User login
A 19-year-old man with oral ulcers, pulmonary infiltrates, and rash
Computerized Fluoroscopic-Based Navigation-Assisted Intramedullary Nailing
Newer Topical Therapies for the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris
What's Eating You? Body Lice (Pediculus humanus var corporis)
Common Dermatologic Disorders in Skin of Color: A Comparative Practice Survey
Does marijuana use play a role in the recreational use of sildenafil?
- There is a strong association between men who use cannabis and men who obtain sildenafil from sources other than a prescribing physician.
Purpose This study examined the ways by which patients obtain nonprescription sildenafil and the patient predictors associated with nonprescribed use.
Methods We conducted this descriptive study via questionnaire-guided interviews with 231 male sildenafil users (ages 18 to 80) between December 1, 2002 and April 30, 2003 at outpatient Family Medicine and Urology Clinics at The Brooklyn Hospital Center, Brooklyn, NY. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those with erectile dysfunction (reported by the patients as defined by their physician) and those without.
Results The prevalence of erectile dysfunction in our total study population of sildenafil users (n=231) was 40.3% (n=93); 59.7% (n=138) did not have erectile dysfunction. Of those without erectile dysfunction, 76.1% (n=105) admitted to cannabis use, compared with 7.5% (n=7) of the subjects with erectile dysfunction. Patients without erectile dysfunction and history of cannabis abuse reported obtaining sildenafil from friends and street vendors significantly more often than non-cannabis users with erectile dysfunction (54.3%, n=57 vs 9.3%, n=8; P<.0001).
Conclusion Illicit use of cannabis is a strong predictor of recreational sildenafil use among patients without erectile dysfunction.
Published reports of improved sexual performance have prompted men without erectile dysfunction to use sildenafil inappropriately.1-4 Sildenafil has also been used to counteract the impotence-inducing effects of “club drugs” such as ecstasy.5
Cannabis, another widely abused street drug, is a known inhibitor of the cytochrome P450 3A4 isoenzyme pathway, the same pathway in which sildenafil is metabolized.6 Cannabis can thus potentiate the effect of sildenafil. A case report from 2002 has indicated that a young man using sildenafil and cannabis concomitantly suffered a myocardial infarction.7
In this study, we sought to answer the following questions:
- What methods did the men use to obtain sildenafil without a prescription?
- Why were the men taking sildenafil?
- Did these men increase the dose without physician supervision?
Methods
Setting, participants, and design
Two senior resident physicians from the Department of Family Practice at The Brooklyn Hospital Center asked male patients between the ages of 18 and 80 if they would be interested in participating in this descriptive study. Two hundred and thirty-one patients agreed to be interviewed during their outpatient clinic appointments in the Departments of Family Practice and Urology. We conducted these interviews between December 1, 2002 and April 30, 2003.
Patients with and without physician-diagnosed erectile dysfunction who were using sildenafil were included in this study. Patients were excluded if they were taking nitrates, had cognitive disabilities, were female, or if they could not read English.
The 1-page, 35-item questionnaire was read to the subjects by a resident, who provided additional explanations if needed. The researchers noted their responses to questions on demographics, medical history, social history, treatment duration of erectile dysfunction, method of procurement of sildenafil, and knowledge about the indications of sildenafil. The questionnaire was pretested on a small sample for comprehension prior to distribution.
We developed descriptive statistics and performed cross-tabulations using SPSS version 11.0 (SPSS, Inc, Chicago, Ill). We used a chi-square test to determine statistical significance between cannabis abuse and illicit sildenafil use. We established statistical significance at P<.05. The Institutional Review Board at the Brooklyn Hospital Center approved our research protocol, and we obtained consent from all the study participants.
Results
Strong link between cannabis use and recreational sildenafil
TABLE 1 shows the demographic information of the entire study population (n=231). Our study found that patient predictors for recreational sildenafil use are a younger unmarried male who smokes cannabis. Of the men in the study, 138 (59.7%) reported erectile function prior to the use of sildenafil.
We decided to examine data from this subgroup of our study population. As shown in TABLE 2, patients with erectile function but with a history of cannabis abuse reported obtaining sildenafil from friends, street vendors, and the Internet significantly more often than those with erectile dysfunction who did not use cannabis.
Discussion: Is there a danger?
Our study showed a strong association between individuals who obtained sildenafil from sources other than a prescribing physician and those who used cannabis. These men purchased this prescription medication from street vendors, friends, family, or via the Internet. Illicit sildenafil users took the medication mainly to improve performance and increase desire–and they often increased the dose of the medication at will. The differences between patients with erectile dysfunction compared with those without were so great that much of our data proved to be statistically significant (TABLE 1).
Data from our subgroup of patients who smoked cannabis supported our suspicion that patients who were able to maintain an erection prior to their use of sildenafil used the medication to improve sexual performance and counteract alterations in libido caused by cannabis.8
TABLE 1
Our study group: Who they were, why they were taking sildenafil
ALL SUBJECTS (N=231) | WITH ED (N=93) | WITHOUTED (N=138) | P-VALUE | |
---|---|---|---|---|
DEMOGRAPHICS | ||||
Age (years) | ||||
18–30 | 17 (7.4%) | 2 (2.2%) | 15 (10.9%) | .03 |
31–40 | 56 (24.2%) | 1 (1.1%) | 55 (39.9%) | <.0001 |
41–50 | 68 (29.4%) | 19 (20.4%) | 49 (35.5%) | .02 |
51–60 | 38 (16.5%) | 25 (26.9%) | 13 (9.4%) | .001 |
61–70 | 35 (15.2%) | 29 (31.2%) | 6 (4.3%) | <.0001 |
71–80 | 17 (7.4%) | 17 (18.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | <.0001 |
Health insurance | ||||
Self-pay | 23 (10%) | 4 (4.3%) | 19 (13.8%) | .03 |
Medicaid | 73 (31.6%) | 30 (32.3%) | 43 (31.2%) | .97 |
Medicare | 17 (7.4%) | 15 (16.1%) | 2 (1.4%) | <.0001 |
Private carriers | 118 (51.1%) | 44 (47.3%) | 74 (53.6%) | <.42 |
Marital status | ||||
Married | 107 (46.3%) | 56 (60.2%) | 51 (37.0%) | .001 |
Unmarried | 92 (39.8%) | 14 (15.1%) | 78 (56.5%) | <.0001 |
Divorced | 32 (13.9%) | 23 (24.7%) | 9 (6.5%) | <.0001 |
Drug use | ||||
Yes | 121 (52.4%) | 9 (9.7%) | 112 (81.2%) | <.0001 |
No | 110 (47.6%) | 84 (90.3%) | 26 (18.8%) | |
Marijuana use | ||||
Yes | 112 (48.5%) | 7 (7.5%) | 105 (76.1%) | <.0001 |
No | 119 (51.5%) | 86 (92.5%) | 33 (23.9%) | <.0001 |
USE OF SILDENAFIL | ||||
Purchased from a friend/street vendor | ||||
Yes | 149 (64.5%) | 26 (28.0%) | 123 (89.1%) | <.0001 |
No | 82 (35.5%) | 67 (72.0%) | 15 (10.9%) | |
Sold to a friend | ||||
Yes | 72 (31.2%) | 7 (7.5%) | 65 (47.1%) | <.0001 |
No | 159 (68.8%) | 86 (92.5%) | 73 (52.9%) | |
Increased dose without physician authorization? | ||||
Yes | 150 (64.9%) | 40 (43.0%) | 110 (79.7%) | <.0001 |
No | 81 (35.1%) | 53 (57.0%) | 28 (20.3%) | |
SEXUAL PROBLEM | ||||
Lack of desire/interest | 14 (6.1%) | 2 (2.2%) | 12 (8.7%) | .08 |
Lack of erection/difficulty in achieving erection | 82 (35.5%) | 69 (74.2%) | 13 (9.4%) | <.0001 |
Difficulty in performance/endurance | 59 (25.5%) | 4 (4.3%) | 55 (39.9%) | <.0001 |
Difficulty in orgasm/ejaculation | 14 (6.1%) | 3 (3.2%) | 11 (8.0%) | .22 |
Lack of desire/lack of erection | 29 (12.6%) | 13 (14.0%) | 16 (11.6%) | .74 |
Lack of desire+difficulty with performance | 33 (14.3%) | 2 (2.2%) | 31 (22.5%) | <.0001 |
ED, erectile dysfunction |
TABLE 2
Where did 2 subsets of subjects obtain sildenafil?
SOURCE | NO ED/CANNABIS USERS (N=105) | ED/NON-CANNABIS USERS (N=86) | P-VALUE |
---|---|---|---|
PCP/specialist | 12 (11.4%) | 75 (87.2%) | <.0001 |
Over-the-counter* | 8 (7.6%) | 2 (2.3%) | .19 |
Friends/street vendors | 57 (54.3%) | 8 (9.3%) | <.0001 |
Internet | 28 (26.7%) | 1 (1.2%) | <.0001 |
* Purchased without a prescription from a privately owned business (such as a convenience store). |
Limitations of this study
The main limitation of this study was that the data obtained were self-reported. A chart review could have provided objective data on the patients’ ED diagnosis and medications.
Conclusion
The illicit use of sildenafil raises many issues. Patients with cardiovascular disease, even without the use of nitrates, may be at risk of myocardial infarction. Be aware that younger, male patient with an admitted history of drug abuse may be taking sildenafil without your knowledge, even without a diagnosis of erectile dysfunction.
Funding
Material support was provided by the Department of Family Medicine at The Brooklyn Hospital, Brooklyn, NY.
Acknowledgments
The contents of this manuscript were presented at the New York State Academy of Family Practice and The Albany County Chapter Regional Family Medicine Conference at Lake Placid, NY on September 6, 2003.
Correspondence
Marie L. Eloi-Stiven, MD, Director of Research, The Brooklyn Hospital Center, Department of Family Medicine, 121 Dekalb Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11201; dad9022@nyp.org
1. Crosby R, Diclemente RJ. Use of recreational sildenafil citrate among men having sex with men. Sex Transm Infect 2004;80:466-468.
2. Chu Pl, McFarland W, Gibson S, et al. Sildenafil citrate use in a community-recruited sample of men who have sex with men, San Francisco. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2003;33:191-193.
3. Modaini N, Ponchietti R, Muir GH. Sildenafil citrate does not improve sexual function in men without erectile dysfunction but does reduce the postorgasmic refractory time. Int J Impot Res 2003;15:225-228.
4. Romanelli F, Smith KM. Recreational use of sildenafil citrate by HIV-positive and negative homosexual/bisexual males. Ann Pharmacother 2004;38:1024-1030.Epub 2004 Apr 27.
5. Breslau K. The “sextasy” craze. Clubland’s dangerous party mix: Viagra and ecstasy. Newsweek. 2002 Jun 3;139(22):30.-
6. McLeod AL, McKenna CJ, Northridge DB. Myocardial Infaraction following the combined recreational use of viagra and cannabis. Clin Cardiol 2002;25:133-134.
7. El-Galley R, Rutland H, Talic R, Keane T, Clark H. Long-term efficacy of sildenafil and tachyphylaxis effect. J Urol 2001;166:927-931.
8. Hubbard JR, Franco SE, Onaivi ES. Marijuana: medical implications. Am Fam Physician 1999;60:2583-2599.
- There is a strong association between men who use cannabis and men who obtain sildenafil from sources other than a prescribing physician.
Purpose This study examined the ways by which patients obtain nonprescription sildenafil and the patient predictors associated with nonprescribed use.
Methods We conducted this descriptive study via questionnaire-guided interviews with 231 male sildenafil users (ages 18 to 80) between December 1, 2002 and April 30, 2003 at outpatient Family Medicine and Urology Clinics at The Brooklyn Hospital Center, Brooklyn, NY. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those with erectile dysfunction (reported by the patients as defined by their physician) and those without.
Results The prevalence of erectile dysfunction in our total study population of sildenafil users (n=231) was 40.3% (n=93); 59.7% (n=138) did not have erectile dysfunction. Of those without erectile dysfunction, 76.1% (n=105) admitted to cannabis use, compared with 7.5% (n=7) of the subjects with erectile dysfunction. Patients without erectile dysfunction and history of cannabis abuse reported obtaining sildenafil from friends and street vendors significantly more often than non-cannabis users with erectile dysfunction (54.3%, n=57 vs 9.3%, n=8; P<.0001).
Conclusion Illicit use of cannabis is a strong predictor of recreational sildenafil use among patients without erectile dysfunction.
Published reports of improved sexual performance have prompted men without erectile dysfunction to use sildenafil inappropriately.1-4 Sildenafil has also been used to counteract the impotence-inducing effects of “club drugs” such as ecstasy.5
Cannabis, another widely abused street drug, is a known inhibitor of the cytochrome P450 3A4 isoenzyme pathway, the same pathway in which sildenafil is metabolized.6 Cannabis can thus potentiate the effect of sildenafil. A case report from 2002 has indicated that a young man using sildenafil and cannabis concomitantly suffered a myocardial infarction.7
In this study, we sought to answer the following questions:
- What methods did the men use to obtain sildenafil without a prescription?
- Why were the men taking sildenafil?
- Did these men increase the dose without physician supervision?
Methods
Setting, participants, and design
Two senior resident physicians from the Department of Family Practice at The Brooklyn Hospital Center asked male patients between the ages of 18 and 80 if they would be interested in participating in this descriptive study. Two hundred and thirty-one patients agreed to be interviewed during their outpatient clinic appointments in the Departments of Family Practice and Urology. We conducted these interviews between December 1, 2002 and April 30, 2003.
Patients with and without physician-diagnosed erectile dysfunction who were using sildenafil were included in this study. Patients were excluded if they were taking nitrates, had cognitive disabilities, were female, or if they could not read English.
The 1-page, 35-item questionnaire was read to the subjects by a resident, who provided additional explanations if needed. The researchers noted their responses to questions on demographics, medical history, social history, treatment duration of erectile dysfunction, method of procurement of sildenafil, and knowledge about the indications of sildenafil. The questionnaire was pretested on a small sample for comprehension prior to distribution.
We developed descriptive statistics and performed cross-tabulations using SPSS version 11.0 (SPSS, Inc, Chicago, Ill). We used a chi-square test to determine statistical significance between cannabis abuse and illicit sildenafil use. We established statistical significance at P<.05. The Institutional Review Board at the Brooklyn Hospital Center approved our research protocol, and we obtained consent from all the study participants.
Results
Strong link between cannabis use and recreational sildenafil
TABLE 1 shows the demographic information of the entire study population (n=231). Our study found that patient predictors for recreational sildenafil use are a younger unmarried male who smokes cannabis. Of the men in the study, 138 (59.7%) reported erectile function prior to the use of sildenafil.
We decided to examine data from this subgroup of our study population. As shown in TABLE 2, patients with erectile function but with a history of cannabis abuse reported obtaining sildenafil from friends, street vendors, and the Internet significantly more often than those with erectile dysfunction who did not use cannabis.
Discussion: Is there a danger?
Our study showed a strong association between individuals who obtained sildenafil from sources other than a prescribing physician and those who used cannabis. These men purchased this prescription medication from street vendors, friends, family, or via the Internet. Illicit sildenafil users took the medication mainly to improve performance and increase desire–and they often increased the dose of the medication at will. The differences between patients with erectile dysfunction compared with those without were so great that much of our data proved to be statistically significant (TABLE 1).
Data from our subgroup of patients who smoked cannabis supported our suspicion that patients who were able to maintain an erection prior to their use of sildenafil used the medication to improve sexual performance and counteract alterations in libido caused by cannabis.8
TABLE 1
Our study group: Who they were, why they were taking sildenafil
ALL SUBJECTS (N=231) | WITH ED (N=93) | WITHOUTED (N=138) | P-VALUE | |
---|---|---|---|---|
DEMOGRAPHICS | ||||
Age (years) | ||||
18–30 | 17 (7.4%) | 2 (2.2%) | 15 (10.9%) | .03 |
31–40 | 56 (24.2%) | 1 (1.1%) | 55 (39.9%) | <.0001 |
41–50 | 68 (29.4%) | 19 (20.4%) | 49 (35.5%) | .02 |
51–60 | 38 (16.5%) | 25 (26.9%) | 13 (9.4%) | .001 |
61–70 | 35 (15.2%) | 29 (31.2%) | 6 (4.3%) | <.0001 |
71–80 | 17 (7.4%) | 17 (18.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | <.0001 |
Health insurance | ||||
Self-pay | 23 (10%) | 4 (4.3%) | 19 (13.8%) | .03 |
Medicaid | 73 (31.6%) | 30 (32.3%) | 43 (31.2%) | .97 |
Medicare | 17 (7.4%) | 15 (16.1%) | 2 (1.4%) | <.0001 |
Private carriers | 118 (51.1%) | 44 (47.3%) | 74 (53.6%) | <.42 |
Marital status | ||||
Married | 107 (46.3%) | 56 (60.2%) | 51 (37.0%) | .001 |
Unmarried | 92 (39.8%) | 14 (15.1%) | 78 (56.5%) | <.0001 |
Divorced | 32 (13.9%) | 23 (24.7%) | 9 (6.5%) | <.0001 |
Drug use | ||||
Yes | 121 (52.4%) | 9 (9.7%) | 112 (81.2%) | <.0001 |
No | 110 (47.6%) | 84 (90.3%) | 26 (18.8%) | |
Marijuana use | ||||
Yes | 112 (48.5%) | 7 (7.5%) | 105 (76.1%) | <.0001 |
No | 119 (51.5%) | 86 (92.5%) | 33 (23.9%) | <.0001 |
USE OF SILDENAFIL | ||||
Purchased from a friend/street vendor | ||||
Yes | 149 (64.5%) | 26 (28.0%) | 123 (89.1%) | <.0001 |
No | 82 (35.5%) | 67 (72.0%) | 15 (10.9%) | |
Sold to a friend | ||||
Yes | 72 (31.2%) | 7 (7.5%) | 65 (47.1%) | <.0001 |
No | 159 (68.8%) | 86 (92.5%) | 73 (52.9%) | |
Increased dose without physician authorization? | ||||
Yes | 150 (64.9%) | 40 (43.0%) | 110 (79.7%) | <.0001 |
No | 81 (35.1%) | 53 (57.0%) | 28 (20.3%) | |
SEXUAL PROBLEM | ||||
Lack of desire/interest | 14 (6.1%) | 2 (2.2%) | 12 (8.7%) | .08 |
Lack of erection/difficulty in achieving erection | 82 (35.5%) | 69 (74.2%) | 13 (9.4%) | <.0001 |
Difficulty in performance/endurance | 59 (25.5%) | 4 (4.3%) | 55 (39.9%) | <.0001 |
Difficulty in orgasm/ejaculation | 14 (6.1%) | 3 (3.2%) | 11 (8.0%) | .22 |
Lack of desire/lack of erection | 29 (12.6%) | 13 (14.0%) | 16 (11.6%) | .74 |
Lack of desire+difficulty with performance | 33 (14.3%) | 2 (2.2%) | 31 (22.5%) | <.0001 |
ED, erectile dysfunction |
TABLE 2
Where did 2 subsets of subjects obtain sildenafil?
SOURCE | NO ED/CANNABIS USERS (N=105) | ED/NON-CANNABIS USERS (N=86) | P-VALUE |
---|---|---|---|
PCP/specialist | 12 (11.4%) | 75 (87.2%) | <.0001 |
Over-the-counter* | 8 (7.6%) | 2 (2.3%) | .19 |
Friends/street vendors | 57 (54.3%) | 8 (9.3%) | <.0001 |
Internet | 28 (26.7%) | 1 (1.2%) | <.0001 |
* Purchased without a prescription from a privately owned business (such as a convenience store). |
Limitations of this study
The main limitation of this study was that the data obtained were self-reported. A chart review could have provided objective data on the patients’ ED diagnosis and medications.
Conclusion
The illicit use of sildenafil raises many issues. Patients with cardiovascular disease, even without the use of nitrates, may be at risk of myocardial infarction. Be aware that younger, male patient with an admitted history of drug abuse may be taking sildenafil without your knowledge, even without a diagnosis of erectile dysfunction.
Funding
Material support was provided by the Department of Family Medicine at The Brooklyn Hospital, Brooklyn, NY.
Acknowledgments
The contents of this manuscript were presented at the New York State Academy of Family Practice and The Albany County Chapter Regional Family Medicine Conference at Lake Placid, NY on September 6, 2003.
Correspondence
Marie L. Eloi-Stiven, MD, Director of Research, The Brooklyn Hospital Center, Department of Family Medicine, 121 Dekalb Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11201; dad9022@nyp.org
- There is a strong association between men who use cannabis and men who obtain sildenafil from sources other than a prescribing physician.
Purpose This study examined the ways by which patients obtain nonprescription sildenafil and the patient predictors associated with nonprescribed use.
Methods We conducted this descriptive study via questionnaire-guided interviews with 231 male sildenafil users (ages 18 to 80) between December 1, 2002 and April 30, 2003 at outpatient Family Medicine and Urology Clinics at The Brooklyn Hospital Center, Brooklyn, NY. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those with erectile dysfunction (reported by the patients as defined by their physician) and those without.
Results The prevalence of erectile dysfunction in our total study population of sildenafil users (n=231) was 40.3% (n=93); 59.7% (n=138) did not have erectile dysfunction. Of those without erectile dysfunction, 76.1% (n=105) admitted to cannabis use, compared with 7.5% (n=7) of the subjects with erectile dysfunction. Patients without erectile dysfunction and history of cannabis abuse reported obtaining sildenafil from friends and street vendors significantly more often than non-cannabis users with erectile dysfunction (54.3%, n=57 vs 9.3%, n=8; P<.0001).
Conclusion Illicit use of cannabis is a strong predictor of recreational sildenafil use among patients without erectile dysfunction.
Published reports of improved sexual performance have prompted men without erectile dysfunction to use sildenafil inappropriately.1-4 Sildenafil has also been used to counteract the impotence-inducing effects of “club drugs” such as ecstasy.5
Cannabis, another widely abused street drug, is a known inhibitor of the cytochrome P450 3A4 isoenzyme pathway, the same pathway in which sildenafil is metabolized.6 Cannabis can thus potentiate the effect of sildenafil. A case report from 2002 has indicated that a young man using sildenafil and cannabis concomitantly suffered a myocardial infarction.7
In this study, we sought to answer the following questions:
- What methods did the men use to obtain sildenafil without a prescription?
