bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Relationship between Antibiotic Exposure and Subsequent Clostridium Difficile-Associated Diarrhea
Authors: Minson Quentin , Mok Steve 
Published: June 2010

Objective The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between antibiotic exposure and subsequent Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) in hospitalized patients. Methods A retrospective, case-control study with data collected between October 1, 2005 and March 31, 2006 was conducted. Cases consisted of patients with a documented new onset of diarrhea occurring a minimum of 72 hours following admission to the hospital and accompanied by a positive C. difficile toxin A and B enzyme immunoassay. Two controls were matched to each case according to known risk factors for CDAD other than antibiotic use. A complete assessment of antibiotic use was made, including all regimens the patient received during the previous 8 weeks. The difference in antibiotic use in cases and controls was tested using the chi-square test. The association between specific antibiotic classes and subsequent CDAD was evaluated with an odds ratio. Results Prior antibiotic exposure was observed more frequently in these cases than in controls ( P = 0.035). Specifically, third-generation cephalosporins were found to be significantly associated with CDAD (odds ratio, 4.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.64 to 13.14). Conclusion This study showed that prior antibiotic exposure is associated with increased incidence of subsequent CDAD. Specifically, third-generation cephalosporins were statistically associated with CDAD. Although results did not reach statistical significance, this study suggests that potential associations may exist between CDAD and prior exposure to antipseudomonal penicillins, cefepime, carbapenems, fluoroquinolones, and intravenous vancomycin.
Arformoterol Tartrate
Authors: Cada Dennis J. , Levien Terri , Baker Danial E. 
Published: June 2010

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive five to six well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to your Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee. Subscribers also receive monthly one-page summary monographs on the agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation (DUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are sent to you in print and CD-ROM forms and are available online. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of your facility. Subscribers to the The Formulary Monograph Service also receive access to a pharmacy bulletin board, The Formulary Information Exchange (The F.I.X.). All topics pertinent to clinical and hospital pharmacy are discussed on The F.I.X. Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. If you would like information about The Formulary Monograph Service or The F.I.X., call The Formulary at 800-322-4349. The May 2007 monograph topics are lapatinib, aliskiren, lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, telavancin, and ambrisentan. The DUE is on aliskiren.
Information from Prior Admission Prevents Error; New Oral Morphine Strength; Confusion in Human Immunodeficiency Virus Guideline; Apothecary Measurement Still Causing Errors
Authors: Cohen Michael R. 
Published: June 2010

These medication errors have occurred in health care facilities at least once. They will happen again—perhaps where you work. Through education and alertness of personnel and procedural safeguards, they can be avoided. You should consider publishing accounts of errors in your newsletters and/or presenting them in your inservice training programs. Your assistance is required to continue this feature. The reports described here were received through the USP Medication Errors Reporting Program (MERP), which is presented in cooperation with the Institute for Safe Medication Practices. If you have encountered medication errors and would like to report them, you may call USP toll-free, 24 hours a day, at 800-233-7767 (800-23-ERROR). Any reports published by ISMP will be anonymous. Comments are also invited; the writers' names will be published if desired. ISMP may be contacted at the address shown below. Errors, close calls, or hazardous conditions may be reported through the ISMP ( www.ismp.org ) or USP ( www.usp.org ) Web sites or communicated directly to ISMP by calling 800-FAIL-SAFE or via e-mail at ismpinfo@ismp.org . ISMP guarantees the confidentiality and security of the information received and respects reporters' wishes as to the level of detail included in publications.
Administrative Degree Options outside Pharmacy for Pharmacists Interested in Administrative Careers in the Health Care Field
Authors: Fink Joseph L. 
Published: June 2010

A variety of challenges facing the health care system in general and the profession of pharmacy in particular creates a need for pharmacists who have completed advanced education and training in administration. Some may choose to look outside academic pharmacy for graduate degree programs in administration. Four types of administrative degrees — MBA, MHA, MPA, and MPH — are described. A list of factors to be considered by a person thinking about pursuing graduate education in this area is presented and discussed. The admission process is described as it may typically occur for such programs in order to familiarize pharmacists with what criteria are likely to be used. An informed evaluation of the alternatives available will help students select the program best suited to their career goals.
Action Needed to Prevent Dangerous Heparin-Insulin Confusion; Sorting Things Out; Staff Unaware of Fentanyl Patch Starting Doses
Authors: Cohen Michael R. 
Published: June 2010

