METHODOLOGY: A prospective comparison of subjective global assessment (SGA), and anthropometry (mid-arm muscle circumference, MAMC; triceps skinfold thickness, TST) between elderly stroke patients on long-term NG feeding and matched controls was performed. Selected clinicians and carers of patients were interviewed to assess their knowledge and attitudes to gastrostomy feeding.
RESULTS: 140 patients (70 NG, 70 oral) were recruited between September 2010 and February 2011. Nutritional status was poorer in the NG compared to the oral group (SGA grade C 38.6% NG vs 0% oral, p<0.001; TST males 10.7 + 3.7 mm NG vs 15.4 + 4.6 mm oral, p<0.001; MAMCmales 187.9 + 40.4 mm NG vs 228.7 + 31.8 mm oral, p<0.001). 45 (64.3%) patients on long-term NG feeding reported complications, mainly consisting of dislodgement (50.5%), aspiration of feed content (8.6%) and trauma from insertion (4.3%). Among 20 clinicians from relevant speciliaties who were interviewed, only 11 (55%) clinicians would routinely recommend a PEG. All neurologists (100%) would recommend a PEG, whilst the response was mixed among non-neurologists. Among carers, lack of information (47.1%) was the commonest reason stated for not choosing a PEG.
CONCLUSION: Elderly patients with stroke on long term NG feeding have a poor nutritional status. Lack of recommendation by clinicians appears to be a major barrier to PEG feeding in these patients.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity and reliability of the PPCI for physicians in Malaysia.
SETTING: An urban tertiary hospital in Malaysia.
METHODS: This prospective study was conducted from June to August 2014. Doctors were grouped as either a "collaborator" or a "non-collaborator". Collaborators were doctors who regularly worked with one particular clinical pharmacist in their ward, while non-collaborators were doctors who interacted with any random pharmacist who answered the general pharmacy telephone line whenever they required assistance on medication-related enquiries, as they did not have a clinical pharmacist in their ward. Collaborators were firstly identified by the clinical pharmacist he/she worked with, then invited to participate in this study through email, as it was difficult to locate and approach them personally. Non-collaborators were sampled conveniently by approaching them in person as these doctors could be easily sampled from any wards without a clinical pharmacist. The PPCI for physicians was administered at baseline and 2 weeks later.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Validity (face validity, factor analysis and discriminative validity) and reliability (internal consistency and test-retest) of the PPCI for physicians.
RESULTS: A total of 116 doctors (18 collaborators and 98 non-collaborators) were recruited. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that the PPCI for physicians was a 3-factor model. The correlation of the mean domain scores ranged from 0.711 to 0.787. "Collaborators" had significantly higher scores compared to "non-collaborators" (81.4 ± 10.1 vs. 69.3 ± 12.1, p < 0.001). The Cronbach alpha for the overall PPCI for physicians was 0.949, while the Cronbach alpha values for the individual domains ranged from 0.877 to 0.926. Kappa values at test-retest ranged from 0.553 to 0.752.
CONCLUSION: The PPCI for physicians was a valid and reliable measure in determining doctors' views about collaborative working relationship with pharmacists, in Malaysia.
METHODS: This study used a qualitative approach with purposive sampling. Seven in depth interviews and six focus group discussions were conducted with 35 healthcare professionals (policy makers, doctors, pharmacists and nurses) at a teaching hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, between February and June 2013. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and checked. Thematic approach was used to analyse the data.
RESULTS: Two main themes and three sub-themes emerged from this study. The main themes were (1) variation in the use of CPG and (2) barriers to adherence to CPG. The three sub-themes for barriers were issues inherent to the CPG, systems and policy that is not supportive of CPG use, and attitudes and behaviour of stakeholders. The main users of the CPG were the primary care doctors. Pharmacists only partially use the guidelines, while nurses and policy makers were not using the CPG at all. Participants had suggested few strategies to improve usage and adherence to CPG. First, update the CPG regularly and keep its content simple with specific sections for allied health workers. Second, use technology to facilitate CPG accessibility and provide protected time for implementation of CPG recommendations. Third, incorporate local CPG in professional training, link CPG adherence to key performance indicators and provide incentives for its use.
CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to the use of CPG hypertension management span across all stakeholders. The development and implementation of CPG focused mainly on doctors with lack of involvement of other healthcare stakeholders. Guidelines should be made simple, current, reliable, accessible, inclusive of all stakeholders and with good policy support.