- Why were the men taking sildenafil?
- Did these men increase the dose without physician supervision?
Methods
Setting, participants, and design
Two senior resident physicians from the Department of Family Practice at The Brooklyn Hospital Center asked male patients between the ages of 18 and 80 if they would be interested in participating in this descriptive study. Two hundred and thirty-one patients agreed to be interviewed during their outpatient clinic appointments in the Departments of Family Practice and Urology. We conducted these interviews between December 1, 2002 and April 30, 2003.
Patients with and without physician-diagnosed erectile dysfunction who were using sildenafil were included in this study. Patients were excluded if they were taking nitrates, had cognitive disabilities, were female, or if they could not read English.
The 1-page, 35-item questionnaire was read to the subjects by a resident, who provided additional explanations if needed. The researchers noted their responses to questions on demographics, medical history, social history, treatment duration of erectile dysfunction, method of procurement of sildenafil, and knowledge about the indications of sildenafil. The questionnaire was pretested on a small sample for comprehension prior to distribution.
We developed descriptive statistics and performed cross-tabulations using SPSS version 11.0 (SPSS, Inc, Chicago, Ill). We used a chi-square test to determine statistical significance between cannabis abuse and illicit sildenafil use. We established statistical significance at P<.05. The Institutional Review Board at the Brooklyn Hospital Center approved our research protocol, and we obtained consent from all the study participants.
Results
Strong link between cannabis use and recreational sildenafil
TABLE 1 shows the demographic information of the entire study population (n=231). Our study found that patient predictors for recreational sildenafil use are a younger unmarried male who smokes cannabis. Of the men in the study, 138 (59.7%) reported erectile function prior to the use of sildenafil.
We decided to examine data from this subgroup of our study population. As shown in TABLE 2, patients with erectile function but with a history of cannabis abuse reported obtaining sildenafil from friends, street vendors, and the Internet significantly more often than those with erectile dysfunction who did not use cannabis.
Discussion: Is there a danger?
Our study showed a strong association between individuals who obtained sildenafil from sources other than a prescribing physician and those who used cannabis. These men purchased this prescription medication from street vendors, friends, family, or via the Internet. Illicit sildenafil users took the medication mainly to improve performance and increase desire–and they often increased the dose of the medication at will. The differences between patients with erectile dysfunction compared with those without were so great that much of our data proved to be statistically significant (TABLE 1).
Data from our subgroup of patients who smoked cannabis supported our suspicion that patients who were able to maintain an erection prior to their use of sildenafil used the medication to improve sexual performance and counteract alterations in libido caused by cannabis.8
TABLE 1
Our study group: Who they were, why they were taking sildenafil
ALL SUBJECTS (N=231) | WITH ED (N=93) | WITHOUTED (N=138) | P-VALUE | |
---|---|---|---|---|
DEMOGRAPHICS | ||||
Age (years) | ||||
18–30 | 17 (7.4%) | 2 (2.2%) | 15 (10.9%) | .03 |
31–40 | 56 (24.2%) | 1 (1.1%) | 55 (39.9%) | <.0001 |
41–50 | 68 (29.4%) | 19 (20.4%) | 49 (35.5%) | .02 |
51–60 | 38 (16.5%) | 25 (26.9%) | 13 (9.4%) | .001 |
61–70 | 35 (15.2%) | 29 (31.2%) | 6 (4.3%) | <.0001 |
71–80 | 17 (7.4%) | 17 (18.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | <.0001 |
Health insurance | ||||
Self-pay | 23 (10%) | 4 (4.3%) | 19 (13.8%) | .03 |
Medicaid | 73 (31.6%) | 30 (32.3%) | 43 (31.2%) | .97 |
Medicare | 17 (7.4%) | 15 (16.1%) | 2 (1.4%) | <.0001 |
Private carriers | 118 (51.1%) | 44 (47.3%) | 74 (53.6%) | <.42 |
Marital status | ||||
Married | 107 (46.3%) | 56 (60.2%) | 51 (37.0%) | .001 |
Unmarried | 92 (39.8%) | 14 (15.1%) | 78 (56.5%) | <.0001 |
Divorced | 32 (13.9%) | 23 (24.7%) | 9 (6.5%) | <.0001 |
Drug use | ||||
Yes | 121 (52.4%) | 9 (9.7%) | 112 (81.2%) | <.0001 |
No | 110 (47.6%) | 84 (90.3%) | 26 (18.8%) | |
Marijuana use | ||||
Yes | 112 (48.5%) | 7 (7.5%) | 105 (76.1%) | <.0001 |
No | 119 (51.5%) | 86 (92.5%) | 33 (23.9%) | <.0001 |
USE OF SILDENAFIL | ||||
Purchased from a friend/street vendor | ||||
Yes | 149 (64.5%) | 26 (28.0%) | 123 (89.1%) | <.0001 |
No | 82 (35.5%) | 67 (72.0%) | 15 (10.9%) | |
Sold to a friend | ||||
Yes | 72 (31.2%) | 7 (7.5%) | 65 (47.1%) | <.0001 |
No | 159 (68.8%) | 86 (92.5%) | 73 (52.9%) | |
Increased dose without physician authorization? | ||||
Yes | 150 (64.9%) | 40 (43.0%) | 110 (79.7%) | <.0001 |
No | 81 (35.1%) | 53 (57.0%) | 28 (20.3%) | |
SEXUAL PROBLEM | ||||
Lack of desire/interest | 14 (6.1%) | 2 (2.2%) | 12 (8.7%) | .08 |
Lack of erection/difficulty in achieving erection | 82 (35.5%) | 69 (74.2%) | 13 (9.4%) | <.0001 |
Difficulty in performance/endurance | 59 (25.5%) | 4 (4.3%) | 55 (39.9%) | <.0001 |
Difficulty in orgasm/ejaculation | 14 (6.1%) | 3 (3.2%) | 11 (8.0%) | .22 |
Lack of desire/lack of erection | 29 (12.6%) | 13 (14.0%) | 16 (11.6%) | .74 |
Lack of desire+difficulty with performance | 33 (14.3%) | 2 (2.2%) | 31 (22.5%) | <.0001 |
ED, erectile dysfunction |
TABLE 2
Where did 2 subsets of subjects obtain sildenafil?
SOURCE | NO ED/CANNABIS USERS (N=105) | ED/NON-CANNABIS USERS (N=86) | P-VALUE |
---|---|---|---|
PCP/specialist | 12 (11.4%) | 75 (87.2%) | <.0001 |
Over-the-counter* | 8 (7.6%) | 2 (2.3%) | .19 |
Friends/street vendors | 57 (54.3%) | 8 (9.3%) | <.0001 |
Internet | 28 (26.7%) | 1 (1.2%) | <.0001 |
* Purchased without a prescription from a privately owned business (such as a convenience store). |
Limitations of this study
The main limitation of this study was that the data obtained were self-reported. A chart review could have provided objective data on the patients’ ED diagnosis and medications.
Conclusion
The illicit use of sildenafil raises many issues. Patients with cardiovascular disease, even without the use of nitrates, may be at risk of myocardial infarction. Be aware that younger, male patient with an admitted history of drug abuse may be taking sildenafil without your knowledge, even without a diagnosis of erectile dysfunction.
Funding
Material support was provided by the Department of Family Medicine at The Brooklyn Hospital, Brooklyn, NY.
Acknowledgments
The contents of this manuscript were presented at the New York State Academy of Family Practice and The Albany County Chapter Regional Family Medicine Conference at Lake Placid, NY on September 6, 2003.
Correspondence
Marie L. Eloi-Stiven, MD, Director of Research, The Brooklyn Hospital Center, Department of Family Medicine, 121 Dekalb Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11201; dad9022@nyp.org
1. Crosby R, Diclemente RJ. Use of recreational sildenafil citrate among men having sex with men. Sex Transm Infect 2004;80:466-468.
2. Chu Pl, McFarland W, Gibson S, et al. Sildenafil citrate use in a community-recruited sample of men who have sex with men, San Francisco. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2003;33:191-193.
3. Modaini N, Ponchietti R, Muir GH. Sildenafil citrate does not improve sexual function in men without erectile dysfunction but does reduce the postorgasmic refractory time. Int J Impot Res 2003;15:225-228.
4. Romanelli F, Smith KM. Recreational use of sildenafil citrate by HIV-positive and negative homosexual/bisexual males. Ann Pharmacother 2004;38:1024-1030.Epub 2004 Apr 27.
5. Breslau K. The “sextasy” craze. Clubland’s dangerous party mix: Viagra and ecstasy. Newsweek. 2002 Jun 3;139(22):30.-
6. McLeod AL, McKenna CJ, Northridge DB. Myocardial Infaraction following the combined recreational use of viagra and cannabis. Clin Cardiol 2002;25:133-134.
7. El-Galley R, Rutland H, Talic R, Keane T, Clark H. Long-term efficacy of sildenafil and tachyphylaxis effect. J Urol 2001;166:927-931.
8. Hubbard JR, Franco SE, Onaivi ES. Marijuana: medical implications. Am Fam Physician 1999;60:2583-2599.
1. Crosby R, Diclemente RJ. Use of recreational sildenafil citrate among men having sex with men. Sex Transm Infect 2004;80:466-468.
2. Chu Pl, McFarland W, Gibson S, et al. Sildenafil citrate use in a community-recruited sample of men who have sex with men, San Francisco. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2003;33:191-193.
3. Modaini N, Ponchietti R, Muir GH. Sildenafil citrate does not improve sexual function in men without erectile dysfunction but does reduce the postorgasmic refractory time. Int J Impot Res 2003;15:225-228.
4. Romanelli F, Smith KM. Recreational use of sildenafil citrate by HIV-positive and negative homosexual/bisexual males. Ann Pharmacother 2004;38:1024-1030.Epub 2004 Apr 27.
5. Breslau K. The “sextasy” craze. Clubland’s dangerous party mix: Viagra and ecstasy. Newsweek. 2002 Jun 3;139(22):30.-
6. McLeod AL, McKenna CJ, Northridge DB. Myocardial Infaraction following the combined recreational use of viagra and cannabis. Clin Cardiol 2002;25:133-134.
7. El-Galley R, Rutland H, Talic R, Keane T, Clark H. Long-term efficacy of sildenafil and tachyphylaxis effect. J Urol 2001;166:927-931.
8. Hubbard JR, Franco SE, Onaivi ES. Marijuana: medical implications. Am Fam Physician 1999;60:2583-2599.
Stroke prevention: Age alone does not rule out warfarin
Warfarin is as safe as aspirin and more effective for stroke prevention in elders with atrial fibrillation
Strength of recommendation (SOR)
A: Well-designed randomized controlled trial of elderly patients in the primary care setting, consistent with findings from prior RCTs
Mant et al. Warfarin versus aspirin for stroke prevention in an elderly community population with atrial fibrillation (the Birmingham Atrial Fibrillation Treatment of the Aged Study [BAFTA]): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;370:493–503.1
Illustrative Case
An 85-year-old woman with hypertension and chronic atrial fibrillation has transferred her care to you. She takes an aspirin a day for cardiovascular prevention. You know that warfarin is better than aspirin for preventing stroke but worry about the increased risk of bleeding with warfarin.
Should you recommend that she stay on aspirin or switch to warfarin?
Background: BAFTA: A realistic study
We have been reluctant to use warfarin in elders with atrial fibrillation for good reason: risk of hemorrhage. Since there are few trials looking at use of warfarin among elders in primary care settings, we are uncertain about the balance of benefits and harms.
The BAFTA study1 is the first trial to compare outcomes of warfarin vs aspirin in elders specifically, in the less-than-ideal conditions of real life.
Guidelines mirror uncertainties
This uncertainty is reflected even in guidelines for anticoagulation in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation.
- The 2004 American College of Chest Physicians Seventh Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy recommends treating all patients with atrial fibrillation and high risk of stroke with warfarin. Their definition of high-risk includes any patient with 1 or more of the following risk factors: age >75 years, prior ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack or systemic embolism, congestive heart failure, impaired left ventricular systolic function, hypertension, or diabetes mellitus.2
- In contrast, the 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and European Society of Cardiology, are more conservative. They recommend that patients with more than 1 risk factor take warfarin, and patients with only 1 risk factor (for example, a patient older than 75 years of age with no other risk factors) take either warfarin or aspirin.3
Clinical context: Reasonable concerns
Fewer than half of the 10% to 12% of people older than 75 with atrial fibrillation are taking warfarin for stroke prevention. In one study, only 35% of patients 85 years and older with no known contraindication to anticoagulation received warfarin.4 Possible reasons for this low rate include:
- cost of monitoring warfarin
- concerns about compliance
- increased risk of hemorrhage
- prior studies focused on younger patients, in closely monitored settings.
These factors lead us to speculate that many physicians believe that the risks of warfarin in elderly patients in primary care settings outweigh any potential benefit.
We think this study demonstrates that we should seriously discuss and consider warfarin therapy for most of our elderly patients with atrial fibrillation.
The key finding from the BAFTA study is that advanced age alone is not a contraindication to the use of warfarin for stroke prevention in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation
Study summary: Primary care setting, elders only
This prospective randomized open-label trial was designed to test the effectiveness and safety of warfarin vs aspirin in the elderly, in a realistic primary care setting. The study compared the frequency of stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and other significant arterial embolism in patients taking either warfarin or aspirin.
Inclusion criteria. Patients were at least 75 years old (average 81.5 years) with an ECG within the previous 2 years showing atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter. Seventy percent of the patients had been previously diagnosed with atrial fibrillation and 30% were identified because they had an irregular pulse on exam.
Exclusion criteria included rheumatic heart disease, major nontraumatic hemorrhage in the past 5 years, intracranial hemorrhage, endoscopically proven peptic ulcer disease in the past year, esophageal varices, allergy to either study drug, terminal illness, surgery in past 3 months, blood pressure greater than 180/110 mm Hg, or if the primary physician judged that a patient should either be on warfarin or not, based on risk factors.
Patient characteristics. The patients were recruited from 260 general practices in England and Wales. At baseline, 39% to 40% of the patients were already taking warfarin, 12% to 13% had had a prior stroke, 53% to 55% had hypertension, 13% to 14% had diabetes, 19% to 20% had heart failure, and 10% to 12% had a history of myocardial infarction. Patients were followed for an average of 2.7 years.
Aspirin and warfarin regimens. Patients were assigned to either aspirin at a dose of 75 mg/day or warfarin with a target international normalized ratio (INR) of 2.5 and an acceptable range of 2 to 3. Because the study aimed to reflect a realistic primary care setting, the frequency and method of INR testing was left to the discretion of participating physicians.
Patients who had been taking aspirin or warfarin prior to the study discontinued that medicine if they were assigned to the other treatment. Sixty-seven percent of the patients assigned to warfarin continued this treatment throughout the study, and 78% of those who either stopped taking warfarin or never started it were put on either aspirin or clopidogrel. Seventy-six percent of the patients assigned to aspirin took the medicine for the entire study period, while 70% of those who stopped taking aspirin or never started it were either switched to or stayed on warfarin.
INR values. Patients on warfarin had INR values between 2.0 and 3.0 for 67% of the time, below range for 19%, of the time, and above range for 14% of the time. Twenty-two percent of practices had all components of INR monitoring done at the hospital (phlebotomy, INR analysis, and warfarin dosing), 19% of the practices completed all 3 components on site, and the remaining practices had various combinations of onsite and hospital monitoring.
The primary outcomes included disabling stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) or clinically significant arterial embolism. There were 24 primary events (1.8% per year) in patients assigned to warfarin compared with 48 primary events (3.8% per year) in those assigned to aspirin, with a relative risk of 0.48 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28–0.80 (TABLE). The number needed to treat for 1 year to prevent 1 primary event was 50, when warfarin was compared to aspirin. Warfarin was superior to aspirin in all subgroup analyses, including patients over 85 years old.
Secondary outcomes. There were no significant differences between the warfarin and aspirin groups in the secondary outcomes: hospital admission or death as a result of a non-stroke vascular event (6.1% risk per year with warfarin vs 6.3% risk per year with aspirin), all-cause mortality (8.0% vs 8.4%), and major extracranial hemorrhage (1.4% vs 1.6%). Patients assigned to warfarin, including the subgroup of patients older than 85, did not have an increased risk of a major hemorrhage when compared with those assigned to aspirin (1.9% risk per year with warfarin vs 2.0% risk per year with aspirin; relative risk=0.96; 95% CI, 0.53–1.75).1
TABLE
BAFTA study: Warfarin was as safe as aspirin and more effective in preventing stroke in the elderly
WARFARIN (488 patients) | ASPIRIN (485 patients) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PRIMARY EVENTS | Total events | Risk per year | Total events | Risk per year | WARFARIN VA ASPIRIN |
Stroke | 21 | 1.6% | 44 | 3.4% | RR=0.46 (95% CI, 0.26–0.79) P=.003 |
Stroke, other intracranial hemorrhage, or systemic embolism | 24 | 1.8% | 48 | 3.8% | RR=0.48 (95% CI, 0.28–0.80) P=.003 |
RR, relative risk; CI, confidence interval. | |||||
Source: Mant J, Hobbs FD, Fletcher K et al. Warfarin versus aspirin for stroke prevention in an elderly community population with atrial fibrillation (the Birmingham Atrial Fibrillation Treatment of the Aged Study, BAFTA): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;370:493-503. |
What’s new?: Age alone does not preclude warfarin
The key finding from the BAFTA study is that advanced age alone is not a contraindication to the use of warfarin for stroke prevention in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation.
This is the first randomized controlled trial of warfarin for atrial fibrillation that included only patients ages 75 and older, conducted in a primary care setting.5
Limitations of earlier studies. The most recent meta-analysis of antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation included 29 trials with 28,044 patients. This analysis concluded that although both warfarin and aspirin are effective in reducing the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (warfarin by 60% and aspirin by 20%), warfarin was more effective than aspirin (relative risk reduction of 39%), with very small (≤0.3% per year) absolute increases in major extracranial hemorrhage.
The average age of patients in those trials, however, was 71. The authors identified the lack of data on older patients (who are at higher risk for serious bleeding events) as a limitation of the meta-analysis. Many of these trials took place in settings with closer monitoring of INR and warfarin dosing than is customary in a primary care setting.5
Caveats: Consider the evidence on benefits and risks
Major bleeding from warfarin is a concern, especially in the elderly. A recent cohort study6 (summarized as a POEM in this journal7) reported high rates of major bleeding (13.1 per hundred person-years or 13.1%) in patients ≥80 years of age during their first year of warfarin therapy. Despite the high risk of bleeding events in this cohort study, there was considerable benefit from warfarin therapy.
None of the patients who remained on warfarin had a thrombotic stroke (personal communication with Dr Hylek by the author). The expected rate of thrombotic stroke is in the range of 5% to 6% per year in this high-risk group.
Furthermore, most of the bleeding events were gastrointestinal and did not lead to catastrophic outcomes.
Do not add warfarin to aspirin in patients >75 years
Dr Hylek also noted that 40% of the patients in their cohort study were taking both warfarin and aspirin, and, although her study did not have sufficient power to detect a difference, prior studies noted increased risk of bleeding with this combination compared to warfarin alone.8,9 For this reason we think the combination of warfarin and aspirin should be avoided in patients over 75.
Target INR <3
Our caveat is the same as the POEM author’s conclusion:7 Patients over 80 should be carefully monitored to keep the INR below 3.0 or for signs of bleeding, especially in the first 90 days of therapy when bleeding is more likely to occur.
A final point that the BAFTA authors make, which is worth repeating here, is that the prior studies showing an increased risk of bleeding complications had INR target rates of 4 to 5, whereas the target in this study was 2 to 3. Two previous studies that also compared aspirin to warfarin with an INR goal of 2 to 3 similarly showed no difference in major bleeding between the 2 groups.10,11
Challenges to Implementation: Meticulous monitoring, patient education
- Managing warfarin therapy requires meticulous care to avoid complications and optimize treatment effect.
- Patients may be reluctant to take warfarin because they may fear bleeding.
- Patients who do agree to take warfarin need education about possible medication interactions, the need for regular INR monitoring, dosage changes, and dietary issues (eg, maintaining a consistent intake of foods containing vitamin K).
Contraindications
Contraindications to the use of warfarin include hypersensitivity to warfarin, severe hepatic disease, alcoholism, recent trauma or surgery, history of falling or significant risk of falls, and active gastrointestinal, respiratory, or genitourinary bleeding.
INR testing systems
Several randomized trials support the use of monitoring systems such as a pharmacist managed anticoagulation service or decision support software, both of which can improve the percentage of patients with therapeutic INR values.12,13
Using point-of-care INR tests in the office provides immediate results which allow for more timely adjustments of warfarin dose.14
PURLs methodology
This study was selected and evaluated using the Family Physician Inquiries Network’s Priority Updates from the Research Literature Surveillance System (PURLs) methodology. The criteria and findings leading to the selection of this study as a PURL can be accessed here.
1. Mant J, Hobbs FD, Fletcher K, et al. Warfarin versus aspirin for stroke prevention in an elderly community population with atrial fibrillation (the Birmingham Atrial Fibrillation Treatment of the Aged Study, BAFTA): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;370:493-503.
2. Singer DE, Albers GW, Dalen JE, et al. Antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation: The seventh ACCP (American College of Chest Physicians) conference on antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy. Chest 2004;126:429S-456S.
3. Fuster V, Rydén LE, Cannom DS, et al. ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation—executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2001 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation). J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48:854-906.
4. Go AS, Hylek EM, Borowsky LH, et al. Warfarin use among ambulatory patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: The Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation (ATRIA) study. Ann Intern Med 1999;131:927.-
5. Hart RG, Pearce LA, Aguilar MI. Meta-analysis: Antithrombotic therapy to prevent stroke in patients who have non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Ann Intern Med 2007;146:857-867.
6. Hylek EM, Evans-Molina C, Shea C, et al. Major hemorrhage and tolerability of warfarin in the first year of therapy among elderly patients with atrial fibrillation. Circulation 2007;115:2689-2696.
7. POEM: Bleeding risk with warfarin is high among the elderly. J Fam Pract 2007;6:709.-
8. Garcia D, Hylek E. Stroke prevention in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation. Lancet 2007;370:460-461.
