Search

Evidence suggests that newly licensed physicians are not adequately prepared to prescribe medications safely. There is currently no national pre-licensure prescribing competency assessment required in North America. This study’s purpose was to survey Canadian medical school leaders for their interest in and perceived need for a nation-wide prescribing assessment for final year medical students. Method In spring of 2015, surveys were disseminated online to medical education leaders in all 17 Canadian medical schools. The survey included questions on perceived medication prescribing competency in medical schools, and interest in integration of a national assessment into medical school curricula and licensing. Results 372 (34.6 %) faculty from all 17 Canadian medical schools responded. 277 (74.5%) respondents were residency directors, 33 (8.9%) vice deans of medical education or equivalent, and 62 (16.7%) clerkship coordinators. Faculty judged 23.4% (SD 22.9%) of their own graduates’ prescribing knowledge to be unsatisfactory and 131 (44.8%) felt obligated to provide close supervision to more than a third of their new residents due to prescribing concerns. 239 (73.0%) believed that an assessment process would improve their graduates’ quality, 262 (80.4%) thought it should be incorporated into their medical school curricula and 248 (76.0%) into the national licensing process. Except in regards to close supervision due to concerns, there were no significant differences between schools’ responses. Conclusions Amongst Canadian medical school leadership, there is a perceived inadequacy in medical student prescribing competency as well as support for a standardized prescribing competency assessment in curricula and licensing processes.

Background We hypothesized that medication adherence is affected by the number of pharmacies a patient frequents. Objectives The objective was to estimate the strength of association between the number of pharmacies a patient frequents and adherence to statins. Methods Using administrative data from the Nova Scotia Seniors' Pharmacare program, a retrospective cohort study was conducted among subjects aged 65 years and older first dispensed statin between 1998 and 2008. The Usual Provider of Care (UPC), was defined as the number of dispensation days from the most frequented pharmacy divided by the total number of dispensation days. Estimated adherence of over 80% of the Medication Possession Ratio was defined as adherent. Data were analyzed using hierarchical linear regression. Results The cohort of 25,641 subjects was 59% female with a mean age of 74 years. During follow-up, subjects filled prescriptions in a median of 2 (mean = 2; standard deviation = 0.88) pharmacies and visited pharmacies a median of 28 (mean = 30) times. During that time, 61% of patients used one pharmacy exclusively. Among subjects using 1 pharmacy, 59% were adherent while 58% using more than one pharmacy were adherent. However, upon adjustment for differences in distributions of age, sex, and other confounders, subjects who used more than one pharmacy had 10% decreased odds of statin adherence (odds ratio: 0.90, 95% confidence interval: 0.86-0.96). These results were robust in sensitivity analyses. Conclusions Among seniors newly starting statin therapy, using a single community pharmacy was modestly associated with adherence.

Prescribing is an essential skill for all physicians, built on knowledge of clinical pharmacology, therapeutics and toxicology across the life cycle. The decline in organized clinical pharmacology training in medical schools, combined with an expanding pharmacopeia and increasing complexity of patient care, makes prescribing competency difficult for medical students to master.To develop and validate the McMaster Prescribing Competency Assessment (MacPCA), an online tool suitable for evaluating clinical pharmacology knowledge and prescribing skills of medical trainees in Canada.The MacPCA was developed using an online examination platform scalable to multiple sites across Canada. Questions represented 8 domains of safe and effective prescribing with level of difficulty aimed at a final year medical student. Validation assessment concentrated on face and construct validity.58 participants (7, 12 and 21 medical students in Years 1, 2, and 3, respectively and 8 undergraduate controls) were recruited. Mean scores were 31% (SD 13.6), 46% (SD 14.9), 75% (SD 8.3) and 81% (SD 10.5) for the controls, Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3 (final year) students, respectively. Combined Year 2/Year 3 scores were significantly better than control/Year 1 scores (p0.0001). Final year student feedback indicated the test was fair, clear and unambiguous, aimed at the right level, with sufficient time for completion.The MacPCA demonstrated good face validity and successfully discriminated between upper year medical students and their junior colleagues. Further expansion of testing and validation is warranted.

ADHD medications increase clinical encounters for cardiovascular symptoms. Uncertain are the roles of differences in ADHD medications and restrictive practices by drug programs.We conducted two nested case-control studies. The first was nested within a cohort of children de novo users of methylphenidate, amphetamines or atomoxetine and the second case-control study was nested within a subcohort of de novo amphetamine or atomoxetine users with no cardiovascular events prior to the first dispensing of either drug. The outcome for both studies was the composite of physician visits, emergency room visits or hospitalizations for cardiovascular reasons. Cases were matched on sex, age and date of entry within the cohorts, with up to 10 controls. Patients with an active dispensation of ADHD medications at the index date (and up to 90 days previously) were considered exposed. Conditional logistic regression was used to calculate odd ratios (OR).The full cohort comprised 38,495 patients. Among these patients, 3595 (9.3%) had no prior cardiovascular events (the subcohort). In the full cohort, an association was demonstrated with exposure to amphetamine and atomoxetine (but not methylphenidate) and the cardiovascular encounter outcomes. When the sub-cohort was analyzed the associations with amphetamine or atomoxetine were no longer evident.Reimbursement policies need to be considered when conducting observational studies. Had the analysis been conducted without consideration of these policies the results would have incorrectly identified amphetamine and atomoxetine as important risk factors for cardiovascular encounters.

