Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of short-acting anesthetic drugs and techniques to achieve recovery room bypass criteria after minor surgery in a community hospital environment.Methods: After agreement by a multidisciplinary committee, a pilot project was undertaken to assess the usefulness of ultra-short acting anesthetic drugs and pre-emptive analgesia to facilitate rapid recovery from general anesthesia. A cohort of 100 ASA I-II patients aged 18-65 yr undergoing simple knee arthroscopy or minor peripheral orthopedic procedures was compared to a similar cohort treated in the three months prior to the study period. Outcomes of interest included patient morbidity, success in achieving post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) bypass criteria, impact upon nursing resources, duration of operating room (OR) and hospital stay, and pharmaceutical costs before and after implementation.

Background: There is a paucity of literature examining the perceptions of Canadian pharmacists toward drug promotion by the pharmaceutical industry and pharmacist-industry interactions.Objectives: To determine whether hospital pharmacists perceive their interactions with the pharmaceutical industry as influencing their clinical decision-making or that of their colleagues and whether hospital pharmacists perceive that interactions with the pharmaceutical industry create a conflict of interest. Methods:A cross-sectional survey of the complete sample of hospital pharmacists practising in 3 large health authorities in a single Canadian province was conducted from February to April 2010.Results: A total of 224 responses were received from the approximately 480 pharmacists in the target health authorities (response rate approximately 47%). Fifty-eight percent of respondents (127/218) did not believe that information received at industry-sponsored events influenced their clinical decision-making. Most (142/163 [87%]) disagreed that small gifts influenced their clinical decision-making, whereas responses were divided for large gifts. Respondents were also divided on the issue of whether their interactions created conflicts of interest, with most of those who had received gifts agreeing that large gifts would create a conflict of interest (134/163 [82%]) whereas small gifts would not (100/163 [61%]). There were positive correlations between respondents' beliefs about their own susceptibility to influence from sponsored events or receipt of small or large gifts and the susceptibility of others, but 22% of respondents (28/127) expressed a different perception about sponsored events, all believing themselves to be less influenced than their colleagues. Only 6% (4/64) of those who received large gifts and 4% (5/142) of those who received small gifts and felt they were not influenced by these gifts reported that it was likely others would be influenced by the receipt of such gifts. Conclusions:Most hospital pharmacists who responded to this survey had attended industry-sponsored events, and the majority felt that it did not influence their clinical decision-making, despite recognition that the information received is unbalanced. Respondents were divided on the notion of whether these interactions led to conflicts of interest. Respondents generally felt that large and small gifts had different effects on influence and conflict of interest.

No abstract