9. Perez-Gomez F, Alegria E, Bejon J, et al. Comparative effects of antiplatelet, anticoagulant, or combined therapy in patients with valvular and non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a randomized multicenter study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44:1557-1556.
10. Rash A, Downes T, Portner R, et al. A randomized controlled trial of warfarin versus aspirin for stroke preventions in octogenarians with atrial fibrillation (WASPO). Age Ageing 2007;36:151-156.
11. Gullov AL, Koeford BG, Petersen P, et al. Fixed minidose warfarin and aspirin alone and in combination vs adjusted-dose warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Arch Intern Med 1998;158:1513-1521.
12. Witt DM, Sadler MA, Shanahan RL, et al. Effect of a centralized clinical pharmacy anticoagulation service on outcomes of anticoagulation therapy. Chest 2005;127:1515-1522.
13. Wurster M, Doran T. Anticoagulation management: a new approach. Disease Management 2006;9:201-209.
14. Dorfman DM, Goonan EM, Boutilier MK, et al. Point-of-care (POC) versus central laboratory instrumentation for monitoring oral anticoagulation. Vasc Med 2005;10:23-27.
Warfarin is as safe as aspirin and more effective for stroke prevention in elders with atrial fibrillation
Strength of recommendation (SOR)
A: Well-designed randomized controlled trial of elderly patients in the primary care setting, consistent with findings from prior RCTs
Mant et al. Warfarin versus aspirin for stroke prevention in an elderly community population with atrial fibrillation (the Birmingham Atrial Fibrillation Treatment of the Aged Study [BAFTA]): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;370:493–503.1
Illustrative Case
An 85-year-old woman with hypertension and chronic atrial fibrillation has transferred her care to you. She takes an aspirin a day for cardiovascular prevention. You know that warfarin is better than aspirin for preventing stroke but worry about the increased risk of bleeding with warfarin.
Should you recommend that she stay on aspirin or switch to warfarin?
Background: BAFTA: A realistic study
We have been reluctant to use warfarin in elders with atrial fibrillation for good reason: risk of hemorrhage. Since there are few trials looking at use of warfarin among elders in primary care settings, we are uncertain about the balance of benefits and harms.
The BAFTA study1 is the first trial to compare outcomes of warfarin vs aspirin in elders specifically, in the less-than-ideal conditions of real life.
Guidelines mirror uncertainties
This uncertainty is reflected even in guidelines for anticoagulation in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation.
- The 2004 American College of Chest Physicians Seventh Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy recommends treating all patients with atrial fibrillation and high risk of stroke with warfarin. Their definition of high-risk includes any patient with 1 or more of the following risk factors: age >75 years, prior ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack or systemic embolism, congestive heart failure, impaired left ventricular systolic function, hypertension, or diabetes mellitus.2
- In contrast, the 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and European Society of Cardiology, are more conservative. They recommend that patients with more than 1 risk factor take warfarin, and patients with only 1 risk factor (for example, a patient older than 75 years of age with no other risk factors) take either warfarin or aspirin.3
Clinical context: Reasonable concerns
Fewer than half of the 10% to 12% of people older than 75 with atrial fibrillation are taking warfarin for stroke prevention. In one study, only 35% of patients 85 years and older with no known contraindication to anticoagulation received warfarin.4 Possible reasons for this low rate include:
- cost of monitoring warfarin
- concerns about compliance
- increased risk of hemorrhage
- prior studies focused on younger patients, in closely monitored settings.
These factors lead us to speculate that many physicians believe that the risks of warfarin in elderly patients in primary care settings outweigh any potential benefit.
We think this study demonstrates that we should seriously discuss and consider warfarin therapy for most of our elderly patients with atrial fibrillation.
The key finding from the BAFTA study is that advanced age alone is not a contraindication to the use of warfarin for stroke prevention in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation
Study summary: Primary care setting, elders only
This prospective randomized open-label trial was designed to test the effectiveness and safety of warfarin vs aspirin in the elderly, in a realistic primary care setting. The study compared the frequency of stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and other significant arterial embolism in patients taking either warfarin or aspirin.
Inclusion criteria. Patients were at least 75 years old (average 81.5 years) with an ECG within the previous 2 years showing atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter. Seventy percent of the patients had been previously diagnosed with atrial fibrillation and 30% were identified because they had an irregular pulse on exam.
Exclusion criteria included rheumatic heart disease, major nontraumatic hemorrhage in the past 5 years, intracranial hemorrhage, endoscopically proven peptic ulcer disease in the past year, esophageal varices, allergy to either study drug, terminal illness, surgery in past 3 months, blood pressure greater than 180/110 mm Hg, or if the primary physician judged that a patient should either be on warfarin or not, based on risk factors.
Patient characteristics. The patients were recruited from 260 general practices in England and Wales. At baseline, 39% to 40% of the patients were already taking warfarin, 12% to 13% had had a prior stroke, 53% to 55% had hypertension, 13% to 14% had diabetes, 19% to 20% had heart failure, and 10% to 12% had a history of myocardial infarction. Patients were followed for an average of 2.7 years.
Aspirin and warfarin regimens. Patients were assigned to either aspirin at a dose of 75 mg/day or warfarin with a target international normalized ratio (INR) of 2.5 and an acceptable range of 2 to 3. Because the study aimed to reflect a realistic primary care setting, the frequency and method of INR testing was left to the discretion of participating physicians.
Patients who had been taking aspirin or warfarin prior to the study discontinued that medicine if they were assigned to the other treatment. Sixty-seven percent of the patients assigned to warfarin continued this treatment throughout the study, and 78% of those who either stopped taking warfarin or never started it were put on either aspirin or clopidogrel. Seventy-six percent of the patients assigned to aspirin took the medicine for the entire study period, while 70% of those who stopped taking aspirin or never started it were either switched to or stayed on warfarin.
INR values. Patients on warfarin had INR values between 2.0 and 3.0 for 67% of the time, below range for 19%, of the time, and above range for 14% of the time. Twenty-two percent of practices had all components of INR monitoring done at the hospital (phlebotomy, INR analysis, and warfarin dosing), 19% of the practices completed all 3 components on site, and the remaining practices had various combinations of onsite and hospital monitoring.
The primary outcomes included disabling stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) or clinically significant arterial embolism. There were 24 primary events (1.8% per year) in patients assigned to warfarin compared with 48 primary events (3.8% per year) in those assigned to aspirin, with a relative risk of 0.48 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28–0.80 (TABLE). The number needed to treat for 1 year to prevent 1 primary event was 50, when warfarin was compared to aspirin. Warfarin was superior to aspirin in all subgroup analyses, including patients over 85 years old.
Secondary outcomes. There were no significant differences between the warfarin and aspirin groups in the secondary outcomes: hospital admission or death as a result of a non-stroke vascular event (6.1% risk per year with warfarin vs 6.3% risk per year with aspirin), all-cause mortality (8.0% vs 8.4%), and major extracranial hemorrhage (1.4% vs 1.6%). Patients assigned to warfarin, including the subgroup of patients older than 85, did not have an increased risk of a major hemorrhage when compared with those assigned to aspirin (1.9% risk per year with warfarin vs 2.0% risk per year with aspirin; relative risk=0.96; 95% CI, 0.53–1.75).1
TABLE
BAFTA study: Warfarin was as safe as aspirin and more effective in preventing stroke in the elderly
WARFARIN (488 patients) | ASPIRIN (485 patients) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PRIMARY EVENTS | Total events | Risk per year | Total events | Risk per year | WARFARIN VA ASPIRIN |
Stroke | 21 | 1.6% | 44 | 3.4% | RR=0.46 (95% CI, 0.26–0.79) P=.003 |
Stroke, other intracranial hemorrhage, or systemic embolism | 24 | 1.8% | 48 | 3.8% | RR=0.48 (95% CI, 0.28–0.80) P=.003 |
RR, relative risk; CI, confidence interval. | |||||
Source: Mant J, Hobbs FD, Fletcher K et al. Warfarin versus aspirin for stroke prevention in an elderly community population with atrial fibrillation (the Birmingham Atrial Fibrillation Treatment of the Aged Study, BAFTA): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;370:493-503. |
What’s new?: Age alone does not preclude warfarin
The key finding from the BAFTA study is that advanced age alone is not a contraindication to the use of warfarin for stroke prevention in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation.
This is the first randomized controlled trial of warfarin for atrial fibrillation that included only patients ages 75 and older, conducted in a primary care setting.5
Limitations of earlier studies. The most recent meta-analysis of antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation included 29 trials with 28,044 patients. This analysis concluded that although both warfarin and aspirin are effective in reducing the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (warfarin by 60% and aspirin by 20%), warfarin was more effective than aspirin (relative risk reduction of 39%), with very small (≤0.3% per year) absolute increases in major extracranial hemorrhage.
The average age of patients in those trials, however, was 71. The authors identified the lack of data on older patients (who are at higher risk for serious bleeding events) as a limitation of the meta-analysis. Many of these trials took place in settings with closer monitoring of INR and warfarin dosing than is customary in a primary care setting.5
Caveats: Consider the evidence on benefits and risks
Major bleeding from warfarin is a concern, especially in the elderly. A recent cohort study6 (summarized as a POEM in this journal7) reported high rates of major bleeding (13.1 per hundred person-years or 13.1%) in patients ≥80 years of age during their first year of warfarin therapy. Despite the high risk of bleeding events in this cohort study, there was considerable benefit from warfarin therapy.
None of the patients who remained on warfarin had a thrombotic stroke (personal communication with Dr Hylek by the author). The expected rate of thrombotic stroke is in the range of 5% to 6% per year in this high-risk group.
Furthermore, most of the bleeding events were gastrointestinal and did not lead to catastrophic outcomes.
Do not add warfarin to aspirin in patients >75 years
Dr Hylek also noted that 40% of the patients in their cohort study were taking both warfarin and aspirin, and, although her study did not have sufficient power to detect a difference, prior studies noted increased risk of bleeding with this combination compared to warfarin alone.8,9 For this reason we think the combination of warfarin and aspirin should be avoided in patients over 75.
Target INR <3
Our caveat is the same as the POEM author’s conclusion:7 Patients over 80 should be carefully monitored to keep the INR below 3.0 or for signs of bleeding, especially in the first 90 days of therapy when bleeding is more likely to occur.
A final point that the BAFTA authors make, which is worth repeating here, is that the prior studies showing an increased risk of bleeding complications had INR target rates of 4 to 5, whereas the target in this study was 2 to 3. Two previous studies that also compared aspirin to warfarin with an INR goal of 2 to 3 similarly showed no difference in major bleeding between the 2 groups.10,11
Challenges to Implementation: Meticulous monitoring, patient education
- Managing warfarin therapy requires meticulous care to avoid complications and optimize treatment effect.
- Patients may be reluctant to take warfarin because they may fear bleeding.
- Patients who do agree to take warfarin need education about possible medication interactions, the need for regular INR monitoring, dosage changes, and dietary issues (eg, maintaining a consistent intake of foods containing vitamin K).
Contraindications
Contraindications to the use of warfarin include hypersensitivity to warfarin, severe hepatic disease, alcoholism, recent trauma or surgery, history of falling or significant risk of falls, and active gastrointestinal, respiratory, or genitourinary bleeding.
INR testing systems
Several randomized trials support the use of monitoring systems such as a pharmacist managed anticoagulation service or decision support software, both of which can improve the percentage of patients with therapeutic INR values.12,13
Using point-of-care INR tests in the office provides immediate results which allow for more timely adjustments of warfarin dose.14
PURLs methodology
This study was selected and evaluated using the Family Physician Inquiries Network’s Priority Updates from the Research Literature Surveillance System (PURLs) methodology. The criteria and findings leading to the selection of this study as a PURL can be accessed here.
Warfarin is as safe as aspirin and more effective for stroke prevention in elders with atrial fibrillation
Strength of recommendation (SOR)
A: Well-designed randomized controlled trial of elderly patients in the primary care setting, consistent with findings from prior RCTs
Mant et al. Warfarin versus aspirin for stroke prevention in an elderly community population with atrial fibrillation (the Birmingham Atrial Fibrillation Treatment of the Aged Study [BAFTA]): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;370:493–503.1
Illustrative Case
An 85-year-old woman with hypertension and chronic atrial fibrillation has transferred her care to you. She takes an aspirin a day for cardiovascular prevention. You know that warfarin is better than aspirin for preventing stroke but worry about the increased risk of bleeding with warfarin.
Should you recommend that she stay on aspirin or switch to warfarin?
Background: BAFTA: A realistic study
We have been reluctant to use warfarin in elders with atrial fibrillation for good reason: risk of hemorrhage. Since there are few trials looking at use of warfarin among elders in primary care settings, we are uncertain about the balance of benefits and harms.
The BAFTA study1 is the first trial to compare outcomes of warfarin vs aspirin in elders specifically, in the less-than-ideal conditions of real life.
Guidelines mirror uncertainties
This uncertainty is reflected even in guidelines for anticoagulation in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation.
- The 2004 American College of Chest Physicians Seventh Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy recommends treating all patients with atrial fibrillation and high risk of stroke with warfarin. Their definition of high-risk includes any patient with 1 or more of the following risk factors: age >75 years, prior ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack or systemic embolism, congestive heart failure, impaired left ventricular systolic function, hypertension, or diabetes mellitus.2
- In contrast, the 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and European Society of Cardiology, are more conservative. They recommend that patients with more than 1 risk factor take warfarin, and patients with only 1 risk factor (for example, a patient older than 75 years of age with no other risk factors) take either warfarin or aspirin.3
Clinical context: Reasonable concerns
Fewer than half of the 10% to 12% of people older than 75 with atrial fibrillation are taking warfarin for stroke prevention. In one study, only 35% of patients 85 years and older with no known contraindication to anticoagulation received warfarin.4 Possible reasons for this low rate include:
- cost of monitoring warfarin
- concerns about compliance
- increased risk of hemorrhage
- prior studies focused on younger patients, in closely monitored settings.
These factors lead us to speculate that many physicians believe that the risks of warfarin in elderly patients in primary care settings outweigh any potential benefit.
We think this study demonstrates that we should seriously discuss and consider warfarin therapy for most of our elderly patients with atrial fibrillation.
The key finding from the BAFTA study is that advanced age alone is not a contraindication to the use of warfarin for stroke prevention in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation
Study summary: Primary care setting, elders only
This prospective randomized open-label trial was designed to test the effectiveness and safety of warfarin vs aspirin in the elderly, in a realistic primary care setting. The study compared the frequency of stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and other significant arterial embolism in patients taking either warfarin or aspirin.
Inclusion criteria. Patients were at least 75 years old (average 81.5 years) with an ECG within the previous 2 years showing atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter. Seventy percent of the patients had been previously diagnosed with atrial fibrillation and 30% were identified because they had an irregular pulse on exam.
Exclusion criteria included rheumatic heart disease, major nontraumatic hemorrhage in the past 5 years, intracranial hemorrhage, endoscopically proven peptic ulcer disease in the past year, esophageal varices, allergy to either study drug, terminal illness, surgery in past 3 months, blood pressure greater than 180/110 mm Hg, or if the primary physician judged that a patient should either be on warfarin or not, based on risk factors.
Patient characteristics. The patients were recruited from 260 general practices in England and Wales. At baseline, 39% to 40% of the patients were already taking warfarin, 12% to 13% had had a prior stroke, 53% to 55% had hypertension, 13% to 14% had diabetes, 19% to 20% had heart failure, and 10% to 12% had a history of myocardial infarction. Patients were followed for an average of 2.7 years.
Aspirin and warfarin regimens. Patients were assigned to either aspirin at a dose of 75 mg/day or warfarin with a target international normalized ratio (INR) of 2.5 and an acceptable range of 2 to 3. Because the study aimed to reflect a realistic primary care setting, the frequency and method of INR testing was left to the discretion of participating physicians.
Patients who had been taking aspirin or warfarin prior to the study discontinued that medicine if they were assigned to the other treatment. Sixty-seven percent of the patients assigned to warfarin continued this treatment throughout the study, and 78% of those who either stopped taking warfarin or never started it were put on either aspirin or clopidogrel. Seventy-six percent of the patients assigned to aspirin took the medicine for the entire study period, while 70% of those who stopped taking aspirin or never started it were either switched to or stayed on warfarin.
INR values. Patients on warfarin had INR values between 2.0 and 3.0 for 67% of the time, below range for 19%, of the time, and above range for 14% of the time. Twenty-two percent of practices had all components of INR monitoring done at the hospital (phlebotomy, INR analysis, and warfarin dosing), 19% of the practices completed all 3 components on site, and the remaining practices had various combinations of onsite and hospital monitoring.
The primary outcomes included disabling stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) or clinically significant arterial embolism. There were 24 primary events (1.8% per year) in patients assigned to warfarin compared with 48 primary events (3.8% per year) in those assigned to aspirin, with a relative risk of 0.48 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28–0.80 (TABLE). The number needed to treat for 1 year to prevent 1 primary event was 50, when warfarin was compared to aspirin. Warfarin was superior to aspirin in all subgroup analyses, including patients over 85 years old.
Secondary outcomes. There were no significant differences between the warfarin and aspirin groups in the secondary outcomes: hospital admission or death as a result of a non-stroke vascular event (6.1% risk per year with warfarin vs 6.3% risk per year with aspirin), all-cause mortality (8.0% vs 8.4%), and major extracranial hemorrhage (1.4% vs 1.6%). Patients assigned to warfarin, including the subgroup of patients older than 85, did not have an increased risk of a major hemorrhage when compared with those assigned to aspirin (1.9% risk per year with warfarin vs 2.0% risk per year with aspirin; relative risk=0.96; 95% CI, 0.53–1.75).1
TABLE
BAFTA study: Warfarin was as safe as aspirin and more effective in preventing stroke in the elderly
WARFARIN (488 patients) | ASPIRIN (485 patients) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PRIMARY EVENTS | Total events | Risk per year | Total events | Risk per year | WARFARIN VA ASPIRIN |
Stroke | 21 | 1.6% | 44 | 3.4% | RR=0.46 (95% CI, 0.26–0.79) P=.003 |
Stroke, other intracranial hemorrhage, or systemic embolism | 24 | 1.8% | 48 | 3.8% | RR=0.48 (95% CI, 0.28–0.80) P=.003 |
RR, relative risk; CI, confidence interval. | |||||
Source: Mant J, Hobbs FD, Fletcher K et al. Warfarin versus aspirin for stroke prevention in an elderly community population with atrial fibrillation (the Birmingham Atrial Fibrillation Treatment of the Aged Study, BAFTA): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;370:493-503. |
What’s new?: Age alone does not preclude warfarin
The key finding from the BAFTA study is that advanced age alone is not a contraindication to the use of warfarin for stroke prevention in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation.
This is the first randomized controlled trial of warfarin for atrial fibrillation that included only patients ages 75 and older, conducted in a primary care setting.5
Limitations of earlier studies. The most recent meta-analysis of antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation included 29 trials with 28,044 patients. This analysis concluded that although both warfarin and aspirin are effective in reducing the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (warfarin by 60% and aspirin by 20%), warfarin was more effective than aspirin (relative risk reduction of 39%), with very small (≤0.3% per year) absolute increases in major extracranial hemorrhage.
The average age of patients in those trials, however, was 71. The authors identified the lack of data on older patients (who are at higher risk for serious bleeding events) as a limitation of the meta-analysis. Many of these trials took place in settings with closer monitoring of INR and warfarin dosing than is customary in a primary care setting.5
Caveats: Consider the evidence on benefits and risks
Major bleeding from warfarin is a concern, especially in the elderly. A recent cohort study6 (summarized as a POEM in this journal7) reported high rates of major bleeding (13.1 per hundred person-years or 13.1%) in patients ≥80 years of age during their first year of warfarin therapy. Despite the high risk of bleeding events in this cohort study, there was considerable benefit from warfarin therapy.
None of the patients who remained on warfarin had a thrombotic stroke (personal communication with Dr Hylek by the author). The expected rate of thrombotic stroke is in the range of 5% to 6% per year in this high-risk group.
Furthermore, most of the bleeding events were gastrointestinal and did not lead to catastrophic outcomes.
Do not add warfarin to aspirin in patients >75 years
Dr Hylek also noted that 40% of the patients in their cohort study were taking both warfarin and aspirin, and, although her study did not have sufficient power to detect a difference, prior studies noted increased risk of bleeding with this combination compared to warfarin alone.8,9 For this reason we think the combination of warfarin and aspirin should be avoided in patients over 75.
Target INR <3
Our caveat is the same as the POEM author’s conclusion:7 Patients over 80 should be carefully monitored to keep the INR below 3.0 or for signs of bleeding, especially in the first 90 days of therapy when bleeding is more likely to occur.
A final point that the BAFTA authors make, which is worth repeating here, is that the prior studies showing an increased risk of bleeding complications had INR target rates of 4 to 5, whereas the target in this study was 2 to 3. Two previous studies that also compared aspirin to warfarin with an INR goal of 2 to 3 similarly showed no difference in major bleeding between the 2 groups.10,11
Challenges to Implementation: Meticulous monitoring, patient education
- Managing warfarin therapy requires meticulous care to avoid complications and optimize treatment effect.
- Patients may be reluctant to take warfarin because they may fear bleeding.
- Patients who do agree to take warfarin need education about possible medication interactions, the need for regular INR monitoring, dosage changes, and dietary issues (eg, maintaining a consistent intake of foods containing vitamin K).
Contraindications
Contraindications to the use of warfarin include hypersensitivity to warfarin, severe hepatic disease, alcoholism, recent trauma or surgery, history of falling or significant risk of falls, and active gastrointestinal, respiratory, or genitourinary bleeding.
INR testing systems
Several randomized trials support the use of monitoring systems such as a pharmacist managed anticoagulation service or decision support software, both of which can improve the percentage of patients with therapeutic INR values.12,13
Using point-of-care INR tests in the office provides immediate results which allow for more timely adjustments of warfarin dose.14
PURLs methodology
This study was selected and evaluated using the Family Physician Inquiries Network’s Priority Updates from the Research Literature Surveillance System (PURLs) methodology. The criteria and findings leading to the selection of this study as a PURL can be accessed here.