These medication errors have occurred in health care facilities at least once. They will happen again—perhaps where you work. Through education and alertness of personnel and procedural safeguards, they can be avoided. You should consider publishing accounts of errors in your newsletters and/or presenting them in your inservice training programs. Your assistance is required to continue this feature. The reports described here were received through the USP Medication Errors Reporting Program (MERP), which is presented in cooperation with the Institute for Safe Medication Practices. If you have encountered medication errors and would like to report them, you may call USP toll-free, 24 hours a day, at 800-233-7767 (800-23-ERROR). Any reports published by ISMP will be anonymous. Comments are also invited; the writers' names will be published if desired. ISMP may be contacted at the address shown below. Errors, close calls, or hazardous conditions may be reported through the ISMP ( www.ismp.org ) or USP ( www.usp.org ) Web sites or communicated directly to ISMP by calling 800-FAIL-SAFE or via e-mail at ismpinfo@ismp.org . ISMP guarantees the confidentiality and security of the information received and respects reporters' wishes as to the level of detail included in publications.
Consultant Pharmacist Drug Therapy Recommendations Acceptance and Rejection from Monthly Drug Regimen Reviews in a Geriatric Nursing Facility: Fourth Year Results and Cost Analysis
Authors: Cooper James W. , Wade William E. , Cook Christopher L. , Burfield Allison H. 
Published: June 2010

Purpose To document and compare the outcomes from monthly drug regimen review recommendation acceptance and rejection in one skilled nursing facility by one consultant pharmacist (CP) in the fourth year of evaluation with the prior 3 years' data. Method A non-randomized, observational, prospective cohort study with all patients being residents for at least 30 days over the 12-month period (October 1, 1997 to September 30, 1998) in a skilled nursing facility with more than 100 beds. The admission problem-oriented records of all patients and their respective CP reports were screened for pharmacotherapy recommendations and subsequent acceptance and rejection on a monthly, repeated-measures basis for 12 months. There were 2,004 monthly drug regimen review (DRR) reports. The percentage of DRR reports that made recommendations was tabulated. Written recommendations made to attending physicians that were either accepted or rejected within 3 months were analyzed. The charges for adverse outcomes were calculated from billing records or prior studies of the outcome. These results were compared with prior 1- and 2-year studies of outcomes within the same setting. Carryover effects of recommendations implemented in prior periods were also calculated. Results There were 178 recommendations made in 2,004 DRR reports (8.9%). A low acceptance rate, 27 of 178 recommendations (15.2%), resulted and was combined with carryover of prior acceptance in a cost savings of $113,962. The 151 recommendations that were rejected resulted in $226,503 of presumed unnecessary costs to the health care system. A prior 2-year study of recommendations with an acceptance rate of 89% showed costs savings of $111,609 per year with acceptance and $112,297 added costs per year with 11% rejection. The first-year study had a 93% acceptance rate at a projected cost savings of $43,854 and costs increased by $60,825 with a 7% rejection. The costs of recommendation rejection in the fourth year were substantially higher, with a higher rejection rate than was seen in the prior 3 years of observation. Conclusion Documentation of the costs from CP intervention should factor in costs of rejection that may increase with the percentage rejection of recommendations, length of observation period, and may vary between facilities.
Aliskiren
Authors: Cada Dennis J. , Levien Terri , Baker Danial E. 
Published: June 2010

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive five to six well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to your Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee. Subscribers also receive monthly one-page summary monographs on the agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation (DUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are sent to you in print and CD-ROM forms and are available online. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of your facility. Subscribers to the The Formulary Monograph Service also receive access to a pharmacy bulletin board, The Formulary Information Exchange (The F.I.X.). All topics pertinent to clinical and hospital pharmacy are discussed on The F.I.X. Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. If you would like information about The Formulary Monograph Service or The F.I.X., call The Formulary at 800-322-4349. The August 2007 monograph topics are temsirolimus, formoterol fumarate inhalation solution, levocetirizine, ambrisentan, and raltegravir. The DUE is on temsirolimus.
IV Tubing Misconnected to Tracheostomy Cuff; Unidentifiable Patches; A Risk that should Not be Tolerated
Authors: Cohen Michael R. , Smetzer Judy L. 
Published: June 2010

