TY - JOUR
T1 - Prescribing of acid suppressive therapy
T2 - Interactions between hospital and primary care
AU - Krag, A.
AU - Teglbjerg, L. S.
AU - Malchow-Møller, A.
AU - Hallas, J.
AU - Bytzer, P.
PY - 2006/6/1
Y1 - 2006/6/1
N2 - Background: Overuse of acid suppressive therapy in the hospital setting and in primary care is well documented. Aim: To describe interactions between prescriptions of acid suppressive therapy in hospital and in primary care. Methods: All patients admitted to hospital over a 24-month period were identified. Details about prescription of acid suppressive therapy were retrieved. All prescriptions of acid suppressive therapy redeemed by these patients 12 months before and after discharge were retrieved from a prescription database. Results: A total of 549 of 4477 patients (12.3%) were treated with acid suppressive therapy while in hospital, but acid suppressive therapy was prescribed de novo in only 192 (35%) of these cases. Information about indication for acid suppressive therapy and planned duration of therapy were given in the discharge letter in only 25% and 17% of the cases, respectively. Among patients treated with acid suppressive therapy during admission, prescriptions on acid suppressive therapy were redeemed by 67% in the year before admission and by 74% in the year after discharge. Among patients who had the acid suppressive therapy discontinued during admission (n = 67), 48% resumed acid suppressive therapy within the following 12 months. Of all subjects treated with acid suppressive therapy in the hospital catchment area, 7.8% were seen in our department. Conclusions: Decisions about acid suppressive therapy prescribing in hospital has little influence on prescribing in primary care.
AB - Background: Overuse of acid suppressive therapy in the hospital setting and in primary care is well documented. Aim: To describe interactions between prescriptions of acid suppressive therapy in hospital and in primary care. Methods: All patients admitted to hospital over a 24-month period were identified. Details about prescription of acid suppressive therapy were retrieved. All prescriptions of acid suppressive therapy redeemed by these patients 12 months before and after discharge were retrieved from a prescription database. Results: A total of 549 of 4477 patients (12.3%) were treated with acid suppressive therapy while in hospital, but acid suppressive therapy was prescribed de novo in only 192 (35%) of these cases. Information about indication for acid suppressive therapy and planned duration of therapy were given in the discharge letter in only 25% and 17% of the cases, respectively. Among patients treated with acid suppressive therapy during admission, prescriptions on acid suppressive therapy were redeemed by 67% in the year before admission and by 74% in the year after discharge. Among patients who had the acid suppressive therapy discontinued during admission (n = 67), 48% resumed acid suppressive therapy within the following 12 months. Of all subjects treated with acid suppressive therapy in the hospital catchment area, 7.8% were seen in our department. Conclusions: Decisions about acid suppressive therapy prescribing in hospital has little influence on prescribing in primary care.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33744915835&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.02950.x
DO - 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.02950.x
M3 - Article
C2 - 16817914
AN - SCOPUS:33744915835
SN - 0269-2813
VL - 23
SP - 1713
EP - 1718
JO - Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics
JF - Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics
IS - 12
ER -