1. Mant J, Hobbs FD, Fletcher K, et al. Warfarin versus aspirin for stroke prevention in an elderly community population with atrial fibrillation (the Birmingham Atrial Fibrillation Treatment of the Aged Study, BAFTA): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;370:493-503.
2. Singer DE, Albers GW, Dalen JE, et al. Antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation: The seventh ACCP (American College of Chest Physicians) conference on antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy. Chest 2004;126:429S-456S.
3. Fuster V, Rydén LE, Cannom DS, et al. ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation—executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2001 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation). J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48:854-906.
4. Go AS, Hylek EM, Borowsky LH, et al. Warfarin use among ambulatory patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: The Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation (ATRIA) study. Ann Intern Med 1999;131:927.-
5. Hart RG, Pearce LA, Aguilar MI. Meta-analysis: Antithrombotic therapy to prevent stroke in patients who have non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Ann Intern Med 2007;146:857-867.
6. Hylek EM, Evans-Molina C, Shea C, et al. Major hemorrhage and tolerability of warfarin in the first year of therapy among elderly patients with atrial fibrillation. Circulation 2007;115:2689-2696.
7. POEM: Bleeding risk with warfarin is high among the elderly. J Fam Pract 2007;6:709.-
8. Garcia D, Hylek E. Stroke prevention in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation. Lancet 2007;370:460-461.
9. Perez-Gomez F, Alegria E, Bejon J, et al. Comparative effects of antiplatelet, anticoagulant, or combined therapy in patients with valvular and non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a randomized multicenter study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44:1557-1556.
10. Rash A, Downes T, Portner R, et al. A randomized controlled trial of warfarin versus aspirin for stroke preventions in octogenarians with atrial fibrillation (WASPO). Age Ageing 2007;36:151-156.
11. Gullov AL, Koeford BG, Petersen P, et al. Fixed minidose warfarin and aspirin alone and in combination vs adjusted-dose warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Arch Intern Med 1998;158:1513-1521.
12. Witt DM, Sadler MA, Shanahan RL, et al. Effect of a centralized clinical pharmacy anticoagulation service on outcomes of anticoagulation therapy. Chest 2005;127:1515-1522.
13. Wurster M, Doran T. Anticoagulation management: a new approach. Disease Management 2006;9:201-209.
14. Dorfman DM, Goonan EM, Boutilier MK, et al. Point-of-care (POC) versus central laboratory instrumentation for monitoring oral anticoagulation. Vasc Med 2005;10:23-27.
1. Mant J, Hobbs FD, Fletcher K, et al. Warfarin versus aspirin for stroke prevention in an elderly community population with atrial fibrillation (the Birmingham Atrial Fibrillation Treatment of the Aged Study, BAFTA): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;370:493-503.
2. Singer DE, Albers GW, Dalen JE, et al. Antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation: The seventh ACCP (American College of Chest Physicians) conference on antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy. Chest 2004;126:429S-456S.
3. Fuster V, Rydén LE, Cannom DS, et al. ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation—executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2001 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation). J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48:854-906.
4. Go AS, Hylek EM, Borowsky LH, et al. Warfarin use among ambulatory patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: The Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation (ATRIA) study. Ann Intern Med 1999;131:927.-
5. Hart RG, Pearce LA, Aguilar MI. Meta-analysis: Antithrombotic therapy to prevent stroke in patients who have non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Ann Intern Med 2007;146:857-867.
6. Hylek EM, Evans-Molina C, Shea C, et al. Major hemorrhage and tolerability of warfarin in the first year of therapy among elderly patients with atrial fibrillation. Circulation 2007;115:2689-2696.
7. POEM: Bleeding risk with warfarin is high among the elderly. J Fam Pract 2007;6:709.-
8. Garcia D, Hylek E. Stroke prevention in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation. Lancet 2007;370:460-461.
9. Perez-Gomez F, Alegria E, Bejon J, et al. Comparative effects of antiplatelet, anticoagulant, or combined therapy in patients with valvular and non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a randomized multicenter study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44:1557-1556.
10. Rash A, Downes T, Portner R, et al. A randomized controlled trial of warfarin versus aspirin for stroke preventions in octogenarians with atrial fibrillation (WASPO). Age Ageing 2007;36:151-156.
11. Gullov AL, Koeford BG, Petersen P, et al. Fixed minidose warfarin and aspirin alone and in combination vs adjusted-dose warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Arch Intern Med 1998;158:1513-1521.
12. Witt DM, Sadler MA, Shanahan RL, et al. Effect of a centralized clinical pharmacy anticoagulation service on outcomes of anticoagulation therapy. Chest 2005;127:1515-1522.
13. Wurster M, Doran T. Anticoagulation management: a new approach. Disease Management 2006;9:201-209.
14. Dorfman DM, Goonan EM, Boutilier MK, et al. Point-of-care (POC) versus central laboratory instrumentation for monitoring oral anticoagulation. Vasc Med 2005;10:23-27.
Copyright © 2007 The Family Physicians Inquiries Network.
All rights reserved.
How can you improve vaccination rates among older African Americans?
- Recommend the flu shot and make it convenient to get vaccinated.
- Tell your patients that the flu is a serious illness and that they may be susceptible, even if they haven’t had it before. reinforce the idea that they should practice good hygiene, such as washing their hands regularly.
- Tell patients that the flu shot is safe; it will not give them the flu or interact with any of their medications.
- Give patients printed materials. excellent resources are available through the CDC (www.cdc.gov/flu) or the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (www3.niaid.nih.gov).
Purpose Adults 65 and older are at greatest risk for complications and death from influenza, yet one third of those at risk do not receive the influenza vaccine; African American vaccination rates are even lower. This study explored older African Americans’ concerns about getting the flu vaccine and vaccine providers’ level of awareness of these concerns.
Methods Focus groups and in-depth interviews were conducted among African Americans who were 50 years of age and older, and vaccine providers.
Results Older African Americans’ fear of getting the flu from vaccination was widespread, as were concerns about vaccine interaction with medications and allergic reactions. older African Americans also doubted the vaccine’s effectiveness, and distrusted both the vaccine and the healthcare system. For their part, providers understood patients’ concerns and recognized that fear of illness caused by the shot was a major issue. They did not, however, recognize the importance of asking about, and discussing, patients’ fears of allergies and medication interactions when administering the vaccine.
Conclusions In order to improve vaccination rates among older African Americans, health care providers would be wise to take the time to discuss the vaccine and address vaccine efficacy, safety, side effects, and drug interactions.
Why are older African Americans less likely than whites to get a flu vaccination? Despite the existence of an effective flu vaccine, usage rates still remain low: 66% on average,1 and are even lower among minority groups.2 One survey found only 47% of older African Americans were vaccinated against the flu.3
These disparities are not easily explained. Even when controlling for increased risk, age distribution, perceived health status, family size and marital status, poverty level, education, and access to medical care and health insurance, African Americans are still less likely than whites to get vaccinated.3,4
In light of this disparity, we explored barriers to flu vaccination among this population, including concerns over safety and adverse events, and the role that health care providers can play in overcoming these issues.
What are the barriers?
Structural factors, such as having access to a location that provides vaccinations,5 and social factors, such as believing that others support vaccination,6 increase vaccination rates. Vaccination increases with age5,7 and is more likely in those who have previously been vaccinated.8
People who believe they aren’t susceptible to a disease are less likely to get vaccinated.9,10 Fear of side effects is also a significant barrier.2,6,7,11,12 Fear of illness from the vaccine is often cited by both white and African American Medicare patients, older adults, and most notably by older African Americans.2,5,12 African Americans and other minority groups are less likely to accept the vaccine as safe.13
A physician’s recommendation to get the flu vaccine appears to motivate patients in risk groups to get vaccinated,6,7,12 and is a significant determinant of vaccine acceptance in surveys of older Americans, high-risk patients, and older African Americans in particular.6,12
Methods
Focus groups and interviews
The study team conducted qualitative formative research with 2 pertinent audiences: African American adults (hereafter, “public participants”) and clinicians who administer the flu vaccine (hereafter, “providers”). The Saint Louis University Institutional Review Board approved the research.
We recruited older African American public participants through local community contacts, and screened to identify those ambivalent about getting a flu shot. A trained moderator then conducted focus groups and interviews with those who were ambivalent about the flu shot to assess their knowledge, beliefs, norms, and intentions related to vaccination.
We also recruited vaccine providers by calling local hospitals, doctors’ offices, health departments, and clinics that serve African Americans. To identify providers’ perceptions of patients’ concerns, we carried out interviews at the clinicians’ place of business or in a university conference room; a focus group was conducted at a community clinic.
All focus groups and interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. In pairs, research team members (all authors except for HJ) coded each of the transcripts independently, reviewed and discussed their codes, and then came to agreement on the final codes. Coded transcripts were entered into Atlas.ti (Atlas.ti GmbH, Berlin, Germany), a qualitative data analysis software program, and were analyzed with summary reports drafted for each focus group and interview. Findings were then synthesized across groups and interviews, and across segments.
Results
Description of participants
Four focus groups (N=35) and 8 in-depth interviews were conducted with the public participants—African American adults ages 50 and over. As shown in the TABLE, most participants were female, had children, had less than a college degree, and earned less than $30,000 a year. Widows and widowers made up the largest percentage of participants.
One focus group (N=9) and 5 interviews were conducted with vaccine providers—professionals working in clinics that offered the flu vaccine and served African Americans—for a total sample of 14. As the providers were sampled according to their professional affiliation, demographics were not systematically recorded. These informants were nurses, physicians’ assistants, and vaccination program administrators.
TABLE
4 focus groups and 8 interviews included 43 public participants*
VARIABLE | FOCUS GROUPS (N=35) | INTERVIEWS (N=8) |
---|---|---|
Age | ||
50–55 | 9 (26%) | 3 (38%) |
56–60 | 5 (14%) | 1 (12%) |
61–65 | 4 (11%) | — |
66–70 | 4 (11%) | — |
71–75 | 3 (9%) | 1 (12%) |
76–80 | — | — |
81–85 | 1 (3%) | 2 (25%) |
86 and older | 1 (3%) | 1 (12%) |
Gender | ||
Male | 6 (17%) | 2 (25%) |
Female | 29 (83%) | 6 (75%) |
Education | ||
Less than high school | 4 (11%) | 1 (12%) |
Some high school | 7 (20%) | 1 (12%) |
High school diploma/GED | 7 (20%) | 1 (12%) |
Some college | 9 (26%) | 4 (50%) |
College degree | 5 (14%) | 1 (12%) |
Graduate degree | 2 (6%) | — |
Marital status | ||
Single | 9 (26%) | 4 (50%) |
Married/living with partner | 4 (11%) | 1 (12%) |
Divorced or separated | 4 (11%) | — |
Widowed | 17 (49%) | 3 (38%) |
Children | ||
Yes | 33 (94%) | 6 (75%) |
No | 1 (3%) | 2 (25%) |
Family income | ||
Less than $10,000 | 13 (37%) | 3 (37%) |
$10,000–$19,999 | 8 (23%) | 3 (37%) |
$20,000–$29,999 | 3 (9%) | 1 (12%) |
$30,000–$39,999 | — — | |
$40,000–$49,999 | 3 (9%) | — |
$50,000–$59,999 | 1 (3%) | — |
$60,000–$69,999 | — | — |
$70,000–$79,999 | 1 (3%) | — |
* Not all participants answered all questions |
How patients and clinicians see things differently
Susceptibility. Most public participants were familiar with only a few of the high-risk groups recommended for vaccination. Many participants said that children needed the flu shot, but did not state that those in their 50s were also recommended to get the flu shot. Those never stricken with the flu didn’t consider themselves susceptible. “Because I have never gotten it before…. I get a lot of other things but I don’t get colds and things like that.”
The health care providers identified senior citizens as a high-risk group for influenza because of the high occurrence of comorbid conditions. Providers were especially concerned that seniors who don’t go out much may incorrectly believe they don’t need to get vaccinated.
Severity of the flu. While some of the public participants didn’t see influenza as a deadly disease, others did.
Providers recognized that some members of the public regarded the flu as more of a nuisance then a serious illness and emphasized the need to raise awareness.
Vaccine efficacy. The opinions that the public participants had about the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine varied. Some said it was effective; others believed the vaccine was not effective because they knew they could still get the flu even after being vaccinated. “I know people who got the flu shot and they still got the flu.” Many believed that home remedies, cleanliness, and staying away from others were more effective means of prevention.
Providers believed the vaccine is effective if it matches the correct strain of flu virus. They noted that even if a patient is vaccinated against the wrong strain, flu symptoms will be milder. Providers recognized patient concerns about vaccine efficacy, but none mentioned that it was important to encourage vaccination along with cleanliness and avoidance measures.
Safety and side effects. The most common concern about vaccine safety that the public participants discussed was that the influenza vaccine causes flu illness. Several respondents substantiated this concern with their own experiences, or those of others, where shortly after vaccination a flulike illness resulted. “It gave them the flu. And they were sick for 2 or 3 weeks.”
Another common safety concern was that the vaccine would interact with prescription medications for chronic illnesses. Many public participants also noted that health care providers neglected to discuss the matter. “[M]y reason for not taking the flu shot is because I’m on other medicine and I do have some concerns.… What are you putting in my body?” Some were also concerned about the safety of vaccine components and receiving a tainted vaccine. These participants also mentioned their fear of an allergic reaction to the flu vaccine.
Overall, providers did not have concerns about vaccine safety; however, they understood patients were afraid the influenza vaccine would give them the flu. They felt they should inform patients that full protection from the influenza vaccine takes up to 2 weeks. Providers were also aware that many African Americans who are 50 years of age and older distrust the medical system.
Main reason for vaccination: Doctor’s advice
All of the African American adults agreed that physicians and other health care professionals were important sources of vaccine information. Though initially ambivalent, a majority also reported receiving the vaccine primarily because of recommendations from their doctor. Some noted that providers can do more to encourage vaccination when patients express concerns. “I would have taken it if he had said, ‘I think you should take it.’” The public participants also got vaccine information from family, friends, broadcast media, and print material. They noted that they wanted to see the following in flu vaccination information: the pros and cons of the vaccine, efficacy of the vaccine, how the vaccine reduces flu severity, vaccine safety, and history and background of the vaccine.
Providers noted the importance of: promoting informed decision making, one-on-one communication, using a matriarchal figure to promote vaccination and using the media to promote vaccination. “You would have to have a mother, or a grandmother, or aunt figure because that is usually who is responsible, who takes care of the family.” Providers also pointed out that patients often voice concerns about not having enough information to make informed decisions, and that patients rely on convenience and doctors’ recommendations when deciding about vaccination.
Patients may distrust the system, but they trust their doctor
Our study’s findings from both providers and older African Americans suggest that physicians are the most influential source of information when patients are deciding about flu vaccination. This is true despite the fact that the public makes no secret of its distrust of the medical system and the safety of the vaccine. The African American participants also suggested that physicians do not adequately address patient concerns through discussion and the information they provide.
Providers were concerned that many people do not believe the flu is a severe illness or that they are susceptible. Although the African Americans in the study recognized some high-risk groups, they tended not to consider themselves part of any of those groups.
Doctors didn’t realize that patients fear drug interactions
One of the interesting findings of this study was that armed with the knowledge that the flu shot does not guarantee flu prevention, African American adults were willing to forego the vaccine. This absence of a guarantee also reinforced their beliefs that other prevention methods, such as handwashing and avoidance, are more effective.
Not surprisingly, of course, was the finding that patients continue to avoid the flu shot for fear of getting the flu.2,6 What was a bit surprising was that providers did not recognize that fear of medication reactions (drug interactions and allergic reactions) was also a barrier to flu vaccination. Providers also missed out on an educational opportunity, since many of the African American participants wanted to discuss the possibility of interactions with them.
Limitations of the study
External validity is limited because the findings cannot be generalized to every African American population in the US. The participants made up a non-random convenience sample of older African Americans in a Midwestern city, although the community-based recruitment strategy succeeded in reaching members of a lower income urban population. This study included only those who were ambivalent about the vaccine and who were open to both the pros and cons of vaccination. Project staff minimized possible interviewer bias by using experienced moderators, ensuring the consistent use of moderator guides, and using consensus coding procedures.
Funding
This research was funded by grant #6465 from the National Immunization Program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, via Special Interest Project 11, to the Prevention research Center at the Saint louis University School of Public Health.
Acknowledgments
We thank Katie Duggan at the School of Public Health and edith Gary and Pascale Wortley at the CDC for their support. This article is dedicated to the memory of Joe D. Wray, MD, who suggested it.
Correspondence
Ricardo J. Wray, PhD, Community Health, Saint Louis University School of Public Health, 3545 Lafayette Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63104; wray@slu.edu
US Department of Health and Human Services. Immunization and infectious disease. Progress Report. Healthy People 2010. Available at: www.healthypeople.gov/Document/HTML/Volume1/14Immunization.htm. Accessed on September 28, 2007.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reasons reported by Medicare beneficiaries for not receiving influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations—United States, 1996. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rpt 1999;48:889-890.
3. Marin M, Johanson W, Salas-lopez D. Influenza vaccination among minority populations in the United States. Prev Med 2002;34:236-241.
4. Fiscella K, Franks P, Doescher M, Saver B. Disparities in health care by race, ethnicity, and language among the insured: Findings from a national sample. Med Care 2002;40:52-59.
5. Ludwig-Beymer P, Gerc S. An influenza prevention campaign: The employee perspective. J Nurs Care Qual 2002;16(3):1-12.
6. Zimmerman R, Santibanez T, Janosky J, et al. What affects influenza vaccination rates among older patients? An analysis from inner-city, suburban, rural, and veterans Affairs practice. Am J Med 2003;114:31-38.
7. Nexoe J, Oltarzewska A, Sawicka-Powierza J, Kragstrup J, Kristiansen I. Perception of risk information: Similarities and differences between Danish and Polish general practitioners. Scand J Prim Health Care 2002;20:183-187.
8. Nichol K, Lofgren R, Gapinski J. Influenza vaccination: Knowledge, attitudes, and behavior among high-risk outpatients. Arch Intern Med 1992;152:106-110.
9. Santibanez T, Nowalk M, Zimmerman R, et al. Knowledge and beliefs about influenza, pneumococcal disease, and immunizations among older people. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002;51:1711-1716.
10. Demicheli V, Jefferson T, Rivetti D, Deeks J. Prevention and early treatment of influenza in healthy adults. Vaccine 2000;18:957-1030.
11. Telford R, Rogers A. What influences elderly peoples’ decisions about whether to accept the influenza vaccination? A qualitative study. Health Educ Res 2003;18:743-753.
12. Nicoleau A, Nicoleau C, Balzora J, Oboh A, Siddiqui N, Rosenberg C. Elderly African-Americans and the influenza vaccine: The impact of the primary care physician. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2001;2:56-59.
13. Riddiough M, Willems J, Sanders C, Kemp K. Factors affecting the use of vaccines: Considerations for immunization program planners. Public Health Rep 1981;96:528-535.
14. Steuart G. Social and behavioral change strategies. In: Phillips H, Gaylord S, eds. Aging and Public Health New York, NY: Springer;1985.
- Recommend the flu shot and make it convenient to get vaccinated.
- Tell your patients that the flu is a serious illness and that they may be susceptible, even if they haven’t had it before. reinforce the idea that they should practice good hygiene, such as washing their hands regularly.
- Tell patients that the flu shot is safe; it will not give them the flu or interact with any of their medications.
- Give patients printed materials. excellent resources are available through the CDC (www.cdc.gov/flu) or the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (www3.niaid.nih.gov).
Purpose Adults 65 and older are at greatest risk for complications and death from influenza, yet one third of those at risk do not receive the influenza vaccine; African American vaccination rates are even lower. This study explored older African Americans’ concerns about getting the flu vaccine and vaccine providers’ level of awareness of these concerns.
Methods Focus groups and in-depth interviews were conducted among African Americans who were 50 years of age and older, and vaccine providers.
Results Older African Americans’ fear of getting the flu from vaccination was widespread, as were concerns about vaccine interaction with medications and allergic reactions. older African Americans also doubted the vaccine’s effectiveness, and distrusted both the vaccine and the healthcare system. For their part, providers understood patients’ concerns and recognized that fear of illness caused by the shot was a major issue. They did not, however, recognize the importance of asking about, and discussing, patients’ fears of allergies and medication interactions when administering the vaccine.
Conclusions In order to improve vaccination rates among older African Americans, health care providers would be wise to take the time to discuss the vaccine and address vaccine efficacy, safety, side effects, and drug interactions.
Why are older African Americans less likely than whites to get a flu vaccination? Despite the existence of an effective flu vaccine, usage rates still remain low: 66% on average,1 and are even lower among minority groups.2 One survey found only 47% of older African Americans were vaccinated against the flu.3
These disparities are not easily explained. Even when controlling for increased risk, age distribution, perceived health status, family size and marital status, poverty level, education, and access to medical care and health insurance, African Americans are still less likely than whites to get vaccinated.3,4
In light of this disparity, we explored barriers to flu vaccination among this population, including concerns over safety and adverse events, and the role that health care providers can play in overcoming these issues.
What are the barriers?
Structural factors, such as having access to a location that provides vaccinations,5 and social factors, such as believing that others support vaccination,6 increase vaccination rates. Vaccination increases with age5,7 and is more likely in those who have previously been vaccinated.8
People who believe they aren’t susceptible to a disease are less likely to get vaccinated.9,10 Fear of side effects is also a significant barrier.2,6,7,11,12 Fear of illness from the vaccine is often cited by both white and African American Medicare patients, older adults, and most notably by older African Americans.2,5,12 African Americans and other minority groups are less likely to accept the vaccine as safe.13
A physician’s recommendation to get the flu vaccine appears to motivate patients in risk groups to get vaccinated,6,7,12 and is a significant determinant of vaccine acceptance in surveys of older Americans, high-risk patients, and older African Americans in particular.6,12
Methods
Focus groups and interviews
The study team conducted qualitative formative research with 2 pertinent audiences: African American adults (hereafter, “public participants”) and clinicians who administer the flu vaccine (hereafter, “providers”). The Saint Louis University Institutional Review Board approved the research.
