Clinical impact of a pharmacist–physician co-managed programme on hyperlipidaemia management in Hong Kong

Objective: The study aimed to investigate the clinical impact of pharmacist–physician co‐managed programme on the management of hyperlipidaemia. Methods: The study was a prospective randomized controlled trial. Adult patients were selected if: (i) they were taking one or more lipid‐lowering agents with a valid lipid panel before their next follow up; (ii) had a baseline lipid profile within the previous 6 months; (iii) their lipid panel did not reach the targeted low‐density lipoprotein‐cholesterol (LDL‐C) goal based on the National Cholesterol Education Programme Adult Treatment Panel III. Pharmacists interviewed patients in the intervention group for 15–30 min to provide consultation on the drug regimen and lifestyle modifications. A telephone follow‐up every 4 weeks and a follow‐up interview on the date of the physician visit were scheduled. Patients in the control group received routine conventional care. The primary outcome measurement was the change in lipid panel between baseline and at the end of study. Results: One hundred and eighteen patients were recruited to the study [58 patients in intervention group (mean age 63 ± 10 years old) and 60 in control group (mean age 61 ± 12 years old)]. Starting with similar baseline levels, the end of study LDL‐C and total cholesterol levels for the intervention and control groups were LDL‐C: 2·80 ± 0·89 mmol/L and total cholesterol 4·75 ± 1·08 mmol/L vs. LDL‐C: 3·24 ± 0·78 mmol/L and total cholesterol 5·18 ± 0·93 mmol/L, respectively. The differences were statistically significant (P < 0·0015). Conclusion: The study showed that a pharmacist–physician co‐managed programme for hyperlipidaemic patient was effective in getting more patients to reach their target lipid levels.     

To provide care and be cared for in a multiple‐bed hospital room

Aims: To illuminate patients’ experiences of being cared for and nurses’ experiences of caring for patients in a multiple‐bed hospital room. Background: Many patients and healthcare personnel seem to prefer single‐bed hospital rooms. However, certain advantages of multiple‐bed hospital rooms (MBRs) have also been described. Method: Eight men and eight women being cared for in a multiple‐bedroom were interviewed, and two focus‐group interviews (FGI) with 12 nurses were performed. A qualitative content analysis was used. Results: One theme –Creating a sphere of privacy– and three categories were identified based on the patient interviews. The categories were: Being considerate, Having company and The patients’ area. In the FGI, one theme – Integrating individual care with care for all – and two categories emerged: Experiencing a friendly atmosphere and Providing exigent care. Both patients and nurses described the advantages and disadvantages of multiple‐bed rooms. The patient culture of taking care of one another and enjoying the company of room‐mates were considered positive and gave a sense of security of both patients and nurses. The advantages were slight and could easily become disadvantages if, for example, room‐mates were very ill or confused. The patients tried to maintain their privacy and dignity and claimed that there were small problems with room‐mates listening to conversations. In contrast, the nurses stressed patient integrity as a main disadvantage and worked to protect the integrity of individual patients. Providing care for all patients simultaneously had the advantage of saving time. Conclusions: The insights gained in the present study could assist nurses in reducing the disadvantages and taking advantage of the positive elements of providing care in MBRs. Health professionals need to be aware of how attitudes towards male and female patients, respectively, could affect care provision.