Methods: In

this uncontrolled, cross-sectional, survey study, we assessed use of APDS or the regular counter by 116 patients picking up refill prescriptions at two community pharmacies. The main outcome measures were number of patients requesting pharmacist counseling for refill prescriptions, patient satisfaction with pick-up process, and patient willingness to use an APDS to report medication therapy outcomes.

Results: None of the regular counter users and only two APDS users (3.7%) requested counseling for their refill prescription (P = 0.126). Almost all patients agreed that they were able to talk to a pharmacist about their prescription if they wanted to do so (95.1% regular counter and 92.3% APDS; P = 0.268). The majority (75%) of patients using APDS indicated that they would be willing to Selleckchem Salubrinal GSK2879552 price use the system to answer questions or perform simple tests to provide information that the pharmacist could use to improve medication effectiveness or reduce adverse effects.

Conclusion: Very few patients (ADPS or regular counter) asked to speak to a pharmacist about their refill medications, although

it appeared that no perceived barriers to pharmacist access existed. Most APDS patients were willing to use this new technology to provide information about therapy outcomes to the pharmacist. Further exploration and testing of the APDS as a data collection tool to enhance pharmacist access to therapy outcomes is warranted.”
“Objective: Outcome Measures in Rheumatology promotes standardized outcome measures. No such organization exists for nephrology. We compared the reporting and homogeneity of outcome measures in registered protocols of randomized trials in rheumatology

and nephrology.

Study Design and Setting: Data were extracted from protocols for rheumatoid arthritis or nephroprotection registered in Clinical-Trials.gov. We rated five outcome items (domain, specific measurement, specific metric, method of aggregating data, LY411575 Proteases inhibitor and time frame) to obtain a 5-point score. We split outcomes into clusters that could be pooled for meta-analysis, and assessed the proportion of trials and patients by cluster.

Results: We selected 75 protocols for rheumatology and 66 for nephrology. A high adjusted score for outcomes was associated with rheumatology protocols (odds ratio, 4.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.39, 7.39). We retained 13 clusters of outcomes for rheumatology, and one of one outcome (American College Rheumatology Criteria) could pool 87.1% of trials and 92.8% of patients. We retained eight clusters for nephrology, and one of four outcomes (assessing proteinuria) could pool 83.1% of trials and 44.7% of patients.

Conclusions: The reporting and homogeneity of outcomes is better in registered protocols of rheumatology than nephrology. The presence of international guidelines on outcome measurement may explain the differences.