We recruited older African American public participants through local community contacts, and screened to identify those ambivalent about getting a flu shot. A trained moderator then conducted focus groups and interviews with those who were ambivalent about the flu shot to assess their knowledge, beliefs, norms, and intentions related to vaccination.
We also recruited vaccine providers by calling local hospitals, doctors’ offices, health departments, and clinics that serve African Americans. To identify providers’ perceptions of patients’ concerns, we carried out interviews at the clinicians’ place of business or in a university conference room; a focus group was conducted at a community clinic.
All focus groups and interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. In pairs, research team members (all authors except for HJ) coded each of the transcripts independently, reviewed and discussed their codes, and then came to agreement on the final codes. Coded transcripts were entered into Atlas.ti (Atlas.ti GmbH, Berlin, Germany), a qualitative data analysis software program, and were analyzed with summary reports drafted for each focus group and interview. Findings were then synthesized across groups and interviews, and across segments.
Results
Description of participants
Four focus groups (N=35) and 8 in-depth interviews were conducted with the public participants—African American adults ages 50 and over. As shown in the TABLE, most participants were female, had children, had less than a college degree, and earned less than $30,000 a year. Widows and widowers made up the largest percentage of participants.
One focus group (N=9) and 5 interviews were conducted with vaccine providers—professionals working in clinics that offered the flu vaccine and served African Americans—for a total sample of 14. As the providers were sampled according to their professional affiliation, demographics were not systematically recorded. These informants were nurses, physicians’ assistants, and vaccination program administrators.
TABLE
4 focus groups and 8 interviews included 43 public participants*
VARIABLE | FOCUS GROUPS (N=35) | INTERVIEWS (N=8) |
---|---|---|
Age | ||
50–55 | 9 (26%) | 3 (38%) |
56–60 | 5 (14%) | 1 (12%) |
61–65 | 4 (11%) | — |
66–70 | 4 (11%) | — |
71–75 | 3 (9%) | 1 (12%) |
76–80 | — | — |
81–85 | 1 (3%) | 2 (25%) |
86 and older | 1 (3%) | 1 (12%) |
Gender | ||
Male | 6 (17%) | 2 (25%) |
Female | 29 (83%) | 6 (75%) |
Education | ||
Less than high school | 4 (11%) | 1 (12%) |
Some high school | 7 (20%) | 1 (12%) |
High school diploma/GED | 7 (20%) | 1 (12%) |
Some college | 9 (26%) | 4 (50%) |
College degree | 5 (14%) | 1 (12%) |
Graduate degree | 2 (6%) | — |
Marital status | ||
Single | 9 (26%) | 4 (50%) |
Married/living with partner | 4 (11%) | 1 (12%) |
Divorced or separated | 4 (11%) | — |
Widowed | 17 (49%) | 3 (38%) |
Children | ||
Yes | 33 (94%) | 6 (75%) |
No | 1 (3%) | 2 (25%) |
Family income | ||
Less than $10,000 | 13 (37%) | 3 (37%) |
$10,000–$19,999 | 8 (23%) | 3 (37%) |
$20,000–$29,999 | 3 (9%) | 1 (12%) |
$30,000–$39,999 | — — | |
$40,000–$49,999 | 3 (9%) | — |
$50,000–$59,999 | 1 (3%) | — |
$60,000–$69,999 | — | — |
$70,000–$79,999 | 1 (3%) | — |
* Not all participants answered all questions |
How patients and clinicians see things differently
Susceptibility. Most public participants were familiar with only a few of the high-risk groups recommended for vaccination. Many participants said that children needed the flu shot, but did not state that those in their 50s were also recommended to get the flu shot. Those never stricken with the flu didn’t consider themselves susceptible. “Because I have never gotten it before…. I get a lot of other things but I don’t get colds and things like that.”
The health care providers identified senior citizens as a high-risk group for influenza because of the high occurrence of comorbid conditions. Providers were especially concerned that seniors who don’t go out much may incorrectly believe they don’t need to get vaccinated.
Severity of the flu. While some of the public participants didn’t see influenza as a deadly disease, others did.
Providers recognized that some members of the public regarded the flu as more of a nuisance then a serious illness and emphasized the need to raise awareness.
Vaccine efficacy. The opinions that the public participants had about the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine varied. Some said it was effective; others believed the vaccine was not effective because they knew they could still get the flu even after being vaccinated. “I know people who got the flu shot and they still got the flu.” Many believed that home remedies, cleanliness, and staying away from others were more effective means of prevention.
Providers believed the vaccine is effective if it matches the correct strain of flu virus. They noted that even if a patient is vaccinated against the wrong strain, flu symptoms will be milder. Providers recognized patient concerns about vaccine efficacy, but none mentioned that it was important to encourage vaccination along with cleanliness and avoidance measures.
Safety and side effects. The most common concern about vaccine safety that the public participants discussed was that the influenza vaccine causes flu illness. Several respondents substantiated this concern with their own experiences, or those of others, where shortly after vaccination a flulike illness resulted. “It gave them the flu. And they were sick for 2 or 3 weeks.”
Another common safety concern was that the vaccine would interact with prescription medications for chronic illnesses. Many public participants also noted that health care providers neglected to discuss the matter. “[M]y reason for not taking the flu shot is because I’m on other medicine and I do have some concerns.… What are you putting in my body?” Some were also concerned about the safety of vaccine components and receiving a tainted vaccine. These participants also mentioned their fear of an allergic reaction to the flu vaccine.
Overall, providers did not have concerns about vaccine safety; however, they understood patients were afraid the influenza vaccine would give them the flu. They felt they should inform patients that full protection from the influenza vaccine takes up to 2 weeks. Providers were also aware that many African Americans who are 50 years of age and older distrust the medical system.
Main reason for vaccination: Doctor’s advice
All of the African American adults agreed that physicians and other health care professionals were important sources of vaccine information. Though initially ambivalent, a majority also reported receiving the vaccine primarily because of recommendations from their doctor. Some noted that providers can do more to encourage vaccination when patients express concerns. “I would have taken it if he had said, ‘I think you should take it.’” The public participants also got vaccine information from family, friends, broadcast media, and print material. They noted that they wanted to see the following in flu vaccination information: the pros and cons of the vaccine, efficacy of the vaccine, how the vaccine reduces flu severity, vaccine safety, and history and background of the vaccine.
Providers noted the importance of: promoting informed decision making, one-on-one communication, using a matriarchal figure to promote vaccination and using the media to promote vaccination. “You would have to have a mother, or a grandmother, or aunt figure because that is usually who is responsible, who takes care of the family.” Providers also pointed out that patients often voice concerns about not having enough information to make informed decisions, and that patients rely on convenience and doctors’ recommendations when deciding about vaccination.
Patients may distrust the system, but they trust their doctor
Our study’s findings from both providers and older African Americans suggest that physicians are the most influential source of information when patients are deciding about flu vaccination. This is true despite the fact that the public makes no secret of its distrust of the medical system and the safety of the vaccine. The African American participants also suggested that physicians do not adequately address patient concerns through discussion and the information they provide.
Providers were concerned that many people do not believe the flu is a severe illness or that they are susceptible. Although the African Americans in the study recognized some high-risk groups, they tended not to consider themselves part of any of those groups.
Doctors didn’t realize that patients fear drug interactions
One of the interesting findings of this study was that armed with the knowledge that the flu shot does not guarantee flu prevention, African American adults were willing to forego the vaccine. This absence of a guarantee also reinforced their beliefs that other prevention methods, such as handwashing and avoidance, are more effective.
Not surprisingly, of course, was the finding that patients continue to avoid the flu shot for fear of getting the flu.2,6 What was a bit surprising was that providers did not recognize that fear of medication reactions (drug interactions and allergic reactions) was also a barrier to flu vaccination. Providers also missed out on an educational opportunity, since many of the African American participants wanted to discuss the possibility of interactions with them.
Limitations of the study
External validity is limited because the findings cannot be generalized to every African American population in the US. The participants made up a non-random convenience sample of older African Americans in a Midwestern city, although the community-based recruitment strategy succeeded in reaching members of a lower income urban population. This study included only those who were ambivalent about the vaccine and who were open to both the pros and cons of vaccination. Project staff minimized possible interviewer bias by using experienced moderators, ensuring the consistent use of moderator guides, and using consensus coding procedures.
Funding
This research was funded by grant #6465 from the National Immunization Program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, via Special Interest Project 11, to the Prevention research Center at the Saint louis University School of Public Health.
Acknowledgments
We thank Katie Duggan at the School of Public Health and edith Gary and Pascale Wortley at the CDC for their support. This article is dedicated to the memory of Joe D. Wray, MD, who suggested it.
Correspondence
Ricardo J. Wray, PhD, Community Health, Saint Louis University School of Public Health, 3545 Lafayette Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63104; wray@slu.edu
- Recommend the flu shot and make it convenient to get vaccinated.
- Tell your patients that the flu is a serious illness and that they may be susceptible, even if they haven’t had it before. reinforce the idea that they should practice good hygiene, such as washing their hands regularly.
- Tell patients that the flu shot is safe; it will not give them the flu or interact with any of their medications.
- Give patients printed materials. excellent resources are available through the CDC (www.cdc.gov/flu) or the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (www3.niaid.nih.gov).
Purpose Adults 65 and older are at greatest risk for complications and death from influenza, yet one third of those at risk do not receive the influenza vaccine; African American vaccination rates are even lower. This study explored older African Americans’ concerns about getting the flu vaccine and vaccine providers’ level of awareness of these concerns.
Methods Focus groups and in-depth interviews were conducted among African Americans who were 50 years of age and older, and vaccine providers.
Results Older African Americans’ fear of getting the flu from vaccination was widespread, as were concerns about vaccine interaction with medications and allergic reactions. older African Americans also doubted the vaccine’s effectiveness, and distrusted both the vaccine and the healthcare system. For their part, providers understood patients’ concerns and recognized that fear of illness caused by the shot was a major issue. They did not, however, recognize the importance of asking about, and discussing, patients’ fears of allergies and medication interactions when administering the vaccine.
Conclusions In order to improve vaccination rates among older African Americans, health care providers would be wise to take the time to discuss the vaccine and address vaccine efficacy, safety, side effects, and drug interactions.
Why are older African Americans less likely than whites to get a flu vaccination? Despite the existence of an effective flu vaccine, usage rates still remain low: 66% on average,1 and are even lower among minority groups.2 One survey found only 47% of older African Americans were vaccinated against the flu.3
These disparities are not easily explained. Even when controlling for increased risk, age distribution, perceived health status, family size and marital status, poverty level, education, and access to medical care and health insurance, African Americans are still less likely than whites to get vaccinated.3,4
In light of this disparity, we explored barriers to flu vaccination among this population, including concerns over safety and adverse events, and the role that health care providers can play in overcoming these issues.
What are the barriers?
Structural factors, such as having access to a location that provides vaccinations,5 and social factors, such as believing that others support vaccination,6 increase vaccination rates. Vaccination increases with age5,7 and is more likely in those who have previously been vaccinated.8
People who believe they aren’t susceptible to a disease are less likely to get vaccinated.9,10 Fear of side effects is also a significant barrier.2,6,7,11,12 Fear of illness from the vaccine is often cited by both white and African American Medicare patients, older adults, and most notably by older African Americans.2,5,12 African Americans and other minority groups are less likely to accept the vaccine as safe.13
A physician’s recommendation to get the flu vaccine appears to motivate patients in risk groups to get vaccinated,6,7,12 and is a significant determinant of vaccine acceptance in surveys of older Americans, high-risk patients, and older African Americans in particular.6,12
Methods
Focus groups and interviews
The study team conducted qualitative formative research with 2 pertinent audiences: African American adults (hereafter, “public participants”) and clinicians who administer the flu vaccine (hereafter, “providers”). The Saint Louis University Institutional Review Board approved the research.
We recruited older African American public participants through local community contacts, and screened to identify those ambivalent about getting a flu shot. A trained moderator then conducted focus groups and interviews with those who were ambivalent about the flu shot to assess their knowledge, beliefs, norms, and intentions related to vaccination.
We also recruited vaccine providers by calling local hospitals, doctors’ offices, health departments, and clinics that serve African Americans. To identify providers’ perceptions of patients’ concerns, we carried out interviews at the clinicians’ place of business or in a university conference room; a focus group was conducted at a community clinic.
All focus groups and interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. In pairs, research team members (all authors except for HJ) coded each of the transcripts independently, reviewed and discussed their codes, and then came to agreement on the final codes. Coded transcripts were entered into Atlas.ti (Atlas.ti GmbH, Berlin, Germany), a qualitative data analysis software program, and were analyzed with summary reports drafted for each focus group and interview. Findings were then synthesized across groups and interviews, and across segments.
Results
Description of participants
Four focus groups (N=35) and 8 in-depth interviews were conducted with the public participants—African American adults ages 50 and over. As shown in the TABLE, most participants were female, had children, had less than a college degree, and earned less than $30,000 a year. Widows and widowers made up the largest percentage of participants.
One focus group (N=9) and 5 interviews were conducted with vaccine providers—professionals working in clinics that offered the flu vaccine and served African Americans—for a total sample of 14. As the providers were sampled according to their professional affiliation, demographics were not systematically recorded. These informants were nurses, physicians’ assistants, and vaccination program administrators.
TABLE
4 focus groups and 8 interviews included 43 public participants*
VARIABLE | FOCUS GROUPS (N=35) | INTERVIEWS (N=8) |
---|---|---|
Age | ||
50–55 | 9 (26%) | 3 (38%) |
56–60 | 5 (14%) | 1 (12%) |
61–65 | 4 (11%) | — |
66–70 | 4 (11%) | — |
71–75 | 3 (9%) | 1 (12%) |
76–80 | — | — |
81–85 | 1 (3%) | 2 (25%) |
86 and older | 1 (3%) | 1 (12%) |
Gender | ||
Male | 6 (17%) | 2 (25%) |
Female | 29 (83%) | 6 (75%) |
Education | ||
Less than high school | 4 (11%) | 1 (12%) |
Some high school | 7 (20%) | 1 (12%) |
High school diploma/GED | 7 (20%) | 1 (12%) |
Some college | 9 (26%) | 4 (50%) |
College degree | 5 (14%) | 1 (12%) |
Graduate degree | 2 (6%) | — |
Marital status | ||
Single | 9 (26%) | 4 (50%) |
Married/living with partner | 4 (11%) | 1 (12%) |
Divorced or separated | 4 (11%) | — |
Widowed | 17 (49%) | 3 (38%) |
Children | ||
Yes | 33 (94%) | 6 (75%) |
No | 1 (3%) | 2 (25%) |
Family income | ||
Less than $10,000 | 13 (37%) | 3 (37%) |
$10,000–$19,999 | 8 (23%) | 3 (37%) |
$20,000–$29,999 | 3 (9%) | 1 (12%) |
$30,000–$39,999 | — — | |
$40,000–$49,999 | 3 (9%) | — |
$50,000–$59,999 | 1 (3%) | — |
$60,000–$69,999 | — | — |
$70,000–$79,999 | 1 (3%) | — |
* Not all participants answered all questions |
How patients and clinicians see things differently
Susceptibility. Most public participants were familiar with only a few of the high-risk groups recommended for vaccination. Many participants said that children needed the flu shot, but did not state that those in their 50s were also recommended to get the flu shot. Those never stricken with the flu didn’t consider themselves susceptible. “Because I have never gotten it before…. I get a lot of other things but I don’t get colds and things like that.”
The health care providers identified senior citizens as a high-risk group for influenza because of the high occurrence of comorbid conditions. Providers were especially concerned that seniors who don’t go out much may incorrectly believe they don’t need to get vaccinated.
Severity of the flu. While some of the public participants didn’t see influenza as a deadly disease, others did.
Providers recognized that some members of the public regarded the flu as more of a nuisance then a serious illness and emphasized the need to raise awareness.
Vaccine efficacy. The opinions that the public participants had about the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine varied. Some said it was effective; others believed the vaccine was not effective because they knew they could still get the flu even after being vaccinated. “I know people who got the flu shot and they still got the flu.” Many believed that home remedies, cleanliness, and staying away from others were more effective means of prevention.
Providers believed the vaccine is effective if it matches the correct strain of flu virus. They noted that even if a patient is vaccinated against the wrong strain, flu symptoms will be milder. Providers recognized patient concerns about vaccine efficacy, but none mentioned that it was important to encourage vaccination along with cleanliness and avoidance measures.
Safety and side effects. The most common concern about vaccine safety that the public participants discussed was that the influenza vaccine causes flu illness. Several respondents substantiated this concern with their own experiences, or those of others, where shortly after vaccination a flulike illness resulted. “It gave them the flu. And they were sick for 2 or 3 weeks.”
Another common safety concern was that the vaccine would interact with prescription medications for chronic illnesses. Many public participants also noted that health care providers neglected to discuss the matter. “[M]y reason for not taking the flu shot is because I’m on other medicine and I do have some concerns.… What are you putting in my body?” Some were also concerned about the safety of vaccine components and receiving a tainted vaccine. These participants also mentioned their fear of an allergic reaction to the flu vaccine.
Overall, providers did not have concerns about vaccine safety; however, they understood patients were afraid the influenza vaccine would give them the flu. They felt they should inform patients that full protection from the influenza vaccine takes up to 2 weeks. Providers were also aware that many African Americans who are 50 years of age and older distrust the medical system.
Main reason for vaccination: Doctor’s advice
All of the African American adults agreed that physicians and other health care professionals were important sources of vaccine information. Though initially ambivalent, a majority also reported receiving the vaccine primarily because of recommendations from their doctor. Some noted that providers can do more to encourage vaccination when patients express concerns. “I would have taken it if he had said, ‘I think you should take it.’” The public participants also got vaccine information from family, friends, broadcast media, and print material. They noted that they wanted to see the following in flu vaccination information: the pros and cons of the vaccine, efficacy of the vaccine, how the vaccine reduces flu severity, vaccine safety, and history and background of the vaccine.
Providers noted the importance of: promoting informed decision making, one-on-one communication, using a matriarchal figure to promote vaccination and using the media to promote vaccination. “You would have to have a mother, or a grandmother, or aunt figure because that is usually who is responsible, who takes care of the family.” Providers also pointed out that patients often voice concerns about not having enough information to make informed decisions, and that patients rely on convenience and doctors’ recommendations when deciding about vaccination.
Patients may distrust the system, but they trust their doctor
Our study’s findings from both providers and older African Americans suggest that physicians are the most influential source of information when patients are deciding about flu vaccination. This is true despite the fact that the public makes no secret of its distrust of the medical system and the safety of the vaccine. The African American participants also suggested that physicians do not adequately address patient concerns through discussion and the information they provide.
Providers were concerned that many people do not believe the flu is a severe illness or that they are susceptible. Although the African Americans in the study recognized some high-risk groups, they tended not to consider themselves part of any of those groups.
Doctors didn’t realize that patients fear drug interactions
One of the interesting findings of this study was that armed with the knowledge that the flu shot does not guarantee flu prevention, African American adults were willing to forego the vaccine. This absence of a guarantee also reinforced their beliefs that other prevention methods, such as handwashing and avoidance, are more effective.
Not surprisingly, of course, was the finding that patients continue to avoid the flu shot for fear of getting the flu.2,6 What was a bit surprising was that providers did not recognize that fear of medication reactions (drug interactions and allergic reactions) was also a barrier to flu vaccination. Providers also missed out on an educational opportunity, since many of the African American participants wanted to discuss the possibility of interactions with them.
Limitations of the study
External validity is limited because the findings cannot be generalized to every African American population in the US. The participants made up a non-random convenience sample of older African Americans in a Midwestern city, although the community-based recruitment strategy succeeded in reaching members of a lower income urban population. This study included only those who were ambivalent about the vaccine and who were open to both the pros and cons of vaccination. Project staff minimized possible interviewer bias by using experienced moderators, ensuring the consistent use of moderator guides, and using consensus coding procedures.
Funding
This research was funded by grant #6465 from the National Immunization Program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, via Special Interest Project 11, to the Prevention research Center at the Saint louis University School of Public Health.
Acknowledgments
We thank Katie Duggan at the School of Public Health and edith Gary and Pascale Wortley at the CDC for their support. This article is dedicated to the memory of Joe D. Wray, MD, who suggested it.
Correspondence
Ricardo J. Wray, PhD, Community Health, Saint Louis University School of Public Health, 3545 Lafayette Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63104; wray@slu.edu
US Department of Health and Human Services. Immunization and infectious disease. Progress Report. Healthy People 2010. Available at: www.healthypeople.gov/Document/HTML/Volume1/14Immunization.htm. Accessed on September 28, 2007.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reasons reported by Medicare beneficiaries for not receiving influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations—United States, 1996. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rpt 1999;48:889-890.
3. Marin M, Johanson W, Salas-lopez D. Influenza vaccination among minority populations in the United States. Prev Med 2002;34:236-241.
4. Fiscella K, Franks P, Doescher M, Saver B. Disparities in health care by race, ethnicity, and language among the insured: Findings from a national sample. Med Care 2002;40:52-59.
5. Ludwig-Beymer P, Gerc S. An influenza prevention campaign: The employee perspective. J Nurs Care Qual 2002;16(3):1-12.
6. Zimmerman R, Santibanez T, Janosky J, et al. What affects influenza vaccination rates among older patients? An analysis from inner-city, suburban, rural, and veterans Affairs practice. Am J Med 2003;114:31-38.
7. Nexoe J, Oltarzewska A, Sawicka-Powierza J, Kragstrup J, Kristiansen I. Perception of risk information: Similarities and differences between Danish and Polish general practitioners. Scand J Prim Health Care 2002;20:183-187.
8. Nichol K, Lofgren R, Gapinski J. Influenza vaccination: Knowledge, attitudes, and behavior among high-risk outpatients. Arch Intern Med 1992;152:106-110.
9. Santibanez T, Nowalk M, Zimmerman R, et al. Knowledge and beliefs about influenza, pneumococcal disease, and immunizations among older people. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002;51:1711-1716.
10. Demicheli V, Jefferson T, Rivetti D, Deeks J. Prevention and early treatment of influenza in healthy adults. Vaccine 2000;18:957-1030.
11. Telford R, Rogers A. What influences elderly peoples’ decisions about whether to accept the influenza vaccination? A qualitative study. Health Educ Res 2003;18:743-753.
