoms. METHODS: The study included 661 patients who received prescriptions from physicians at 4 adult primary care practices. We interviewed patients 2 weeks and 3 months after the index visit, reviewed patients' medical records, and surveyed physicians whose patients identified medication-related symptoms. Physician reviewers determined whether medication symptoms constituted true ADEs. We used multivariable regression to examine factors associated with patients' decision to discuss symptoms with a physician and with physicians' decision to alter therapy. RESULTS: A total of 179 patients identified 286 medication-related symptoms but discussed only 196 (69%) with their physicians. Physicians changed therapy in response to 76% of reported symptoms. Patients' failure to discuss 90 medication symptoms resulted in 19 (21%) ameliorable and 2 (2%) preventable ADEs. Physicians' failure to change therapy in 48 cases resulted in 31 (65%) ameliorable ADEs. In multivariable analyses, patients who took more medications (odds ratio [OR] = 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.04-1.08; P<.001) and had multiple medication allergies (OR = 1.07; 95% CI = 1.03-1.11; P = .001) were more likely to discuss symptoms. Male physicians (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.09-1.26; P = .002) and physicians at 2 practices were more likely to change therapy (OR = 1.24; 95% CI = 1.17-1.28; P<.001; and OR = 1.17; 95% CI = 1.08-1.24; P = .002). CONCLUSION: Primary care physicians may be able to reduce the duration and/or the severity of many ADEs by eliciting and addressing patients' medication symptoms.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

What can hospitalized patients tell us about adverse events? Learning from patient-reported incidents.

PURPOSE: Little is known about how well hospitalized patients can identify errors or injuries in their care. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to elicit incident reports from hospital inpatients in order to identify and characterize adverse events and near-miss errors. SUBJECTS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of 228 adult inpatients on a medicine unit of a Boston teaching hospital. METHODS: Investigators reviewed medical records and interviewed patients during the hospitalization and by telephone 10 days after discharge about "problems,""mistakes," and "injuries" that occurred. Physician investigators classified patients' reports. We calculated event rates and used multivariable Poisson regression models to examine the factors associated with patient-reported events. RESULTS: Of 264 eligible patients, 228 (86%) agreed to participate and completed 528 interviews. Seventeen patients (8%) experienced 20 adverse events; 1 was serious. Eight patients (4%) experienced 13 near misses; 5 were serious or life threatening. Eleven (55%) of 20 adverse events and 4 (31%) of 13 near misses were documented in the medical record, but none were found in the hospital incident reporting system. Patients with 3 or more drug allergies were more likely to report errors compared with patients without drug allergies (incidence rate ratio 4.7, 95% CI 1.7, 13.4). CONCLUSION: Inpatients can identify adverse events affecting their care. Many patient-identified events are not captured by the hospital incident reporting system or recorded in the medical record. Engaging hospitalized patients as partners in identifying medical errors and injuries is a potentially promising approach for enhancing patient safety.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Outpatient prescribing errors and the impact of computerized prescribing.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors are common among inpatients and many are preventable with computerized prescribing. Relatively little is known about outpatient prescribing errors or the impact of computerized prescribing in this setting. OBJECTIVE: To assess the rates, types, and severity of outpatient prescribing errors and understand the potential impact of computerized prescribing. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study in 4 adult primary care practices in Boston using prescription review, patient survey, and chart review to identify medication errors, potential adverse drug events (ADEs) and preventable ADEs. PARTICIPANTS: Outpatients over age 18 who received a prescription from 24 participating physicians. RESULTS: We screened 1879 prescriptions from 1202 patients, and completed 661 surveys (response rate 55%). Of the prescriptions, 143 (7.6%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.4% to 8.8%) contained a prescribing error. Three errors led to preventable ADEs and 62 (43%; 3% of all prescriptions) had potential for patient injury (potential ADEs); 1 was potentially life-threatening (2%) and 15 were serious (24%). Errors in frequency (n=77, 54%) and dose (n=26, 18%) were common. The rates of medication errors and potential ADEs were not significantly different at basic computerized prescribing sites (4.3% vs 11.0%, P=.31; 2.6% vs 4.0%, P=.16) compared to handwritten sites. Advanced checks (including dose and frequency checking) could have prevented 95% of potential ADEs. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing errors occurred in 7.6% of outpatient prescriptions and many could have harmed patients. Basic computerized prescribing systems may not be adequate to reduce errors. More advanced systems with dose and frequency checking are likely needed to prevent potentially harmful errors.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Understanding of drug indications by ambulatory care patients.

