Patient-controlled oral analgesia for acute abdominal pain: A before-and-after intervention study on pain intensity and use of analgesics

Self-administration of medication during hospitalization-a randomized pilot study

Background

Self-administration of medication (SAM) during hospitalization is a complex intervention where patients are involved in their course of treatment. The study aim was to pilot test the SAM intervention. The objectives were to assess the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial on the safety and cost-consequences of SAM during hospitalization.

Methods

The study was performed in a Danish cardiology unit.

Patients ≥ 18 years capable of self-administering medication during hospitalization were eligible. Patients were excluded if they did not self-administer medication at home, were incapable of self-administering medication, were not prescribed medication suitable for self-administration, did not bring their medication, or were unable to speak Danish.

Feasibility was assessed as part of the pilot study. A future randomized controlled trial was considered feasible if it was possible to recruit 60 patients within 3 months, if outcome measurement method was capable of detecting dispensing errors in both groups, and if patients in the intervention group were more satisfied with the medication management during hospitalization compared to the control group.

Forty patients were recruited to gain experience about the intervention (self-administration). Additionally, 20 patients were randomized to the intervention or control group (nurse-led dispensing) to gain experience about the randomization procedure.

Dispensing error proportions were based on data collected through disguised observation of patients and nurses during dispensing. The error proportion in the control group was used for the sample size calculation. Patient acceptability was assessed through telephone calls.

Results

Of the 60 patients recruited, one withdrew and 11 were discharged before observation resulting in analysis of 39 patients in the intervention group and nine in the control group. A dispensing error proportion of 3.4% was found in the intervention group and 16.1% in the control group. A total of 91.7% of patients in the intervention group and 66.7% in the control group were highly satisfied with the medication management during hospitalization. The overall protocol worked as planned. Minor changes in exclusion criteria, intervention, and outcome measures were considered.

Conclusions

It may be feasible to perform a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of the safety and cost-consequences of self-administration of medication during hospitalization.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03541421, retrospectively registered on 30 May 2018.

Self-administration of medication: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of the impact on dispensing errors, perceptions, and satisfaction

BACKGROUND

Our aim was to investigate whether self-administration of medication (SAM) during hospitalization affects the number of dispensing errors, perceptions regarding medication, and participant satisfaction when compared with nurse-led medication dispensing.

METHODS

A pragmatic randomized controlled trial was performed in a Danish cardiology unit. Patients aged ⩾ 18 years capable of SAM were eligible for inclusion. Patients were excluded if they did not self-administer medication at home, were not prescribed medication suitable for self-administration, or did not speak Danish.Intervention group participants self-administered their medication. In the control group, medication was dispensed and administered by nurses.The primary outcome was the proportion of dispensing errors collected through modified disguised observation of participants and nurses. Dispensing errors were divided into clinical and procedural errors.Secondary outcomes were explored through telephone calls to determine participant perceptions regarding medication and satisfaction, and finally, deviations in their medication list two weeks after discharge.

RESULTS

Significantly fewer dispensing errors were observed in the intervention group, with 100 errors/1033 opportunities for error (9.7%), compared with 132 errors/1028 opportunities for error (12.8%) in the control group. The number of clinical errors was significantly reduced, whereas no difference in procedural errors was observed. At follow up, those who were self-administering medication had fewer concerns regarding their medication, found medication to be less harmful, were more satisfied, preferred this opportunity in the future, and had fewer deviations in their medication list after discharge compared with the control group.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the reduced number of dispensing errors in the intervention group, indicate that SAM is safe. In addition, SAM had a positive impact on (a) perceptions regarding medication, thus suggesting increased medication adherence, (b) deviations in medication list after discharge, and (c) participant satisfaction related to medication management at the hospital.

The Effect of Patient-Controlled Oral Analgesia for Acute Abdominal Pain after Discharge

BACKGROUND

During hospitalization, patients who were admitted with acute abdominal pain must be prepared to care for themselves at home after discharge to continue established treatment, promote recovery, and avoid readmission.

AIMS

Our aim was to investigate the quality of pain management after discharge, when patient-controlled oral analgesia was compared with standard care for patients admitted to hospital with acute abdominal pain. The primary outcome measures were pain intensity and patient perception of care. The secondary outcome measures were pain interference with activity, affective experiences, side effects, and use of analgesics.

DESIGN

A questionnaire study measuring the effect of an intervention on patient-controlled oral analgesics.

SETTINGS

An emergency department and a surgical department in Denmark.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients admitted to hospital with acute abdominal pain.

METHODS

A pre- and postintervention study was conducted in an emergency department and a surgical department with three subunits. Data were collected using a Danish modified Revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire with five subscales (scale 0-10) completed in weeks 1 and 4 after discharge.

RESULTS

In total, 117 patients were included. The median scores at week 1 and week 4 in the control and intervention groups were, respectively, 2/1 and 1/0 on the pain subscale (p = .11/.16), 3/0 and 3/0 on the activity subscale (p = .19/.80), 1/0 and 0/0 on the emotional subscale (p = .02/.72), 1/0 and 1/0 on the side effect subscale (p = .95/.99), and 8/5 and 7/7 on the patient perception subscale (p = .35/.49). There was no significant difference in the use of analgesics at week 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-controlled oral analgesia during the hospital stay did not improve the quality of pain management after discharge.

One-Stop Dispensing: Hospital Costs and Patient Perspectives on Self-Management of Medication

(1) Objective: To assess hospital medication costs and staff time between One-Stop Dispensing (OSD) and the Traditional Medication System (TMS), and to evaluate patient perspectives on OSD. (2) Methods: The study was conducted at Hvidovre Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Denmark in an elective gastric surgery and acute orthopedic surgery department. This study consists of three sub-studies including adult patients able to self-manage medication. In Sub-study 1, staff time used to dispense and administer medication in TMS was assessed. Medication cost and OSD staff time were collected in Sub-study 2, while patient perspectives were assessed in Sub-study 3. Medication costs with two days of discharge medication were compared between measured OSD cost and simulated TMS cost for the same patients. Measured staff time in OSD was compared to simulated staff time in TMS for the same patients. Patient satisfaction related to OSD was evaluated by a questionnaire based on a five-point Likert scale (‘very poor’ (1) to ‘very good’ (5)). (3) Results: In total, 78 elective and 70 acute OSD patients were included. Overall, there was no significant difference between OSD and TMS in medication cost per patient ($2.03 [95% CI −0.57–4.63]) (p = 0.131). Compared with TMS, OSD significantly reduced staff time by an average of 12 min (p ≤ 0.001) per patient per hospitalization. The patients’ satisfaction for OSD was high with an average score of 4.5 ± 0.7. (4) Conclusion: There were no differences in medication costs, but staff time was significantly lower in OSD and patients were overall satisfied with OSD.