Decision aids have been helpful to support patients in decision-making including anticoagulation. With the introduction of new oral anticoagulants (NOACs), it will be important to assist patients and physicians in shared decision-making about NOACs and warfarin.To validate a patient decision aid (DA) for warfarin versus dabigatran, the first NOAC approved for atrial fibrillation (AF).Participants without AF and not taking anticoagulants were recruited for the validation exercise. The decision aid described AF, stroke, and hemorrhagic events in terms of incidence, clinical presentation, and prognosis. Warfarin and dabigatran were then compared on multiple clinical and process outcomes as outlined in the pivotal clinical trial. Our primary outcome was confidence in making a treatment decision, using a decisional conflict scale. Secondary outcomes were change in knowledge scores and ratings of clarity, helpfulness and comprehensiveness.35 patients (mean age 62.7 [SD 9.68], 37.1% female) participated. After use of the decision aid, the mean total decisional conflict score was low at 18.9 (SD: 14.2). Mean knowledge score improved significantly from 4.60 (SD 1.48) to 6.42 (SD 0.80) out of a total score of 7. Only one participant (2.9%) found the decision aid difficult to understand. All 35 participants rated the DA as helpful for making a decision about anticoagulant treatment for AF. Two participants (5.7%) requested more information on adverse effects of the two drugs.Our DA to allow patients to make an informed decision with their physician regarding dabigatran versus warfarin in AF, proved understandable, comprehensive and helpful.

Cost-related nonadherence (CRN) describes patients cutting back on their prescribed medication due to an inability to pay. CRN is influenced by drug insurance coverage plans, which vary widely among different healthcare systems. Little is known about CRN in Canada and Ontario.To develop and pilot a questionnaire about CRN.An interviewer-administered questionnaire assessing demographics, socioeconomic status, health status and health literacy, medication costs and CRN was developed for this pilot study. Participants were recruited from a general internal medicine rapid assessment outpatient clinic of a large urban teaching hospital.Sixty patients were recruited (mean age 60.3 years; 48.3% female; mean of 5.3 prescription medications per patient). Nine patients (15%) reported some form of CRN. Unfilled prescriptions, delayed prescriptions, less frequent and smaller doses were the most common forms of CRN. Seven patients (11.7%) had no drug insurance. Patients without drug insurance were more likely to experience CRN than patients with private insurance (OR 20.70, 95% CI 1.46-292.75); government coverage also increased the likelihood of CRN compared to private coverage (OR 4.51, 95% CI 0.376-54.11). Patients spending over $100 a month out-of-pocket were more likely to experience CRN than patients spending less than $20 (OR 42.52, 95% CI 2.02-894.03). Thirty-three patients (55%) said that their physicians had not asked them about how they deal with the cost of prescriptions.Based on our pilot survey, a significant minority of specialty clinic outpatients experience CRN and prescribers frequently forget to inquire whether patients can afford their medications.

Adverse drug events (ADEs) represent an important problem for hospital and primary care. Software that detects potential adverse drug interactions has been widely implemented in an effort to reduce the rate of ADEs. However, the impact of drug interaction detection software (DIS) on patient safety outcomes remains unknown.To systematically review the literature on DIS in preventing adverse drug events and determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of DIS.A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, IPA and Healthstar, using terms "Computer, Software or Decision Support" combined with "Drug Interactions, Drug Errors or Drug Monitoring" sought English language, post-1990 prospective studies that examined drug interaction (drug-drug) software as an intervention and adverse drug interactions as an outcome. Relevant studies were analyzed using a Bayesian meta-analysis approach.Of 5848 citations, only four studies met our inclusion criteria. Most of the excluded studies were not prospective or measured only prescriber attitudes, implementation success or changes in workflow. No study examined the impact of drug interaction software exclusively, rather as a component of decision support software. A Bayesian meta-analysis of these studies showed no significant difference in event rate between intervention and control groups (relative risk 0.66, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.18). The posterior median I-squared was 52%.No good quality studies address the specific benefits and harms or cost-effectiveness of drug interaction software on medication safety or clinical outcomes. The evidence at present does not support a benefit for these systems or support any policy to widely disseminate their use.