PURPOSE: Patients' knowledge of the indications of their prescription medications was studied and those medications that were most likely to be taken without patients understanding the correct indication were identified. METHODS: Adult patients who received care at four primary care practices were surveyed. Patients were eligible to participate if they were over 18 years old and had received a prescription from a participating physician at a clinic visit. Patients were telephoned and asked to retrieve the bottles of all medications they were currently taking, identify their medications, and state the reason they took each medicine. The primary outcome was absent or incorrect knowledge of a drug's indication. RESULTS: A total of 2340 prescription medications were used by the 616 patients whose data were analyzed. Eighty-three patients (13.5%) lacked knowledge of the indication for at least one of their prescription medications. They did not know the indication for 148 medications (6.3%). After multivariable adjustment, lack of knowledge was more common for cardiovascular drugs (odds ratio [OR], 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-2.19) and less common for diabetes medications (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.16-0.84) and analgesics (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.05-1.01) compared with all other medications, and more common if the patient taking these medications was older, black, or had a high school education or less. CONCLUSION: More than 13% of patients in primary care practices did not know the indication of at least one of their prescription medications. Lack of knowledge was most prevalent for cardiovascular medications.

Age Factors↗
PubMed2004

Using a multihospital survey to examine the safety culture.

BACKGROUND: A culture of safety survey was used to study features of the safety culture and their relationship with patient safety indicators. STUDY DESIGN: Anonymous written surveys were collected from 455 of 1,027 (44%) workers at four Massachusetts hospitals. Respondents characterized their organizations' patient safety, workplace safety, and features of a safety culture, such as leadership commitment, professional salience, presence of a nonpunitive environment, error reporting, and communication. RESULTS: Employees universally regarded patient safety as an essential part of their job. Two-thirds of workers worried at least once a day about making a mistake that could injure a patient; 43% said that the work load hindered their ability to keep patients safe. Workers' overall assessment of patient safety was associated with their perceptions of workplace safety (odds ratio [OR] 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-3.43, p = .044) and leadership commitment to patient safety (OR 3.20, 95% CI 1.97-5.19, p < .001). Incident reporting rates correlated with survey results, while adoption of best practices and expert opinion did not. DISCUSSION: Patient safety is salient to workers, who universally embraced patient safety as an essential part of their job. Independent indicators of patient safety did not line up neatly with safety culture survey results. Incident reporting rates correlated directly, while adoption of best practices and expert opinion varied inversely with survey results. The safety culture is a complex phenomenon that requires further study.

Academic Medical Centers↗
PubMed2004

Lessons from a patient partnership intervention to prevent adverse drug events.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety 'best practices' that call for patient participation to prevent adverse drug events have not been rigorously evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To consider lessons learned from a patient partnership intervention to prevent adverse drug events among medical in-patients. DESIGN: Prospective randomized, controlled pilot trial. SETTING: Boston teaching hospital. Patients. Two hundred and nine adult in-patients on a general medicine unit. INTERVENTION: Intervention patients (n = 107) received drug safety information and their medication list; controls (n = 102) received drug safety information only. Measurements. Adverse drug events and close-call drug errors were identified using chart review and incident reports from nurses, pharmacists, and physicians. Patients and clinicians were surveyed about the intervention. RESULTS: In 1053 patient-days at risk, 11 patients experienced 12 adverse drug events and 16 patients experienced 18 close calls. There was a non-significant difference between intervention patients and controls in survey responses and in the adverse drug event rate (8.4% versus 2.9%, P = 0.12) and close-call rate (7.5% versus 9.8%, P = 0.57). Eleven percent of patients were aware of drug-related mistakes during the hospitalization. Among nurse respondents, 29% indicated that at least one medication error was prevented when a patient or family member identified a problem. CONCLUSION: Partnering with in-patients to prevent adverse drug events is a promising strategy but requires further study to document its efficacy.

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems↗
PubMed2004

Creating a quality improvement elective for medical house officers.

The Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires that house officers demonstrate competencies in "practice-based learning and improvement" and in "the ability to effectively call on system resources to provide care that is of optimum value." Anticipating this requirement, faculty at a Boston teaching hospital developed a 3-week elective for medical house officers in quality improvement (QI). The objectives of the elective were to enhance residents' understanding of QI concepts, their familiarity with the hospital's QI infrastructure, and to gain practical experience with root-cause analysis and QI initiatives. Learners participated in three didactic seminars, joined hospital-based QI activities, conducted a root-cause analysis, and completed a QI project under the guidance of a faculty mentor. The elective enrolled 26 residents in 3 years. Sixty-three percent of resident respondents said that the elective increased their understanding of QI in health care; 88% better understood QI in their own institution.