These medication errors have occurred in health care facilities at least once. They will happen again—perhaps where you work. Through education and alertness of personnel and procedural safeguards, they can be avoided. You should consider publishing accounts of errors in your newsletters and/or presenting them in your inservice training programs. Your assistance is required to continue this feature. The reports described here were received through the USP Medication Errors Reporting Program (MERP), which is presented in cooperation with the Institute for Safe Medication Practices. If you have encountered medication errors and would like to report them, you may call USP toll-free, 24 hours a day, at 800-233-7767 (800-23-ERROR). Any reports published by ISMP will be anonymous. Comments are also invited; the writers' names will be published if desired. ISMP may be contacted at the address shown below. Errors, close calls, or hazardous conditions may be reported through the ISMP ( www.ismp.org ) or USP ( www.usp.org ) Web sites or communicated directly to ISMP by calling 800-FAIL-SAFE or via e-mail at ismpinfo@ismp.org . ISMP guarantees the confidentiality and security of the information received and respects reporters' wishes as to the level of detail included in publications.
Impact of a Series of Drug Information Interventions on Pharmacy Staff
Authors: Oswald Scott , Graham Angie 
Published: June 2010

Purpose A performance-improvement service project consisting of a series of drug information interventions was developed for pharmacy staff to improve the quality and consistency of drug information provided by clinical pharmacists at a university medical center. The impact of interventions was primarily assessed by attendee satisfaction; a secondary measurement was the use of the Stanford Drug Information Center (the center). Methods Five interventions reviewing different electronic drug-information references were presented in September and October 2005. The 1hour presentations consisted of live demonstrations to pharmacy staff. A handout with step-by-step instructions on how to access and search each reference was created and distributed along with a follow-up evaluation. At the end of the interventions, all of the handouts were compiled into a permanent drug-information resource manual. In addition, data regarding inhouse pharmacist call volume to the center and the type of questions asked by inhouse pharmacists were collected for 6 months before and after the interventions. Results Evaluations of the interventions were positive and indicated that the learning objectives for each session had been met. The number of requests from inhouse pharmacists actually increased for the 6-month period after the interventions, as compared to the 6-month period prior to the interventions. Conclusion Feedback from pharmacy staff was positive, and the performance improvement goal was met through the intervention program, as well as the development of a permanent drug-information resource manual. However, further education of pharmacy staff did not translate into decreased requests (lower call volume) to the center.
Retapamulin 1% Ointment
Authors: Cada Dennis J. , Levien Terri , Baker Danial E. 
Published: June 2010

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive five to six well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to your Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee. Subscribers also receive monthly one-page summary monographs on the agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation (DUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are sent to you in print and CD-ROM forms and are available online. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of your facility. Subscribers to the The Formulary Monograph Service also receive access to a pharmacy bulletin board, The Formulary Information Exchange ( The F.I.X.). All topics pertinent to clinical and hospital pharmacy are discussed on The F.I.X. Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. If you would like information about The Formulary Monograph Service or The F.I.X., call The Formulary at 800-322-4349. The September 2007 monograph topics are rivastigmine transdermal system, ixabepilone, desvenlafaxine succinate extended-release, tedisamil, and sumatriptan succinate and naproxen sodium. The DUE is on formoterol fumarate inhalation solution.
Rotigotine Transdermal System
Authors: Cada Dennis J. , Levien Terri , Baker Danial E. 
Published: June 2010

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive five to six well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to your Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee. Subscribers also receive monthly one-page summary monographs on the agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation (DUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are sent to you in print and CD-ROM forms and are available online. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of your facility. Subscribers to the The Formulary Monograph Service also receive access to a pharmacy bulletin board, The Formulary Information Exchange (The F.I.X.). All topics pertinent to clinical and hospital pharmacy are discussed on The F.I.X. Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. If you would like information about The Formulary Monograph Service or The F.I.X., call The Formulary at 800-322-4349. The October 2007 monograph topics are maraviroc, etravirine, bifeprunox, regadenoson, and fesoterodine. The DUE is on maraviroc.
Using Standard Studies to Interpret the Scores from Scales for Assessing the Internal Validity of Randomized Controlled Trials
Authors: Slack Marion Kimball 
Published: June 2010