12. Nicoleau A, Nicoleau C, Balzora J, Oboh A, Siddiqui N, Rosenberg C. Elderly African-Americans and the influenza vaccine: The impact of the primary care physician. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2001;2:56-59.
13. Riddiough M, Willems J, Sanders C, Kemp K. Factors affecting the use of vaccines: Considerations for immunization program planners. Public Health Rep 1981;96:528-535.
14. Steuart G. Social and behavioral change strategies. In: Phillips H, Gaylord S, eds. Aging and Public Health New York, NY: Springer;1985.
US Department of Health and Human Services. Immunization and infectious disease. Progress Report. Healthy People 2010. Available at: www.healthypeople.gov/Document/HTML/Volume1/14Immunization.htm. Accessed on September 28, 2007.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reasons reported by Medicare beneficiaries for not receiving influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations—United States, 1996. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rpt 1999;48:889-890.
3. Marin M, Johanson W, Salas-lopez D. Influenza vaccination among minority populations in the United States. Prev Med 2002;34:236-241.
4. Fiscella K, Franks P, Doescher M, Saver B. Disparities in health care by race, ethnicity, and language among the insured: Findings from a national sample. Med Care 2002;40:52-59.
5. Ludwig-Beymer P, Gerc S. An influenza prevention campaign: The employee perspective. J Nurs Care Qual 2002;16(3):1-12.
6. Zimmerman R, Santibanez T, Janosky J, et al. What affects influenza vaccination rates among older patients? An analysis from inner-city, suburban, rural, and veterans Affairs practice. Am J Med 2003;114:31-38.
7. Nexoe J, Oltarzewska A, Sawicka-Powierza J, Kragstrup J, Kristiansen I. Perception of risk information: Similarities and differences between Danish and Polish general practitioners. Scand J Prim Health Care 2002;20:183-187.
8. Nichol K, Lofgren R, Gapinski J. Influenza vaccination: Knowledge, attitudes, and behavior among high-risk outpatients. Arch Intern Med 1992;152:106-110.
9. Santibanez T, Nowalk M, Zimmerman R, et al. Knowledge and beliefs about influenza, pneumococcal disease, and immunizations among older people. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002;51:1711-1716.
10. Demicheli V, Jefferson T, Rivetti D, Deeks J. Prevention and early treatment of influenza in healthy adults. Vaccine 2000;18:957-1030.
11. Telford R, Rogers A. What influences elderly peoples’ decisions about whether to accept the influenza vaccination? A qualitative study. Health Educ Res 2003;18:743-753.
12. Nicoleau A, Nicoleau C, Balzora J, Oboh A, Siddiqui N, Rosenberg C. Elderly African-Americans and the influenza vaccine: The impact of the primary care physician. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2001;2:56-59.
13. Riddiough M, Willems J, Sanders C, Kemp K. Factors affecting the use of vaccines: Considerations for immunization program planners. Public Health Rep 1981;96:528-535.
14. Steuart G. Social and behavioral change strategies. In: Phillips H, Gaylord S, eds. Aging and Public Health New York, NY: Springer;1985.
Book Review
Stolen Kisses (by Emily Osborn)
Poetry, without question, is a tricky thing. For many Americans it is an unapproachable art form that resides in a fortress guarded by elite intellectuals. For the minority of Americans who read it, it is a personal thingtough to define what works for some readers and tougher to understand for most. For the occasional reader of poetry, the favorite poem is usually something that sparks a familiar memory and puts it in perspectivea first love, the sight of the moon rising over a ridge in the mountains in the winter, or the memory of a summer night in youth. For those of us who don't read much poetry, it is the commonality of experience buried in the words speaking to something deep down inside our common existence as humans that tends to attract us to a poemthe I've been there or I've felt that experience.
Although the language in many of the poems in Body Language is striking, what draws in the physician‐reader more than anything else is the commonality of experiences inherent in these works. There are many remarkable landscapes in these poems, from the struggle to understand the intricate detail of the human body in anatomy class to the indelible memories of the patients who are manic or hopelessly depressed during the psychiatry core clerkship. It is mostly all here, the things we have experienced, in the form of poetry, evoking those moments that most of us painfully internalized or stepped around or ignored for lack of time to pay any attention to. For some of us, both the subtle and more profound experiences have become shadows or scars and for many, things we just never understood very well to begin with and try not to think about any more. These are our stories almost as much as they are those of the physician and medical student poets who wrote them. This book brings our experiences back, whether sadly, bluntly, humorously, or subtly, in a way that reminds us of all the things we've been blessed and cursed to see and be part of.
Body Language was the brain child of Neeta Jain, when she was still a medical student at the University of Rochester. She collaborated with another medical student from Yale University, Dagan Coppock, with the support of her University of Rochester faculty adviser, Stephanie Brown Clark. During the waning months of medical school, they solicited submissions from students, residents, and attending physicians from throughout the United States. Out of hundreds of submissions, they chose approximately 90 poems to create this anthology.
Perhaps I am cynical or perhaps I just don't really believe that given the frantic nature of modern medicine, there are many doctors who can devote the time to polishing their poetry in the tradition of William Carlos Williams, a New Jersey general practitioner who practiced before the era of information overload. Williams wrote on a typewriter between patients, during the time we reserve for looking up a question on Up‐to‐Date or answering a 1‐week old e‐mail.
But I was wrong. I came home from work exhausted one evening and picked up the book to discover another world, however familiar that world was. In that world are poems that occasionally jump off the page. Many of these poems were written by serious poets, poets published long before this book came along, and some are written by relative novices. But what unites these poems is the powerthe raw emotionof so many of the experiences described. We're reminded of overwhelming fatigue so harsh one envies the dead or the mundane call to pronounce a patient's death before fading back into the halls of the hospital. It is all here, our experiences in training and in the practice of medicine.
The anthology is divided into 6 sections: medical student, first year; medical student, second year; medical student, clinical years; intern; resident; and attending. It is almost impossible not to find a situation or emotion in a poem in each section that all physicians have experienced at some point in our lives. For example, life that occasionally interjects itself into the mind‐numbing lecture hall of our preclinical years of medical school (Richard M. Berlin):
Medical School Lovers
And for residents, the soft admit in the night (Mindy Shah):
MAO
After reading this book cover to cover, I was not surprised to learn that Garrison Keillor had asked permission to read some of its contents on his radio show. It is great stuff that speaks about many of the things we've been through that we're too tired or too busy or too afraid to stop and ponder over our years of practicing medicine. This anthology is easily worth the $15 it costs, if only because it repays us as a guide through the remarkable landscapes we have known.
Stolen Kisses (by Emily Osborn)
Poetry, without question, is a tricky thing. For many Americans it is an unapproachable art form that resides in a fortress guarded by elite intellectuals. For the minority of Americans who read it, it is a personal thingtough to define what works for some readers and tougher to understand for most. For the occasional reader of poetry, the favorite poem is usually something that sparks a familiar memory and puts it in perspectivea first love, the sight of the moon rising over a ridge in the mountains in the winter, or the memory of a summer night in youth. For those of us who don't read much poetry, it is the commonality of experience buried in the words speaking to something deep down inside our common existence as humans that tends to attract us to a poemthe I've been there or I've felt that experience.
Although the language in many of the poems in Body Language is striking, what draws in the physician‐reader more than anything else is the commonality of experiences inherent in these works. There are many remarkable landscapes in these poems, from the struggle to understand the intricate detail of the human body in anatomy class to the indelible memories of the patients who are manic or hopelessly depressed during the psychiatry core clerkship. It is mostly all here, the things we have experienced, in the form of poetry, evoking those moments that most of us painfully internalized or stepped around or ignored for lack of time to pay any attention to. For some of us, both the subtle and more profound experiences have become shadows or scars and for many, things we just never understood very well to begin with and try not to think about any more. These are our stories almost as much as they are those of the physician and medical student poets who wrote them. This book brings our experiences back, whether sadly, bluntly, humorously, or subtly, in a way that reminds us of all the things we've been blessed and cursed to see and be part of.
Body Language was the brain child of Neeta Jain, when she was still a medical student at the University of Rochester. She collaborated with another medical student from Yale University, Dagan Coppock, with the support of her University of Rochester faculty adviser, Stephanie Brown Clark. During the waning months of medical school, they solicited submissions from students, residents, and attending physicians from throughout the United States. Out of hundreds of submissions, they chose approximately 90 poems to create this anthology.
Perhaps I am cynical or perhaps I just don't really believe that given the frantic nature of modern medicine, there are many doctors who can devote the time to polishing their poetry in the tradition of William Carlos Williams, a New Jersey general practitioner who practiced before the era of information overload. Williams wrote on a typewriter between patients, during the time we reserve for looking up a question on Up‐to‐Date or answering a 1‐week old e‐mail.
But I was wrong. I came home from work exhausted one evening and picked up the book to discover another world, however familiar that world was. In that world are poems that occasionally jump off the page. Many of these poems were written by serious poets, poets published long before this book came along, and some are written by relative novices. But what unites these poems is the powerthe raw emotionof so many of the experiences described. We're reminded of overwhelming fatigue so harsh one envies the dead or the mundane call to pronounce a patient's death before fading back into the halls of the hospital. It is all here, our experiences in training and in the practice of medicine.
The anthology is divided into 6 sections: medical student, first year; medical student, second year; medical student, clinical years; intern; resident; and attending. It is almost impossible not to find a situation or emotion in a poem in each section that all physicians have experienced at some point in our lives. For example, life that occasionally interjects itself into the mind‐numbing lecture hall of our preclinical years of medical school (Richard M. Berlin):
Medical School Lovers
And for residents, the soft admit in the night (Mindy Shah):
MAO
After reading this book cover to cover, I was not surprised to learn that Garrison Keillor had asked permission to read some of its contents on his radio show. It is great stuff that speaks about many of the things we've been through that we're too tired or too busy or too afraid to stop and ponder over our years of practicing medicine. This anthology is easily worth the $15 it costs, if only because it repays us as a guide through the remarkable landscapes we have known.
Stolen Kisses (by Emily Osborn)
Poetry, without question, is a tricky thing. For many Americans it is an unapproachable art form that resides in a fortress guarded by elite intellectuals. For the minority of Americans who read it, it is a personal thingtough to define what works for some readers and tougher to understand for most. For the occasional reader of poetry, the favorite poem is usually something that sparks a familiar memory and puts it in perspectivea first love, the sight of the moon rising over a ridge in the mountains in the winter, or the memory of a summer night in youth. For those of us who don't read much poetry, it is the commonality of experience buried in the words speaking to something deep down inside our common existence as humans that tends to attract us to a poemthe I've been there or I've felt that experience.
Although the language in many of the poems in Body Language is striking, what draws in the physician‐reader more than anything else is the commonality of experiences inherent in these works. There are many remarkable landscapes in these poems, from the struggle to understand the intricate detail of the human body in anatomy class to the indelible memories of the patients who are manic or hopelessly depressed during the psychiatry core clerkship. It is mostly all here, the things we have experienced, in the form of poetry, evoking those moments that most of us painfully internalized or stepped around or ignored for lack of time to pay any attention to. For some of us, both the subtle and more profound experiences have become shadows or scars and for many, things we just never understood very well to begin with and try not to think about any more. These are our stories almost as much as they are those of the physician and medical student poets who wrote them. This book brings our experiences back, whether sadly, bluntly, humorously, or subtly, in a way that reminds us of all the things we've been blessed and cursed to see and be part of.
Body Language was the brain child of Neeta Jain, when she was still a medical student at the University of Rochester. She collaborated with another medical student from Yale University, Dagan Coppock, with the support of her University of Rochester faculty adviser, Stephanie Brown Clark. During the waning months of medical school, they solicited submissions from students, residents, and attending physicians from throughout the United States. Out of hundreds of submissions, they chose approximately 90 poems to create this anthology.
Perhaps I am cynical or perhaps I just don't really believe that given the frantic nature of modern medicine, there are many doctors who can devote the time to polishing their poetry in the tradition of William Carlos Williams, a New Jersey general practitioner who practiced before the era of information overload. Williams wrote on a typewriter between patients, during the time we reserve for looking up a question on Up‐to‐Date or answering a 1‐week old e‐mail.
But I was wrong. I came home from work exhausted one evening and picked up the book to discover another world, however familiar that world was. In that world are poems that occasionally jump off the page. Many of these poems were written by serious poets, poets published long before this book came along, and some are written by relative novices. But what unites these poems is the powerthe raw emotionof so many of the experiences described. We're reminded of overwhelming fatigue so harsh one envies the dead or the mundane call to pronounce a patient's death before fading back into the halls of the hospital. It is all here, our experiences in training and in the practice of medicine.
The anthology is divided into 6 sections: medical student, first year; medical student, second year; medical student, clinical years; intern; resident; and attending. It is almost impossible not to find a situation or emotion in a poem in each section that all physicians have experienced at some point in our lives. For example, life that occasionally interjects itself into the mind‐numbing lecture hall of our preclinical years of medical school (Richard M. Berlin):
Medical School Lovers
And for residents, the soft admit in the night (Mindy Shah):
MAO
After reading this book cover to cover, I was not surprised to learn that Garrison Keillor had asked permission to read some of its contents on his radio show. It is great stuff that speaks about many of the things we've been through that we're too tired or too busy or too afraid to stop and ponder over our years of practicing medicine. This anthology is easily worth the $15 it costs, if only because it repays us as a guide through the remarkable landscapes we have known.
Hospital Discharge Information and Older Patients
Transitions from the acute hospital to other sites of care are critical and potentially dangerous times for patients. Improving coordination of care among health care settings is a major area of emphasis in the Institute of Medicine publication, Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century.1 System factors such as poor information transmission processes, inadequate training of discharging staff, and inadequate time for discharge teaching can prevent patients from having the information they need when being discharged home. Patient factors such as nervousness, home distractions, and poor health literacy further limit the implementation of discharge plans. Misalignment of system and patient factors can result in a bewildered patient with a failed discharge process that subverts the intentions of even the best posthospital plan. Regardless of whether system and/or patient factors underlie the problem, the perception of that bewildered patient is that of receiving inadequate instruction for self‐care after discharge from the hospital. As self‐care and medication compliance play an important role in health outcomes and whether patients are readmitted, such a perceived (or actual) lack of instruction can have important implications for future health, physical function, and quality of life. Patients cared for in settings where health literacy is generally low and socioeconomic conditions poor may be at especially high risk of problems with communication of the discharge plan.
The objectives of this study were to (1) describe patient recall regarding pre‐discharge communication between hospital staff and patients regarding discharge instructions, and (2) to demonstrate that a post‐hospitalization survey was both feasible and revealing in an urban, public hospital setting.
METHODS
This cross‐sectional survey of older inpatients discharged from Grady Memorial Hospital, an academically affiliated, 953‐bed public teaching hospital in downtown Atlanta, Georgia, was conducted by telephone.
Subjects
All discharges of inpatients age 70 years and older (n = 714) were identified through a computer search performed on weekdays over the study period by the Grady Information Service Office. According to the computerized discharge information, 114 patients had either died in the hospital or were discharged to a nursing home. No attempt was made to contact the nursing home patients. When attempts were made to contact the remaining 600 potential subjects, it was determined that 331 either had died, had been admitted to a nursing home, or had unusable contact information. The remaining 269 patients and their families were interviewed for this study. Nobody refused to participate. Proxies answered survey questions instead of patients when the surveyor was informed by the contacted individual that the patient would not be able to answer the questions. This study was approved by the Internal Review Board of Emory University School of Medicine.
Survey
Telephone interviews were conducted from September 7, 2004, to January 19, 2005. The survey was developed by the investigators. The interview was constructed to include important information to be communicated to patients being discharged home from the hospital. The content was based on a literature review and clinical experience. The survey was pilot‐tested for feasibility and clarity, then revised once prior to data collection.
The survey instrument (see Appendix) has 37 questions regarding 5 main components: (1) demographic information, (2) care instruction at discharge, (3) patient self‐rating of care during hospitalization, (4) needs and functioning once discharged home, and (5) patient opinion about the public hospital health system in general. Only data on the first 3 areas are presented in this article. Each interview took approximately 2030 minutes to complete. All interviews were performed by a single trained interviewer with a Master of Social Work degree employed by the Grady Health System Social Services Department. Most interviews were conducted by the third day after discharge (range of 110 days). For subjects admitted multiple times data were only collected for the first discharge during the study period.
Measurements
Descriptive data analysis was used to analyze open‐ended questions. Responses of Don't recall and Unsure and questions with no response were all classified as a single category, No answer. Several questions in the survey were only asked to some respondents contingent on their previous answers. For example, Do you remember who spoke with you? was only asked to those who had answered yes to the previous question, Did anyone talk with you about how to care for yourself after this hospitalization? The number of admissions to the study facility over the study period was determined by hospital administrative data.
Two investigators (W.P. and A.S.) independently analyzed the content of open‐ended questions and then compared their analyses in order to establish interrater reliability on themes. Chi‐square analysis was used to determine the relationship between patients recollecting instructions and the outcome of interest (understanding instructions, medication compliance, calling for problems).
RESULTS
We found the survey to be feasible and easily administered. Over the study period the mean length of stay of the respondents was 5.6 days (range, 056 days), and the mean number of times admitted was 1.6 (range, 17). Interviews were conducted an average of 3 days after discharge (range, 110 days). Other demographic information on the respondents is summarized in Table 1.
Characteristic | Mean | Range |
---|---|---|
Age (years) | 78.7 | (70100) |
Length of stay (days) | 5.6 | (056) |
Number of admissions | 1.5 | (17) |
Days postdischarge | 3 | (010) |
N | % | |
Sex | ||
Male | 84 | 31 |
Female | 185 | 69 |
Marital status | ||
Widowed | 164 | 61 |
Married | 60 | 22 |
Divorced | 15 | 6 |
Separated | 14 | 5 |
Single | 10 | 4 |
No answer | 6 | 2 |
Survey respondent | ||
Patient | 187 | 70 |
Child | 35 | 13 |
Other | 33 | 12 |
Spouse | 14 | 5 |
Most of those surveyed (81.8%, or 242 respondents) were able to answer the question Can you tell me what was explained to you [about why you were hospitalized]? The results of the content analysis of the answers to this open‐ended question are summarized in Table 2. The self‐reported problem area most frequently mentioned was the heart. Responses to questions about instructions and education received while in the hospital are reported in Table 3.
Reason | n |
---|---|
Heart problem | 46 |
Nonspecific (I am sick/I have chronic disease/all kinds of problems) | 29 |
Don't know/no answer | 27 |
Blood problem/bleeding/blood clot | 17 |
Blood pressure problem (high or low) | 14 |
Kidney problem | 14 |
Surgery | 13 |
Breathing problem | 13 |
Stroke | 11 |
Cold | 10 |
Infection | 9 |
Arm/leg/hand/feet/knee/bone | 8 |
Fall | 8 |
Stomach problem | 8 |
Cancer | 7 |
Diabetes | 7 |
Dehydration | 6 |
Lung problem | 6 |
Bladder problem | 5 |
Mental problem | 4 |
Seizure | 4 |
Automobile accident | 1 |
Need medication | 1 |
Prostate problem | 1 |
Question | N | Yes (%) | No (%) | No Answer (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Did someone explain to you why you were hospitalized ? | 269 | 224 (85%) | 35 (13%) | 6 (2.%) |
Did the doctor explain your medical problems to you? | 269 | 205 (76%) | 49 (18%) | 15 (6%) |
Did anyone talk with you about how to care for yourself after this hospitalization? | 269 | 115 (43%) | 141 (52%) | 13 (5%) |
Do you remember who spoke with you?* | 115 | 91 (79%) | 22 (19%) | 2 (2%) |
Doctor?* | 91 | 74 (81%) | 12 (13%) | 5 (6%) |
Nurse?* | 91 | 44 (48%) | 43 (47%) | 4 (4%) |
Other professional?* | 91 | 14 (15%) | 73 (80%) | 4 (4%) |
If you had questions were they answered?* | 115 | 99 (86%) | 10 (9%) | 6 (5%) |
Were you given a telephone number or name of a person to call if you needed help after you returned home? | 269 | 72 (27%) | 127 (47%) | 70 (26%) |
Were you told what to do if you experienced problems at home? | 269 | 89 (33%) | 111 (41%) | 69 (26%) |
Have you had to call about any problems since you arrived home? | 269 | 36 (13%) | 212 (79%) | 19 (8%) |
Were your medications changed during this hospitalization? | 269 | 114 (42%) | 138 (52%) | 17 (6%) |
Did someone explain how to take them?* | 114 | 90 (79%) | 16 (14%) | 8 (7%) |
Doctor?* | 90 | 47 (52%) | 42 (47%) | 1 (1%) |
Nurse?* | 90 | 39 (43%) | 51 (57%) | 0 (0%) |
Pharmacist?* | 90 | 57 (63%) | 33 (37%) | 0 (0%) |
Did you get your medication?* | 114 | 61 (53%) | 9 (8%) | 44 (39%) |
Are you taking them the way they were explained to you?* | 114 | 95 (84%) | 13 (11%) | 6 (5%) |
Since you have been home from the hospital do you feel you are receiving enough help? | 269 | 216 (80%) | 47 (18%) | 6 (2%) |
If no, have you asked for more help?** | 47 | 26 (55%) | 12 (26%) | 9 (19%) |
A correlation was found between providing information in written and verbal fashion and self‐reported understanding of the instructions. For example, of the 103 respondents who answered affirmatively to Did anyone talk with you about how to care for yourself at home after this hospitalization? and also recalled the source of that information, 66.0% (n = 68) reported receiving instructions verbally, 10.7% (n = 11) reported receiving them in writing, and 23.3% (n = 24) reported receiving both. Patients who received both verbal and written instructions were more likely to report that they understood the care instructions very well versus somewhat or very little (2 = 29.612, df = 4, P = .000).
