DRUG-RELATED PROBLEMS in HOME CARE PATIENTS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Home health care programs have been recognized as a cost-effective method of providing health care to patients in the familiar surroundings of their home. The services provided by such a program have been viewed as an extension of those found in hospital and have included nursing and social services as well as occupational and physical therapy. However, pharmacy as yet has not been regarded among those services considered necessary. This study was designed to determine if patients in a home care program, specifically the Saskatoon Rehabilitation Home Care Program (SRHCP) experience difficulties with their drug treatment regimens. The objectives of the study were to assess the number of drug-related problems faced by patients and to identify factors contributing to these problems. The study population consisted of the 432 patients registered in the SRHCP in January 1985. From this group, 74 patients were chosen at random and were personally interviewed by the author using a pre-tested questionnaire. Data was analyzed using the SPSS-X computer program package . Frequencies of responses were tabulated for all questions. Relationships between selected variables were examined by nonparametric correlation (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient) or chi-square analysis. Probability values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Among patients registered with the SRHCP , females outnumbered the males in a ratio of approximately 1.4 to 1. Patients 65 years and older comprised 60.3% of this population; 33.8% of all patients lived alone. Twenty-five patients (35.7%) were found to be noncompliant with one or more of their medications. Fifty-seven percent of the patients knew the use of all their prescribed drugs and only 4 patients (5.7%) did not know the use of any. More than 50% of patients stated they had not been given information on their prescription drugs and 87.7% named the physician as the first person they would contact if they had a problem with any of their medication. Eighty-one percent of patients said they bought their prescription drugs at one pharmacy only. Fifty-four patients were taking nonprescription drug products with the average number per patient being 1.7 for those patients <65 years and 2.4 for those 65 years and older. Of the tota1154 nonprescription drugs being taken, 72.7% were used for an officially recommended purpose and 96.7% were taken in an officially approved dose. Sixty-three percent of patients purchased their nonprescription drugs at a pharmacy. Fifty-two patients (70.3%) interviewed were assessed as having one or more drug-related problems. More of these problems were patient-related than physician-related. An increasing number of drug-related problems in a patient was associated with an increasing number of diagnoses, an increasing number of prescription drugs and a decreasing degree of patient compliance with drug treatment regimens. Neither patient compliance nor the total number of drug-related problems were related to the age of the patient. The number of prescription drugs taken influenced patient compliance. Patients taking more drugs were compliant with a smaller percentage of their prescription medications. There was no difference found between patients <65 years and those 65 yr and older with respect to the number of drugs (both prescribed drugs & OTC drug products)being taken by the patient, the percentage of prescription drugs for which the patient knew the name and the percentage of prescription drugs for which the patient knew the use. A significant portion of the patients in the SRHCP had drug-related problems which could be identified by a pharmacist. As a full-time member of the home care team, a pharmacist could assist in identifying and solving drug-related problems by specific interventions with patients and physicians and by general education programs for patients and home care personnel.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».