Objective A large number of tools for assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials are available; however, users have little guidance as to whether a given score represents high or low validity. The purpose of this study is to explore the use of studies identified as having high-internal validity, referred to as the standard studies, to interpret internal validity scores from studies with unknown internal validity. Methods The standard studies were identified by locating 6 candidate studies reporting the findings of randomized controlled trials from the Journal of American Medicine Association or the New England Journal of Medicine and scoring the studies using 2 scales, the Jadad scale (high score = 5; low = 0) and an internal validity information scale (IVI; high score = 70; low = 0). The 2 studies with the highest average rank were chosen as the standard studies. To determine if the standard studies facilitate interpretation of internal validity scores, 11 randomized controlled trials of garlic for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia were scored using both the Jadad and IVI scales and differences in scores resolved by consensus. The total mean scores were compared with the standard-study mean using a 1-sample t test; the interpretation was based on the comparison. Results The mean-internal validity score for the 2 standard studies was 4.5(90%) for the Jadad scale and 64 (91%) for the IVI scale. For the garlic studies, the Jadad scores ranged from 3 to 5 (60% to 80%), the IVI scores from 15 to 59 (21% to 84%); the mean scores were 4 (standard deviation = 0.9; 80%) and 37(53%), respectively. On the IVI scale, the garlic studies had lower internal validity (P < 0.001), a finding substantiated by the low scores for addressing withdrawals, blinding, and adherence. On the Jadad scale, the scores were comparable with the score for the standard studies (P = 0.093). Conclusions The strategy of using the standard studies to interpret the scores for the IVI scale worked well; the comparison indicated that, overall, the garlic studies were of low-internal validity. With the Jadad scale, the strategy resulted in erroneous conclusions that the garlic studies had relatively high-internal validity; however, it did indicate that the Jadad scale is limited and may not identify studies with very low-internal validity. The results of this study suggest that scales used to assess internal validity should be tested on studies with a range of validity, so the functional characteristics of the scale can be identified.
Ambrisentan
Authors: Cada Dennis J. , Levien Terri , Baker Danial E. 
Published: June 2010

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive 5 to 6 well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to your Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee. Subscribers also receive monthly 1-page summary monographs on the agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation (DUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are sent to you in print and CD-ROM forms and are available online. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of your facility. Subscribers to the The Formulary Monograph Service also receive access to a pharmacy bulletin board, The Formulary Information Exchange (The F.I.X.). All topics pertinent to clinical and hospital pharmacy are discussed on The F.I.X. Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. If you would like information about The Formulary Monograph Service or The F.I.X., call The Formulary at 800-322-4349. The December 2007 monograph topics are ixabepilone, doripenem for injection, raltegravir potassium, recombinant human thrombin, and icatibant. The DUE is on raltegravir potassium.
Hyperglycemia Management Using Insulin in the Acute Care Setting: Therapies and Strategies for Care in the Non-Critically III Patient
Authors: Kirk Julienne K , Oldham Elizabeth C 
Published: June 2010

Background: Hyperglycemia is prevalent in hospitalized non-critically ill patients and is associated with higher morbidity and mortality. Poor glycemic control is related to elevated costs due to longer hospital stays and higher rates of complications. Objective: To review current literature evaluating treatment strategies for management of hyperglycemia in the non-critically ill hospitalized patient and to discuss the role of pharmacists in glycemia management. Data Sources: A literature review (January 2000–January 2010) was conducted via PubMed, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Healh, the Cochrane Library, Combined Health Information Database, and Education Resources Information Center. MeSH terms for diabetes were used along with stress hyperglycemia, insulin therapy, and insulin analogs in combination with non-critically ill, hospitalized, acute care, or inpatient. Study Selection and Data Extraction: All articles identified from the data sources were reviewed for inclusion. Clinical trial reports, practice guidelines, and reviews involving insulin therapies and/or quality improvement initiatives for hyperglycemia in the acute care setting were evaluated. A total of 133 citations were reviewed and an additional 11 citations were identified from reference lists. Data Synthesis: The association between hyperglycemia and increased mortality is recognized in the acute care setting among critically ill patients; however, data to support glycemia management in non-critically ill patients continue to be established. National consensus guidelines support strategies for glycemia control that focus on insulin therapy and treatment-driven protocols. These initiatives can result in quality improvement when led by multidisciplinary teams, including pharmacists. Literature supports a pharmacist role in glucose monitoring and insulin dosing. Conclusions: Management of hyperglycemia is a critical component of acute care. Insulin treatment regimens and protocols for non-critically ill patients in the acute care setting are evolving with recognition of ideal glucose targets to prevent adverse outcomes. Glycemia management can be complex and presents opportunities for pharmacist involvement.