The association between the perceived provision of information to patients and effective use of that information was explored. For example, perceived medication compliance and instruction on medication use had a positive association. Among those who recalled receiving instruction on how to take their medications (n = 88), 76 (86.4%) stated that they were taking them correctly, 8 (9.1%) that they were not taking them correctly, and 4 (4.5%) were unsure. Among those who said that they did not receive instruction or did not recall being instructed on how to take their medications (n = 26), 16 (61.5%) believed that they were taking their mediations correctly, 4 (15.4%) that they were not taking them correctly, and 5 (19.2%) were unsure. Respondents who recalled receiving medication instruction were more likely to comply with taking medication. (2 = 7.321, P = .026)
There was also a positive association between being told what to do if problems were experienced at home and calling about problems after arriving home. Among those who believed they were instructed on what to do if problems were experienced at home (N = 86), 23 (26.7%) reported they called about a problem. Among those who did not recall being instructed about what to do if problems were experienced at home (N = 183), only 13 (7.1%) reported calling about a problem. Respondents who believed they had been instructed on what to do at home were significantly more likely to call from home about problems (2 = 16.740, df = 2, P = .000).
DISCUSSION
According to Bull and Roberts,2 there are 3 types of communication gaps in discharge planning: (1) gaps between health care providers in the hospital and those involved in the hospital‐community interface, (2) gaps between providers and patients, and (3) gaps between health care providers and family caregivers for elders. The present study focuses on the latter 2 types of communication gaps. In discharge planning it is critical not only to transmit information, but also to make sure that patients understand that information in the way health care providers intended. Systemic, cultural, emotional, and cognitive barriers may interact to limit the effectiveness of this communication.
In the present study, a large number of patients discharged from an academically affiliated public hospital were unaware of important discharge information, even though according to hospital protocol, all patients are given a discharge information sheet. Approximately 15% did not know why they were hospitalized. About 20% of those who reported their medications were changed in the hospital could not recall anyone explaining how to take these medications. More than half of respondents did not recall anyone speaking with them about how to take care of themselves following hospitalization. More than 60% of respondents did not recall getting information on what to do if they had a problem after being discharge home.
That patients were unaware of information that had been provided to them has significant implications for successful implementation of the spirit of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations standards. These disease‐specific standards as well as medication standards are generally written as process measures. Although requiring that routine and clear standards of information be provided to patients is a significant step forward in patient safety, surveys such as the present one, done over time, should be an important part of any ongoing quality improvement process. As evident by the high response rate in our study and others,3 patients and their proxies are very willing to participate in such surveys. The results of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CHAMPS) survey,4 which will be published, should provide an important impetus for this ongoing quality improvement process. Interestingly, 2 of the CHAMPS questionsDuring this hospital stay, did doctors, nurses, or other hospital staff talk with you about whether you would have the help you needed when you left the hospital? and During this hospital stay, did you get information in writing about what symptoms or health problems to look out for after you left the hospital?are very similar to questions used in the present study. In our health system, site of the present study, these data have prompted a complete revision of the discharge instruction sheet, creation of a care transitions task force, and initiation of a pilot care transitions project. Follow‐up surveys will be performed to evaluate whether these changes have been effective in improving discharge information transfer and, more importantly, in patient outcomes.
The present study had several limitations. First, although the results are inconsistent with the findings of other studies, the present study took place at a single urban institution most of whose patients socioeconomically disadvantaged. Second, patient responses were combined with caregiver responses (elicited when a patient was unable to respond to the survey questions). Although it is not proven that these 2 groups are equivalent, from a practical point of view this was justified because the clinical issue is whether the person taking care of the patient (be it patient or caregiver) has the critical information needed after discharge from the hospital. Third, only those who could be reached by phone were included. This is likely to bias the results in a more favorable direction, given that the socioeconomic implications of not having a phone and/or the cognitive implications of not being able to use a phone would likely be reflected in even greater impediments to communication. Fourth, no attempt was made to evaluate the cognitive status or health literacy of either the subjects or their proxies. Fifth, generalizability of the survey to other research groups is unclear, as no additional attempt was made to define the interrater reliability of the survey. Finally, although it seems reasonable to presume that simpler discharge plans would be more effectively communicated, this study did not define the complexity of each discharge plan. Strengths of the study include a single trained interviewer, relatively rapid follow‐up of patients, and large sample size.
Effective communication during the care transition is important for improving patient outcomes and satisfaction. One study of 40 patient‐caregiver dyads showed that patients had a lower rate of medical problems postdischarge when they and their caregivers received verbal and/or printed information about activity and complications that could occur at home.5 Indeed, a study of 134 elder/family caregiver dyads interviewed 2 weeks after hospitalization found that receipt of information about the patient's condition, medications, and activities was an important contributor to both patient and family caregiver satisfaction with discharge care.6
At first glance, these findings may seem surprising, given that all patients discharged from the hospital should receive (by protocol) a discharge information sheet with postdischarge instructions. This study did not define what exactly transpired between hospital staff and patients, review discharge sheets, or validate the extent to which these instruction sheets are completely filled out and adequately reviewed with patients. The results of previous studies suggest that even when conversations are verified to have occurred, transmission is often inadequate. One study of 54 adult patients discharged after being hospitalized for pneumonia or acute myocardial infarction found that physicians believed that 88.9% of patients understood potential side effects of postdischarge medications, but only 57.4% of patients reported that they did understand instructions about side effects (P < .001).7 Another study of 47 patients discharged from a municipal teaching hospital in New York City showed that only 42% were able to state their diagnoses and only 28% were able to list all their medicines.8
The solutions to these problems may be as unapparent as they are difficult, and many of the challenges as well as some potential solutions have been recently reviewed.9 Arguing that physicians and/or hospital staff should spend more time with all their patients oversimplifies the problem and is not likely to occur. The present study confirmed earlier findings that providing verbal and written health information on hospital discharge significantly increases the knowledge of patients and caregivers.10 Risk stratificationtargeting those most at risk of medication noncompliance to receive augmented medication compliance instruction, such as the scheme suggested by Rosenow11has significant merit and warrants extension to discharge instructions in general and to prospective testing.
Discharge teaching videos have been shown to have some effectiveness in the emergency room setting12 and along with an audio‐only or CD option could be developed to supplement the written discharge information provided to patients. Calling patients after discharge to make sure they understand their prescribed medical regimen, have their prescriptions and home health equipment, and have a follow‐up visit scheduled with their doctors has been identified as a key characteristic of high‐achieving hospitalist programs. One care site found that 80% of patients have questions about their follow‐up care that could jeopardize their recovery.13 This strategy could just as well be implemented by a case manager or health educator. Follow‐up phone contact combined with Telecare has been shown to be effective in reducing hospital readmissions, emergency visits, and cost of care for patients with heart failure.14 Formal care transition instruments and interventions show promise for enabling patients and caregivers to take a more active role during care transition processes and improve outcomes. Whether this approach will be widely generalizable awaits demonstration.15
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, we found that a posthospitalization survey was both feasible and revealing and had a high acceptance rate in this urban public hospital population. Furthermore, subject recall about predischarge communication from hospital staff regarding discharge instructions demonstrated significant gaps about transfer of information. If these findings prove to be applicable to the large numbers of older as well as younger patients discharged from the hospital each year, the implications for patients health, safety, and satisfaction are enormous. It should not be assumed that this is a problem limited to older patients. As health care systems build bridges across gaps in the quality chasm, developing and testing more effective communication strategies for patients is imperative.
- Institute of Medicine.Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System of the 21st Century. Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, editor.Washington, DC:National Academy Press;2001.
- Components of a proper hospital discharge for elders.J Adv Nurs.2001;35:571–581. , .
- Assessing the quality of preparation for posthospital care from the patient's perspective—the care transitions measure.Med Care.2005;43:246–255. , , .
- Available at http://www.hcahpsonline.org/default.aspx. Accessed September 23,2006.
- Managing post‐discharge care at home: an analysis of patients' and their carers' perceptions of information received during their stay in hospital.J Advan Nurs.2000;31:1165–1173. .
- Predictors of elder and family caregiver satisfaction with discharge planning.J Cardiovasc Nurs.2000;14:76–87. . . .
- Patient‐physician communication at hospital discharge and patients' understanding of the postdischarge treatment plan.Arch Intern Med.1997;157:1026–1030. , , , , , , et al.
- Patient understanding of their treatment plans and diagnosis at discharge.Mayo Clin Proc.2005;80:991–994. , .
- Lost in transition: challenges and opportunities for improving the quality of transitional care.Ann Intern Med.2004;140:533–536. , .
- Written and verbal information versus verbal information only for patients being discharged from acute hospital settings to home.Cochrane Database Syst Rev.2003;4:CD003716. , , .
- Patients' understanding of and compliance with medications: the sixth vital sign?Mayo Clin Proc.2005;80:983–987. .
- Development of an ED teaching program aimed at reducing prehospital delays for patients with chest pain.J Emerg Nurs.1998;24:316–319. , , , , , .
- Remedy for high health care costs: hospitalist programs. January 5,2004.Phoenix Bus J. Available at: http://www.cogenthealthcare.com/Remedyopedfinal.pdf. Accessed August 22,year="2005"2005. .
- Reducing the cost of frequent hospital admissions for congestive heart failure: a randomized trial of a home telecare intervention.Med Care,2001;39:1234–1245. , , .
- Preparing patients and caregivers to participate in care delivered across settings: the care transitions intervention.J Am Geriatr Soc.2004;52:1817–1825. , , , , , .
Transitions from the acute hospital to other sites of care are critical and potentially dangerous times for patients. Improving coordination of care among health care settings is a major area of emphasis in the Institute of Medicine publication, Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century.1 System factors such as poor information transmission processes, inadequate training of discharging staff, and inadequate time for discharge teaching can prevent patients from having the information they need when being discharged home. Patient factors such as nervousness, home distractions, and poor health literacy further limit the implementation of discharge plans. Misalignment of system and patient factors can result in a bewildered patient with a failed discharge process that subverts the intentions of even the best posthospital plan. Regardless of whether system and/or patient factors underlie the problem, the perception of that bewildered patient is that of receiving inadequate instruction for self‐care after discharge from the hospital. As self‐care and medication compliance play an important role in health outcomes and whether patients are readmitted, such a perceived (or actual) lack of instruction can have important implications for future health, physical function, and quality of life. Patients cared for in settings where health literacy is generally low and socioeconomic conditions poor may be at especially high risk of problems with communication of the discharge plan.
The objectives of this study were to (1) describe patient recall regarding pre‐discharge communication between hospital staff and patients regarding discharge instructions, and (2) to demonstrate that a post‐hospitalization survey was both feasible and revealing in an urban, public hospital setting.
METHODS
This cross‐sectional survey of older inpatients discharged from Grady Memorial Hospital, an academically affiliated, 953‐bed public teaching hospital in downtown Atlanta, Georgia, was conducted by telephone.
Subjects
All discharges of inpatients age 70 years and older (n = 714) were identified through a computer search performed on weekdays over the study period by the Grady Information Service Office. According to the computerized discharge information, 114 patients had either died in the hospital or were discharged to a nursing home. No attempt was made to contact the nursing home patients. When attempts were made to contact the remaining 600 potential subjects, it was determined that 331 either had died, had been admitted to a nursing home, or had unusable contact information. The remaining 269 patients and their families were interviewed for this study. Nobody refused to participate. Proxies answered survey questions instead of patients when the surveyor was informed by the contacted individual that the patient would not be able to answer the questions. This study was approved by the Internal Review Board of Emory University School of Medicine.
Survey
Telephone interviews were conducted from September 7, 2004, to January 19, 2005. The survey was developed by the investigators. The interview was constructed to include important information to be communicated to patients being discharged home from the hospital. The content was based on a literature review and clinical experience. The survey was pilot‐tested for feasibility and clarity, then revised once prior to data collection.
The survey instrument (see Appendix) has 37 questions regarding 5 main components: (1) demographic information, (2) care instruction at discharge, (3) patient self‐rating of care during hospitalization, (4) needs and functioning once discharged home, and (5) patient opinion about the public hospital health system in general. Only data on the first 3 areas are presented in this article. Each interview took approximately 2030 minutes to complete. All interviews were performed by a single trained interviewer with a Master of Social Work degree employed by the Grady Health System Social Services Department. Most interviews were conducted by the third day after discharge (range of 110 days). For subjects admitted multiple times data were only collected for the first discharge during the study period.
Measurements
Descriptive data analysis was used to analyze open‐ended questions. Responses of Don't recall and Unsure and questions with no response were all classified as a single category, No answer. Several questions in the survey were only asked to some respondents contingent on their previous answers. For example, Do you remember who spoke with you? was only asked to those who had answered yes to the previous question, Did anyone talk with you about how to care for yourself after this hospitalization? The number of admissions to the study facility over the study period was determined by hospital administrative data.
Two investigators (W.P. and A.S.) independently analyzed the content of open‐ended questions and then compared their analyses in order to establish interrater reliability on themes. Chi‐square analysis was used to determine the relationship between patients recollecting instructions and the outcome of interest (understanding instructions, medication compliance, calling for problems).
RESULTS
We found the survey to be feasible and easily administered. Over the study period the mean length of stay of the respondents was 5.6 days (range, 056 days), and the mean number of times admitted was 1.6 (range, 17). Interviews were conducted an average of 3 days after discharge (range, 110 days). Other demographic information on the respondents is summarized in Table 1.
Characteristic | Mean | Range |
---|---|---|
Age (years) | 78.7 | (70100) |
Length of stay (days) | 5.6 | (056) |
Number of admissions | 1.5 | (17) |
Days postdischarge | 3 | (010) |
N | % | |
Sex | ||
Male | 84 | 31 |
Female | 185 | 69 |
Marital status | ||
Widowed | 164 | 61 |
Married | 60 | 22 |
Divorced | 15 | 6 |
Separated | 14 | 5 |
Single | 10 | 4 |
No answer | 6 | 2 |
Survey respondent | ||
Patient | 187 | 70 |
Child | 35 | 13 |
Other | 33 | 12 |
Spouse | 14 | 5 |
Most of those surveyed (81.8%, or 242 respondents) were able to answer the question Can you tell me what was explained to you [about why you were hospitalized]? The results of the content analysis of the answers to this open‐ended question are summarized in Table 2. The self‐reported problem area most frequently mentioned was the heart. Responses to questions about instructions and education received while in the hospital are reported in Table 3.
Reason | n |
---|---|
Heart problem | 46 |
Nonspecific (I am sick/I have chronic disease/all kinds of problems) | 29 |
Don't know/no answer | 27 |
Blood problem/bleeding/blood clot | 17 |
Blood pressure problem (high or low) | 14 |
Kidney problem | 14 |
Surgery | 13 |
Breathing problem | 13 |
Stroke | 11 |
Cold | 10 |
Infection | 9 |
Arm/leg/hand/feet/knee/bone | 8 |
Fall | 8 |
Stomach problem | 8 |
Cancer | 7 |
Diabetes | 7 |
Dehydration | 6 |
Lung problem | 6 |
Bladder problem | 5 |
Mental problem | 4 |
Seizure | 4 |
Automobile accident | 1 |
Need medication | 1 |
Prostate problem | 1 |
Question | N | Yes (%) | No (%) | No Answer (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Did someone explain to you why you were hospitalized ? | 269 | 224 (85%) | 35 (13%) | 6 (2.%) |
Did the doctor explain your medical problems to you? | 269 | 205 (76%) | 49 (18%) | 15 (6%) |
Did anyone talk with you about how to care for yourself after this hospitalization? | 269 | 115 (43%) | 141 (52%) | 13 (5%) |
Do you remember who spoke with you?* | 115 | 91 (79%) | 22 (19%) | 2 (2%) |
Doctor?* | 91 | 74 (81%) | 12 (13%) | 5 (6%) |
Nurse?* | 91 | 44 (48%) | 43 (47%) | 4 (4%) |
Other professional?* | 91 | 14 (15%) | 73 (80%) | 4 (4%) |
If you had questions were they answered?* | 115 | 99 (86%) | 10 (9%) | 6 (5%) |
Were you given a telephone number or name of a person to call if you needed help after you returned home? | 269 | 72 (27%) | 127 (47%) | 70 (26%) |
Were you told what to do if you experienced problems at home? | 269 | 89 (33%) | 111 (41%) | 69 (26%) |
Have you had to call about any problems since you arrived home? | 269 | 36 (13%) | 212 (79%) | 19 (8%) |
Were your medications changed during this hospitalization? | 269 | 114 (42%) | 138 (52%) | 17 (6%) |
Did someone explain how to take them?* | 114 | 90 (79%) | 16 (14%) | 8 (7%) |
Doctor?* | 90 | 47 (52%) | 42 (47%) | 1 (1%) |
Nurse?* | 90 | 39 (43%) | 51 (57%) | 0 (0%) |
Pharmacist?* | 90 | 57 (63%) | 33 (37%) | 0 (0%) |
Did you get your medication?* | 114 | 61 (53%) | 9 (8%) | 44 (39%) |
Are you taking them the way they were explained to you?* | 114 | 95 (84%) | 13 (11%) | 6 (5%) |
Since you have been home from the hospital do you feel you are receiving enough help? | 269 | 216 (80%) | 47 (18%) | 6 (2%) |
If no, have you asked for more help?** | 47 | 26 (55%) | 12 (26%) | 9 (19%) |
A correlation was found between providing information in written and verbal fashion and self‐reported understanding of the instructions. For example, of the 103 respondents who answered affirmatively to Did anyone talk with you about how to care for yourself at home after this hospitalization? and also recalled the source of that information, 66.0% (n = 68) reported receiving instructions verbally, 10.7% (n = 11) reported receiving them in writing, and 23.3% (n = 24) reported receiving both. Patients who received both verbal and written instructions were more likely to report that they understood the care instructions very well versus somewhat or very little (2 = 29.612, df = 4, P = .000).
The association between the perceived provision of information to patients and effective use of that information was explored. For example, perceived medication compliance and instruction on medication use had a positive association. Among those who recalled receiving instruction on how to take their medications (n = 88), 76 (86.4%) stated that they were taking them correctly, 8 (9.1%) that they were not taking them correctly, and 4 (4.5%) were unsure. Among those who said that they did not receive instruction or did not recall being instructed on how to take their medications (n = 26), 16 (61.5%) believed that they were taking their mediations correctly, 4 (15.4%) that they were not taking them correctly, and 5 (19.2%) were unsure. Respondents who recalled receiving medication instruction were more likely to comply with taking medication. (2 = 7.321, P = .026)
There was also a positive association between being told what to do if problems were experienced at home and calling about problems after arriving home. Among those who believed they were instructed on what to do if problems were experienced at home (N = 86), 23 (26.7%) reported they called about a problem. Among those who did not recall being instructed about what to do if problems were experienced at home (N = 183), only 13 (7.1%) reported calling about a problem. Respondents who believed they had been instructed on what to do at home were significantly more likely to call from home about problems (2 = 16.740, df = 2, P = .000).
DISCUSSION
According to Bull and Roberts,2 there are 3 types of communication gaps in discharge planning: (1) gaps between health care providers in the hospital and those involved in the hospital‐community interface, (2) gaps between providers and patients, and (3) gaps between health care providers and family caregivers for elders. The present study focuses on the latter 2 types of communication gaps. In discharge planning it is critical not only to transmit information, but also to make sure that patients understand that information in the way health care providers intended. Systemic, cultural, emotional, and cognitive barriers may interact to limit the effectiveness of this communication.
In the present study, a large number of patients discharged from an academically affiliated public hospital were unaware of important discharge information, even though according to hospital protocol, all patients are given a discharge information sheet. Approximately 15% did not know why they were hospitalized. About 20% of those who reported their medications were changed in the hospital could not recall anyone explaining how to take these medications. More than half of respondents did not recall anyone speaking with them about how to take care of themselves following hospitalization. More than 60% of respondents did not recall getting information on what to do if they had a problem after being discharge home.
That patients were unaware of information that had been provided to them has significant implications for successful implementation of the spirit of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations standards. These disease‐specific standards as well as medication standards are generally written as process measures. Although requiring that routine and clear standards of information be provided to patients is a significant step forward in patient safety, surveys such as the present one, done over time, should be an important part of any ongoing quality improvement process. As evident by the high response rate in our study and others,3 patients and their proxies are very willing to participate in such surveys. The results of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CHAMPS) survey,4 which will be published, should provide an important impetus for this ongoing quality improvement process. Interestingly, 2 of the CHAMPS questionsDuring this hospital stay, did doctors, nurses, or other hospital staff talk with you about whether you would have the help you needed when you left the hospital? and During this hospital stay, did you get information in writing about what symptoms or health problems to look out for after you left the hospital?are very similar to questions used in the present study. In our health system, site of the present study, these data have prompted a complete revision of the discharge instruction sheet, creation of a care transitions task force, and initiation of a pilot care transitions project. Follow‐up surveys will be performed to evaluate whether these changes have been effective in improving discharge information transfer and, more importantly, in patient outcomes.
The present study had several limitations. First, although the results are inconsistent with the findings of other studies, the present study took place at a single urban institution most of whose patients socioeconomically disadvantaged. Second, patient responses were combined with caregiver responses (elicited when a patient was unable to respond to the survey questions). Although it is not proven that these 2 groups are equivalent, from a practical point of view this was justified because the clinical issue is whether the person taking care of the patient (be it patient or caregiver) has the critical information needed after discharge from the hospital. Third, only those who could be reached by phone were included. This is likely to bias the results in a more favorable direction, given that the socioeconomic implications of not having a phone and/or the cognitive implications of not being able to use a phone would likely be reflected in even greater impediments to communication. Fourth, no attempt was made to evaluate the cognitive status or health literacy of either the subjects or their proxies. Fifth, generalizability of the survey to other research groups is unclear, as no additional attempt was made to define the interrater reliability of the survey. Finally, although it seems reasonable to presume that simpler discharge plans would be more effectively communicated, this study did not define the complexity of each discharge plan. Strengths of the study include a single trained interviewer, relatively rapid follow‐up of patients, and large sample size.
