By E. Reto. Syracuse University.
For a client taking an MAOI discount 10 mg deltasone visa, what information would you provide for preventing a hypertensive crisis? How do the newer drugs, mirtazapine, nefazodone, and venlafaxine, compare with the SSRIs in terms of adverse effects and adverse drug–drug interactions? List the main elements of treatment for antidepressant longer than a week to reach steady state. It is important to teach all clients beginning therapy with antidepressants that they may not see sig- 12. What are common adverse effects of lithium, and how niﬁcant improvement in their depression for a number of weeks. During the initial assessment of any client, what kinds of Adverse Drug Reaction Bulletin, No. Update on the neurobiology of depres- in primary care, 2: Treatment of major depression. Discuss major factors that inﬂuence choice of therapy for seizure disorders. Describe strategies for prevention and treat- commonly used antiseizure drugs. Critical Thinking Scenario You are caring for 6-month-old Jamie, who was just diagnosed with tonic-clonic seizures. He was started on valproic acid (Depakene) 30 mg qid and has only had one seizure during his 4-day hospitalization. He will be discharged today to his single, teenaged mother, who will be the primary caregiver. Reﬂect on: How you would feel as a new parent if your infant were diagnosed with a seizure disorder. Given 15 minutes for discharge teaching, prioritize your teaching plan, considering the following: safe administration of an anticonvulsant medication to a 6-month-old; methods to avoid skipping doses, which could increase risk of seizures; management of Jamie during a seizure to ensure safety. SEIZURE DISORDERS Epilepsy Antiseizure drugs are also called antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) When seizures occur in a chronic, recurrent pattern, the dis- or anticonvulsants. The terms seizure and convulsion are order is called epilepsy, and drug therapy is usually required.
Additionally buy deltasone 5 mg low price, because payers typically manage a finite pool of resources, they often have to consider whether a potential outcome justifies the associated costs. Payers are therefore more likely to embrace an optimalist definition of care, which can put them at odds with individual physicians, who generally take the maximalist view of quality. Most physicians consider cost-effectiveness calculations as anti- thetical to providing high-quality care, believing instead that they are duty- bound to do everything possible to help their patients, including advocating for high-cost interventions even when such measures have a small, but pos- itive, probability of benefiting the patient (Donabedian 1988b). By contrast, third-party payers—especially governmental units that must make multiple tradeoffs when allocating resources—are more apt to take the view that spending large sums in instances where the odds of a positive result are small does not represent high quality of care, but rather a misuse of finite resources. In addition, however, society at large is often expected to focus on technical aspects of quality, which it is seen as better placed to safeguard than individuals are. Similarly, access to care fig- ures prominently in societal-level conceptions of quality inasmuch as soci- ety is seen as responsible for ensuring access to care, especially to disenfranchised groups. Although each definition clearly emphasizes different aspects of care, it is not to the complete exclusion of the other aspects (see Table 2. Only with respect to the cost-effectiveness aspect can it be said that the definitions directly conflict: cost effectiveness is often central to how pay- ers and society define quality of care, whereas physicians and patients typ- 32 The Healthcare Quality Book ically do not recognize cost effectiveness as a legitimate consideration in the definition of quality. But on all the other aspects of care no such clash is present; rather, the differences relate to how much weight each defini- tion places on a particular aspect of care. Conflicts typically arise when one party holds that a particular practitioner or clinic is a high-quality provider by virtue of having high rat- ings on a single aspect of care, such as the interpersonal. Those who object to such a conclusion point out that just because care rates highly on inter- personal quality does not necessarily mean that it rates equally highly on the technical, amenity, and efficiency aspects (Wyszewianski 1988). Physicians who relate especially well to their patients, and thus score high on the inter- personal aspect, still may have failed to keep up with medical advances and as a result provide care that is seriously deficient in technical terms. Conversely, practitioners who are highly skilled in trauma and other emergency care but who also have a cold, even brusque, manner and who additionally work in crowded conditions may earn a facility low ratings on the interpersonal and amenity aspects of care even though, as in the sec- ond case described at the start of the chapter, the facility gets top marks from a team of expert clinicians that is presumably focusing primarily on the quality of technical performance. In thinking about definitions of quality of healthcare, therefore, it is helpful to keep in mind that when clinicians, patients, payers, society at large, and any other involved parties refer to quality of care, they each tend to focus on the quality of specific aspects of care, sometimes to the appar- ent exclusion of other aspects important to the other parties.
TQM systems range from the all inclusive (Pegels 1995) to the common sense and concise (Cohen and Brand 1993) generic 10 mg deltasone overnight delivery. Some are based on various dimensions of quality (Garvin 1987), whereas others stress management commitment, structure/strategy, training, problem identification, measurement, and culture (Talley 1991). Some emphasize TQM as a philosophy (Drummond 1992), whereas others proclaim that it represents a social revolution in the workplace (Hutchins 1992). Quality Im provem ent System s, Theories, and Tools 75 Tools, Methods, and Procedures: Tip of the Iceberg Model As with icebergs, where only a small portion is actually visible above the surface, what we see in an organization (behaviors, methods, practices) is only the tip of the iceberg. The visible part of the iceberg is supported by a large, unseen structure. Tools, methods, and procedures are analogous to the tip of the ice- berg. We can see them making a flowchart, plotting a control chart, or using a checklist. These tools and procedures are the logical results of systems and models that people put in place (knowingly and unknowingly). People may use several tools and procedures to make improvements, and these tools might form one part of an improvement system. Although we can observe people using the tools of the system, the system itself is invisible and can- not be observed. These systems come from theories that might be shared among many people who work together to improve quality, or they may come from ideas held by individuals. Several probing questions may be necessary to bring to the surface the underlying assumptions behind the systems in place. One of the difficult things about quality is explaining how a tool is different from a process or system.