European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019
Why Z-drugs are used even if doctors and nurses feel unable to judge their benefits and risks-a hospital survey.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Heinemann Stephanie, Brockmöller Jürgen, Hagmayer York, Himmel Wolfgang
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Many patients receive Z-drugs for hospital-associated sleep problems, in spite of well-known risks. The aim of this study was to learn more about the attractiveness of Z-drugs, seen from the doctors' and nurses' perspective.
METHODS: Using a standardized questionnaire, doctors (63/116) and nurses (73/243) in a German general hospital were surveyed about the risks and benefits of Z-drugs, compared with benzodiazepines.
RESULT: "Reduced time to get to sleep" was perceived by doctors (51%) and nurses (53%) to be a strong benefit of Z-drugs; "confusion" and "falls" were perceived by ca. 10% of doctors and ca. 15% of nurses to be a frequent problem. Compared with benzodiazepines, respondents more often answered "unable to judge" for Z-drugs; e.g. for doctors, 18% (benzodiazepines) vs. 45% (Z-drugs) were unable to judge "improved daytime functioning" and 12% (benzodiazepines) vs. 37% (Z-drugs) were unable to judge "falls."
CONCLUSION: Z-drugs seem to be attractive because experiential knowledge overemphasizes their benefits and fails to take risks such as drug-related falls and confusion into account. Difficulties to judge a drug's risk-benefit ratio do not prevent doctors and nurses from using them. Interventions for reducing Z-drug usage should incorporate local quality assurance data about relevant patient risks.
METHODS: Using a standardized questionnaire, doctors (63/116) and nurses (73/243) in a German general hospital were surveyed about the risks and benefits of Z-drugs, compared with benzodiazepines.
RESULT: "Reduced time to get to sleep" was perceived by doctors (51%) and nurses (53%) to be a strong benefit of Z-drugs; "confusion" and "falls" were perceived by ca. 10% of doctors and ca. 15% of nurses to be a frequent problem. Compared with benzodiazepines, respondents more often answered "unable to judge" for Z-drugs; e.g. for doctors, 18% (benzodiazepines) vs. 45% (Z-drugs) were unable to judge "improved daytime functioning" and 12% (benzodiazepines) vs. 37% (Z-drugs) were unable to judge "falls."
CONCLUSION: Z-drugs seem to be attractive because experiential knowledge overemphasizes their benefits and fails to take risks such as drug-related falls and confusion into account. Difficulties to judge a drug's risk-benefit ratio do not prevent doctors and nurses from using them. Interventions for reducing Z-drug usage should incorporate local quality assurance data about relevant patient risks.