Effective communication during the care transition is important for improving patient outcomes and satisfaction. One study of 40 patient‐caregiver dyads showed that patients had a lower rate of medical problems postdischarge when they and their caregivers received verbal and/or printed information about activity and complications that could occur at home.5 Indeed, a study of 134 elder/family caregiver dyads interviewed 2 weeks after hospitalization found that receipt of information about the patient's condition, medications, and activities was an important contributor to both patient and family caregiver satisfaction with discharge care.6
At first glance, these findings may seem surprising, given that all patients discharged from the hospital should receive (by protocol) a discharge information sheet with postdischarge instructions. This study did not define what exactly transpired between hospital staff and patients, review discharge sheets, or validate the extent to which these instruction sheets are completely filled out and adequately reviewed with patients. The results of previous studies suggest that even when conversations are verified to have occurred, transmission is often inadequate. One study of 54 adult patients discharged after being hospitalized for pneumonia or acute myocardial infarction found that physicians believed that 88.9% of patients understood potential side effects of postdischarge medications, but only 57.4% of patients reported that they did understand instructions about side effects (P < .001).7 Another study of 47 patients discharged from a municipal teaching hospital in New York City showed that only 42% were able to state their diagnoses and only 28% were able to list all their medicines.8
The solutions to these problems may be as unapparent as they are difficult, and many of the challenges as well as some potential solutions have been recently reviewed.9 Arguing that physicians and/or hospital staff should spend more time with all their patients oversimplifies the problem and is not likely to occur. The present study confirmed earlier findings that providing verbal and written health information on hospital discharge significantly increases the knowledge of patients and caregivers.10 Risk stratificationtargeting those most at risk of medication noncompliance to receive augmented medication compliance instruction, such as the scheme suggested by Rosenow11has significant merit and warrants extension to discharge instructions in general and to prospective testing.
Discharge teaching videos have been shown to have some effectiveness in the emergency room setting12 and along with an audio‐only or CD option could be developed to supplement the written discharge information provided to patients. Calling patients after discharge to make sure they understand their prescribed medical regimen, have their prescriptions and home health equipment, and have a follow‐up visit scheduled with their doctors has been identified as a key characteristic of high‐achieving hospitalist programs. One care site found that 80% of patients have questions about their follow‐up care that could jeopardize their recovery.13 This strategy could just as well be implemented by a case manager or health educator. Follow‐up phone contact combined with Telecare has been shown to be effective in reducing hospital readmissions, emergency visits, and cost of care for patients with heart failure.14 Formal care transition instruments and interventions show promise for enabling patients and caregivers to take a more active role during care transition processes and improve outcomes. Whether this approach will be widely generalizable awaits demonstration.15
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, we found that a posthospitalization survey was both feasible and revealing and had a high acceptance rate in this urban public hospital population. Furthermore, subject recall about predischarge communication from hospital staff regarding discharge instructions demonstrated significant gaps about transfer of information. If these findings prove to be applicable to the large numbers of older as well as younger patients discharged from the hospital each year, the implications for patients health, safety, and satisfaction are enormous. It should not be assumed that this is a problem limited to older patients. As health care systems build bridges across gaps in the quality chasm, developing and testing more effective communication strategies for patients is imperative.
Transitions from the acute hospital to other sites of care are critical and potentially dangerous times for patients. Improving coordination of care among health care settings is a major area of emphasis in the Institute of Medicine publication, Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century.1 System factors such as poor information transmission processes, inadequate training of discharging staff, and inadequate time for discharge teaching can prevent patients from having the information they need when being discharged home. Patient factors such as nervousness, home distractions, and poor health literacy further limit the implementation of discharge plans. Misalignment of system and patient factors can result in a bewildered patient with a failed discharge process that subverts the intentions of even the best posthospital plan. Regardless of whether system and/or patient factors underlie the problem, the perception of that bewildered patient is that of receiving inadequate instruction for self‐care after discharge from the hospital. As self‐care and medication compliance play an important role in health outcomes and whether patients are readmitted, such a perceived (or actual) lack of instruction can have important implications for future health, physical function, and quality of life. Patients cared for in settings where health literacy is generally low and socioeconomic conditions poor may be at especially high risk of problems with communication of the discharge plan.
The objectives of this study were to (1) describe patient recall regarding pre‐discharge communication between hospital staff and patients regarding discharge instructions, and (2) to demonstrate that a post‐hospitalization survey was both feasible and revealing in an urban, public hospital setting.
METHODS
This cross‐sectional survey of older inpatients discharged from Grady Memorial Hospital, an academically affiliated, 953‐bed public teaching hospital in downtown Atlanta, Georgia, was conducted by telephone.
Subjects
All discharges of inpatients age 70 years and older (n = 714) were identified through a computer search performed on weekdays over the study period by the Grady Information Service Office. According to the computerized discharge information, 114 patients had either died in the hospital or were discharged to a nursing home. No attempt was made to contact the nursing home patients. When attempts were made to contact the remaining 600 potential subjects, it was determined that 331 either had died, had been admitted to a nursing home, or had unusable contact information. The remaining 269 patients and their families were interviewed for this study. Nobody refused to participate. Proxies answered survey questions instead of patients when the surveyor was informed by the contacted individual that the patient would not be able to answer the questions. This study was approved by the Internal Review Board of Emory University School of Medicine.
Survey
Telephone interviews were conducted from September 7, 2004, to January 19, 2005. The survey was developed by the investigators. The interview was constructed to include important information to be communicated to patients being discharged home from the hospital. The content was based on a literature review and clinical experience. The survey was pilot‐tested for feasibility and clarity, then revised once prior to data collection.
The survey instrument (see Appendix) has 37 questions regarding 5 main components: (1) demographic information, (2) care instruction at discharge, (3) patient self‐rating of care during hospitalization, (4) needs and functioning once discharged home, and (5) patient opinion about the public hospital health system in general. Only data on the first 3 areas are presented in this article. Each interview took approximately 2030 minutes to complete. All interviews were performed by a single trained interviewer with a Master of Social Work degree employed by the Grady Health System Social Services Department. Most interviews were conducted by the third day after discharge (range of 110 days). For subjects admitted multiple times data were only collected for the first discharge during the study period.
Measurements
Descriptive data analysis was used to analyze open‐ended questions. Responses of Don't recall and Unsure and questions with no response were all classified as a single category, No answer. Several questions in the survey were only asked to some respondents contingent on their previous answers. For example, Do you remember who spoke with you? was only asked to those who had answered yes to the previous question, Did anyone talk with you about how to care for yourself after this hospitalization? The number of admissions to the study facility over the study period was determined by hospital administrative data.
Two investigators (W.P. and A.S.) independently analyzed the content of open‐ended questions and then compared their analyses in order to establish interrater reliability on themes. Chi‐square analysis was used to determine the relationship between patients recollecting instructions and the outcome of interest (understanding instructions, medication compliance, calling for problems).
RESULTS
We found the survey to be feasible and easily administered. Over the study period the mean length of stay of the respondents was 5.6 days (range, 056 days), and the mean number of times admitted was 1.6 (range, 17). Interviews were conducted an average of 3 days after discharge (range, 110 days). Other demographic information on the respondents is summarized in Table 1.
Characteristic | Mean | Range |
---|---|---|
Age (years) | 78.7 | (70100) |
Length of stay (days) | 5.6 | (056) |
Number of admissions | 1.5 | (17) |
Days postdischarge | 3 | (010) |
N | % | |
Sex | ||
Male | 84 | 31 |
Female | 185 | 69 |
Marital status | ||
Widowed | 164 | 61 |
Married | 60 | 22 |
Divorced | 15 | 6 |
Separated | 14 | 5 |
Single | 10 | 4 |
No answer | 6 | 2 |
Survey respondent | ||
Patient | 187 | 70 |
Child | 35 | 13 |
Other | 33 | 12 |
Spouse | 14 | 5 |
Most of those surveyed (81.8%, or 242 respondents) were able to answer the question Can you tell me what was explained to you [about why you were hospitalized]? The results of the content analysis of the answers to this open‐ended question are summarized in Table 2. The self‐reported problem area most frequently mentioned was the heart. Responses to questions about instructions and education received while in the hospital are reported in Table 3.
Reason | n |
---|---|
Heart problem | 46 |
Nonspecific (I am sick/I have chronic disease/all kinds of problems) | 29 |
Don't know/no answer | 27 |
Blood problem/bleeding/blood clot | 17 |
Blood pressure problem (high or low) | 14 |
Kidney problem | 14 |
Surgery | 13 |
Breathing problem | 13 |
Stroke | 11 |
Cold | 10 |
Infection | 9 |
Arm/leg/hand/feet/knee/bone | 8 |
Fall | 8 |
Stomach problem | 8 |
Cancer | 7 |
Diabetes | 7 |
Dehydration | 6 |
Lung problem | 6 |
Bladder problem | 5 |
Mental problem | 4 |
Seizure | 4 |
Automobile accident | 1 |
Need medication | 1 |
Prostate problem | 1 |
Question | N | Yes (%) | No (%) | No Answer (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Did someone explain to you why you were hospitalized ? | 269 | 224 (85%) | 35 (13%) | 6 (2.%) |
Did the doctor explain your medical problems to you? | 269 | 205 (76%) | 49 (18%) | 15 (6%) |
Did anyone talk with you about how to care for yourself after this hospitalization? | 269 | 115 (43%) | 141 (52%) | 13 (5%) |
Do you remember who spoke with you?* | 115 | 91 (79%) | 22 (19%) | 2 (2%) |
Doctor?* | 91 | 74 (81%) | 12 (13%) | 5 (6%) |
Nurse?* | 91 | 44 (48%) | 43 (47%) | 4 (4%) |
Other professional?* | 91 | 14 (15%) | 73 (80%) | 4 (4%) |
If you had questions were they answered?* | 115 | 99 (86%) | 10 (9%) | 6 (5%) |
Were you given a telephone number or name of a person to call if you needed help after you returned home? | 269 | 72 (27%) | 127 (47%) | 70 (26%) |
Were you told what to do if you experienced problems at home? | 269 | 89 (33%) | 111 (41%) | 69 (26%) |
Have you had to call about any problems since you arrived home? | 269 | 36 (13%) | 212 (79%) | 19 (8%) |
Were your medications changed during this hospitalization? | 269 | 114 (42%) | 138 (52%) | 17 (6%) |
Did someone explain how to take them?* | 114 | 90 (79%) | 16 (14%) | 8 (7%) |
Doctor?* | 90 | 47 (52%) | 42 (47%) | 1 (1%) |
Nurse?* | 90 | 39 (43%) | 51 (57%) | 0 (0%) |
Pharmacist?* | 90 | 57 (63%) | 33 (37%) | 0 (0%) |
Did you get your medication?* | 114 | 61 (53%) | 9 (8%) | 44 (39%) |
Are you taking them the way they were explained to you?* | 114 | 95 (84%) | 13 (11%) | 6 (5%) |
Since you have been home from the hospital do you feel you are receiving enough help? | 269 | 216 (80%) | 47 (18%) | 6 (2%) |
If no, have you asked for more help?** | 47 | 26 (55%) | 12 (26%) | 9 (19%) |
A correlation was found between providing information in written and verbal fashion and self‐reported understanding of the instructions. For example, of the 103 respondents who answered affirmatively to Did anyone talk with you about how to care for yourself at home after this hospitalization? and also recalled the source of that information, 66.0% (n = 68) reported receiving instructions verbally, 10.7% (n = 11) reported receiving them in writing, and 23.3% (n = 24) reported receiving both. Patients who received both verbal and written instructions were more likely to report that they understood the care instructions very well versus somewhat or very little (2 = 29.612, df = 4, P = .000).
The association between the perceived provision of information to patients and effective use of that information was explored. For example, perceived medication compliance and instruction on medication use had a positive association. Among those who recalled receiving instruction on how to take their medications (n = 88), 76 (86.4%) stated that they were taking them correctly, 8 (9.1%) that they were not taking them correctly, and 4 (4.5%) were unsure. Among those who said that they did not receive instruction or did not recall being instructed on how to take their medications (n = 26), 16 (61.5%) believed that they were taking their mediations correctly, 4 (15.4%) that they were not taking them correctly, and 5 (19.2%) were unsure. Respondents who recalled receiving medication instruction were more likely to comply with taking medication. (2 = 7.321, P = .026)
There was also a positive association between being told what to do if problems were experienced at home and calling about problems after arriving home. Among those who believed they were instructed on what to do if problems were experienced at home (N = 86), 23 (26.7%) reported they called about a problem. Among those who did not recall being instructed about what to do if problems were experienced at home (N = 183), only 13 (7.1%) reported calling about a problem. Respondents who believed they had been instructed on what to do at home were significantly more likely to call from home about problems (2 = 16.740, df = 2, P = .000).
DISCUSSION
According to Bull and Roberts,2 there are 3 types of communication gaps in discharge planning: (1) gaps between health care providers in the hospital and those involved in the hospital‐community interface, (2) gaps between providers and patients, and (3) gaps between health care providers and family caregivers for elders. The present study focuses on the latter 2 types of communication gaps. In discharge planning it is critical not only to transmit information, but also to make sure that patients understand that information in the way health care providers intended. Systemic, cultural, emotional, and cognitive barriers may interact to limit the effectiveness of this communication.
In the present study, a large number of patients discharged from an academically affiliated public hospital were unaware of important discharge information, even though according to hospital protocol, all patients are given a discharge information sheet. Approximately 15% did not know why they were hospitalized. About 20% of those who reported their medications were changed in the hospital could not recall anyone explaining how to take these medications. More than half of respondents did not recall anyone speaking with them about how to take care of themselves following hospitalization. More than 60% of respondents did not recall getting information on what to do if they had a problem after being discharge home.
That patients were unaware of information that had been provided to them has significant implications for successful implementation of the spirit of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations standards. These disease‐specific standards as well as medication standards are generally written as process measures. Although requiring that routine and clear standards of information be provided to patients is a significant step forward in patient safety, surveys such as the present one, done over time, should be an important part of any ongoing quality improvement process. As evident by the high response rate in our study and others,3 patients and their proxies are very willing to participate in such surveys. The results of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CHAMPS) survey,4 which will be published, should provide an important impetus for this ongoing quality improvement process. Interestingly, 2 of the CHAMPS questionsDuring this hospital stay, did doctors, nurses, or other hospital staff talk with you about whether you would have the help you needed when you left the hospital? and During this hospital stay, did you get information in writing about what symptoms or health problems to look out for after you left the hospital?are very similar to questions used in the present study. In our health system, site of the present study, these data have prompted a complete revision of the discharge instruction sheet, creation of a care transitions task force, and initiation of a pilot care transitions project. Follow‐up surveys will be performed to evaluate whether these changes have been effective in improving discharge information transfer and, more importantly, in patient outcomes.
The present study had several limitations. First, although the results are inconsistent with the findings of other studies, the present study took place at a single urban institution most of whose patients socioeconomically disadvantaged. Second, patient responses were combined with caregiver responses (elicited when a patient was unable to respond to the survey questions). Although it is not proven that these 2 groups are equivalent, from a practical point of view this was justified because the clinical issue is whether the person taking care of the patient (be it patient or caregiver) has the critical information needed after discharge from the hospital. Third, only those who could be reached by phone were included. This is likely to bias the results in a more favorable direction, given that the socioeconomic implications of not having a phone and/or the cognitive implications of not being able to use a phone would likely be reflected in even greater impediments to communication. Fourth, no attempt was made to evaluate the cognitive status or health literacy of either the subjects or their proxies. Fifth, generalizability of the survey to other research groups is unclear, as no additional attempt was made to define the interrater reliability of the survey. Finally, although it seems reasonable to presume that simpler discharge plans would be more effectively communicated, this study did not define the complexity of each discharge plan. Strengths of the study include a single trained interviewer, relatively rapid follow‐up of patients, and large sample size.
Effective communication during the care transition is important for improving patient outcomes and satisfaction. One study of 40 patient‐caregiver dyads showed that patients had a lower rate of medical problems postdischarge when they and their caregivers received verbal and/or printed information about activity and complications that could occur at home.5 Indeed, a study of 134 elder/family caregiver dyads interviewed 2 weeks after hospitalization found that receipt of information about the patient's condition, medications, and activities was an important contributor to both patient and family caregiver satisfaction with discharge care.6
At first glance, these findings may seem surprising, given that all patients discharged from the hospital should receive (by protocol) a discharge information sheet with postdischarge instructions. This study did not define what exactly transpired between hospital staff and patients, review discharge sheets, or validate the extent to which these instruction sheets are completely filled out and adequately reviewed with patients. The results of previous studies suggest that even when conversations are verified to have occurred, transmission is often inadequate. One study of 54 adult patients discharged after being hospitalized for pneumonia or acute myocardial infarction found that physicians believed that 88.9% of patients understood potential side effects of postdischarge medications, but only 57.4% of patients reported that they did understand instructions about side effects (P < .001).7 Another study of 47 patients discharged from a municipal teaching hospital in New York City showed that only 42% were able to state their diagnoses and only 28% were able to list all their medicines.8
The solutions to these problems may be as unapparent as they are difficult, and many of the challenges as well as some potential solutions have been recently reviewed.9 Arguing that physicians and/or hospital staff should spend more time with all their patients oversimplifies the problem and is not likely to occur. The present study confirmed earlier findings that providing verbal and written health information on hospital discharge significantly increases the knowledge of patients and caregivers.10 Risk stratificationtargeting those most at risk of medication noncompliance to receive augmented medication compliance instruction, such as the scheme suggested by Rosenow11has significant merit and warrants extension to discharge instructions in general and to prospective testing.
Discharge teaching videos have been shown to have some effectiveness in the emergency room setting12 and along with an audio‐only or CD option could be developed to supplement the written discharge information provided to patients. Calling patients after discharge to make sure they understand their prescribed medical regimen, have their prescriptions and home health equipment, and have a follow‐up visit scheduled with their doctors has been identified as a key characteristic of high‐achieving hospitalist programs. One care site found that 80% of patients have questions about their follow‐up care that could jeopardize their recovery.13 This strategy could just as well be implemented by a case manager or health educator. Follow‐up phone contact combined with Telecare has been shown to be effective in reducing hospital readmissions, emergency visits, and cost of care for patients with heart failure.14 Formal care transition instruments and interventions show promise for enabling patients and caregivers to take a more active role during care transition processes and improve outcomes. Whether this approach will be widely generalizable awaits demonstration.15
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, we found that a posthospitalization survey was both feasible and revealing and had a high acceptance rate in this urban public hospital population. Furthermore, subject recall about predischarge communication from hospital staff regarding discharge instructions demonstrated significant gaps about transfer of information. If these findings prove to be applicable to the large numbers of older as well as younger patients discharged from the hospital each year, the implications for patients health, safety, and satisfaction are enormous. It should not be assumed that this is a problem limited to older patients. As health care systems build bridges across gaps in the quality chasm, developing and testing more effective communication strategies for patients is imperative.
- Institute of Medicine.Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System of the 21st Century. Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, editor.Washington, DC:National Academy Press;2001.
- Components of a proper hospital discharge for elders.J Adv Nurs.2001;35:571–581. , .
- Assessing the quality of preparation for posthospital care from the patient's perspective—the care transitions measure.Med Care.2005;43:246–255. , , .
- Available at http://www.hcahpsonline.org/default.aspx. Accessed September 23,2006.
- Managing post‐discharge care at home: an analysis of patients' and their carers' perceptions of information received during their stay in hospital.J Advan Nurs.2000;31:1165–1173. .
- Predictors of elder and family caregiver satisfaction with discharge planning.J Cardiovasc Nurs.2000;14:76–87. . . .
- Patient‐physician communication at hospital discharge and patients' understanding of the postdischarge treatment plan.Arch Intern Med.1997;157:1026–1030. , , , , , , et al.
- Patient understanding of their treatment plans and diagnosis at discharge.Mayo Clin Proc.2005;80:991–994. , .
- Lost in transition: challenges and opportunities for improving the quality of transitional care.Ann Intern Med.2004;140:533–536. , .
- Written and verbal information versus verbal information only for patients being discharged from acute hospital settings to home.Cochrane Database Syst Rev.2003;4:CD003716. , , .
- Patients' understanding of and compliance with medications: the sixth vital sign?Mayo Clin Proc.2005;80:983–987. .
- Development of an ED teaching program aimed at reducing prehospital delays for patients with chest pain.J Emerg Nurs.1998;24:316–319. , , , , , .
- Remedy for high health care costs: hospitalist programs. January 5,2004.Phoenix Bus J. Available at: http://www.cogenthealthcare.com/Remedyopedfinal.pdf. Accessed August 22,year="2005"2005. .
- Reducing the cost of frequent hospital admissions for congestive heart failure: a randomized trial of a home telecare intervention.Med Care,2001;39:1234–1245. , , .
- Preparing patients and caregivers to participate in care delivered across settings: the care transitions intervention.J Am Geriatr Soc.2004;52:1817–1825. , , , , , .
- Institute of Medicine.Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System of the 21st Century. Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, editor.Washington, DC:National Academy Press;2001.
- Components of a proper hospital discharge for elders.J Adv Nurs.2001;35:571–581. , .
- Assessing the quality of preparation for posthospital care from the patient's perspective—the care transitions measure.Med Care.2005;43:246–255. , , .
- Available at http://www.hcahpsonline.org/default.aspx. Accessed September 23,2006.
- Managing post‐discharge care at home: an analysis of patients' and their carers' perceptions of information received during their stay in hospital.J Advan Nurs.2000;31:1165–1173. .
- Predictors of elder and family caregiver satisfaction with discharge planning.J Cardiovasc Nurs.2000;14:76–87. . . .
- Patient‐physician communication at hospital discharge and patients' understanding of the postdischarge treatment plan.Arch Intern Med.1997;157:1026–1030. , , , , , , et al.
- Patient understanding of their treatment plans and diagnosis at discharge.Mayo Clin Proc.2005;80:991–994. , .
- Lost in transition: challenges and opportunities for improving the quality of transitional care.Ann Intern Med.2004;140:533–536. , .
- Written and verbal information versus verbal information only for patients being discharged from acute hospital settings to home.Cochrane Database Syst Rev.2003;4:CD003716. , , .
- Patients' understanding of and compliance with medications: the sixth vital sign?Mayo Clin Proc.2005;80:983–987. .
- Development of an ED teaching program aimed at reducing prehospital delays for patients with chest pain.J Emerg Nurs.1998;24:316–319. , , , , , .
- Remedy for high health care costs: hospitalist programs. January 5,2004.Phoenix Bus J. Available at: http://www.cogenthealthcare.com/Remedyopedfinal.pdf. Accessed August 22,year="2005"2005. .
- Reducing the cost of frequent hospital admissions for congestive heart failure: a randomized trial of a home telecare intervention.Med Care,2001;39:1234–1245. , , .
- Preparing patients and caregivers to participate in care delivered across settings: the care transitions intervention.J Am Geriatr Soc.2004;52:1817–1825. , , , , , .
Copyright © 2007 Society of Hospital Medicine