Competency-Based Education↗
PubMed2004

Creation of an innovative inpatient medical procedure service and a method to evaluate house staff competency.

INTRODUCTION: Training residents in medical procedures is an area of growing interest. Studies demonstrate that internal medicine residents are inadequately trained to perform common medical procedures, and program directors report residents do not master these essential skills. The American Board of Internal Medicine requires substantiation of competence in procedure skills for all internal medicine residents; however, for most procedures, standards of competence do not exist. OBJECTIVE: 1) Create a new and standardized approach to teaching, performing, and evaluating inpatient medical procedures; 2) Determine the number of procedures required until trainees develop competence, by assessing both clinical knowledge and psychomotor skills; 3) Improve patient safety. DESIGN: A Medical Procedure Service (MPS), consisting of select faculty who are experts at common inpatient procedures, was established to supervise residents performing medical procedures. Faculty monitor residents' psychomotor performance, while clinical knowledge is taught through a complementary, comprehensive curriculum. After the completion of each procedure, the trainee and supervising faculty member independently complete online questionnaires. RESULTS: During this pilot program, 246 procedures were supervised, with a pooled major complication rate of 3.7%. 123 thoracenteses were supervised, with a pneumothorax rate of 3.3%; this compares favorably with a pooled analysis of the literature. 87% of surveyed house staff felt the procedure service helped in their education of medical procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The "see one, do one, teach one" model of procedure education is dangerously inadequate. Through the development of a Medical Procedure Service, and an associated procedure curriculum and a mechanism of evaluation, we hope to reduce the rate of complications and errors related to medical procedures and to determine at what point competency is achieved for these procedures.

Boston↗
PubMed2003

Physicians' decisions to override computerized drug alerts in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Although computerized physician order entry reduces medication errors among inpatients, little is known about the use of this system in primary care. METHODS: We calculated the override rate among 3481 consecutive alerts generated at 5 adult primary care practices that use a common computerized physician order entry system for prescription writing. For detailed review, we selected a random sample of 67 alerts in which physicians did not prescribe an alerted medication and 122 alerts that resulted in a written prescription. We identified factors associated with the physicians' decisions to override a medication alert, and determined whether an adverse drug event (ADE) occurred. RESULTS: Physicians overrode 91.2% of drug allergy and 89.4% of high-severity drug interaction alerts. In the multivariable analysis using the medical chart review sample (n = 189), physicians were less likely to prescribe an alerted medication if the prescriber was a house officer (odds ratio [OR], 0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.84) and if the patient had many drug allergies (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.93). They were more likely to override alerts for renewals compared with new prescriptions (OR, 17.74; 95% CI, 5.60-56.18). We found no ADEs in cases where physicians observed the alert and 3 ADEs among patients with alert overrides, a nonsignificant difference (P =.55). Physician reviewers judged that 36.5% of the alerts were inappropriate. CONCLUSIONS: Few physicians changed their prescription in response to a drug allergy or interaction alert, and there were few ADEs, suggesting that the threshold for alerting was set too low. Computerized physician order entry systems should suppress alerts for renewals of medication combinations that patients currently tolerate.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Adverse drug events in ambulatory care.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events related to drugs occur frequently among inpatients, and many of these events are preventable. However, few data are available on adverse drug events among outpatients. We conducted a study to determine the rates, types, severity, and preventability of such events among outpatients and to identify preventive strategies. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study, including a survey of patients and a chart review, at four adult primary care practices in Boston (two hospital-based and two community-based), involving a total of 1202 outpatients who received at least one prescription during a four-week period. Prescriptions were computerized at two of the practices and handwritten at the other two. RESULTS: Of the 661 patients who responded to the survey (response rate, 55 percent), 162 had adverse drug events (25 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 20 to 29 percent), with a total of 181 events (27 per 100 patients). Twenty-four of the events (13 percent) were serious, 51 (28 percent) were ameliorable, and 20 (11 percent) were preventable. Of the 51 ameliorable events, 32 (63 percent) were attributed to the physician's failure to respond to medication-related symptoms and 19 (37 percent) to the patient's failure to inform the physician of the symptoms. The medication classes most frequently involved in adverse drug events were selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (10 percent), beta-blockers (9 percent), angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (8 percent), and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory agents (8 percent). On multivariate analysis, only the number of medications taken was significantly associated with adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse events related to drugs are common in primary care, and many are preventable or ameliorable. Monitoring for and acting on symptoms are important. Improving communication between outpatients and providers may help prevent adverse events related to drugs.

Adult↗