41
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Impact of a community pharmacist-led medication review on medicines use in patients on polypharmacy - a prospective randomised controlled trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          In 2010 the ‘Polymedication Check’ (PMC), a pharmacist-led medication review, was newly introduced to be delivered independently from the prescriber and reimbursed by the Swiss health insurances. This study aimed at evaluating the impact of this new cognitive service focusing on medicines use and patients’ adherence in everyday life.

          Methods

          This randomised controlled trial was conducted in 54 Swiss community pharmacies. Eligible patients used ≥4 prescribed medicines over >3 months. The intervention group received a PMC at study start (T-0) and after 28 weeks (T-28) while the control group received only a PMC at T-28.

          Primary outcome measure was change in patients’ objective adherence, calculated as Medication Possession Ratio (MPR) and Daily Polypharmacy Possession Ratio (DPPR), using refill data from the pharmacies and patient information of dosing.

          Subjective adherence was assessed as secondary outcome by self-report questionnaires (at T-0 and T-28) and telephone interviews (at T-2 and T-16), where participants estimated their overall adherence on a scale from 0–100 %.

          Results and discussion

          A total of 450 patients were randomly allocated to intervention ( N = 218, 48.4 %) and control group ( N = 232, 51.6 %). Dropout rate was fairly low and comparable for both groups ( N Int = 37 (17.0 %), N Cont = 41 (17.7 %), p = 0.845). Main addressed drug-related problem (DRP) during PMC at T-0 was insufficient adherence to at least one medicine ( N = 69, 26.7 %). At T-28, 1020 chronic therapies fulfilled inclusion criteria for MPR calculation, representing 293 of 372 patients (78.8 %). Mean MPR and adherence to polypharmacy (DPPR) for both groups were equally high (MPR Int = 88.3, SD = 19.03; MPR Cont = 87.5, SD = 20.75 ( p = 0.811) and DPPR Int = 88.0, SD = 13.31; DPPR Cont = 87.5, SD = 20.75 ( p = 0.906), respectively).

          Mean absolute change of subjective adherence between T-0 and T-2 was +1.03 % in the intervention and −0.41 % in the control group ( p = 0.058). The number of patients reporting a change of their adherence of more than ±5 points on a scale 0–100 % between T-0 and T-2 was significantly higher in the intervention group (N Improvement = 30; N Worsening = 14) than in the control group (N Improvement = 20; N Worsening = 24; p = 0.028).

          Conclusion

          Through the PMC pharmacist were able to identify a significant number of DRPs. Participants showed high baseline objective adherence of 87.5 %, providing little potential for improvement. Hence, no significant increase of objective adherence was observed. However, regarding changes in subjective adherence of more than ±5 % the PMC showed a positive effect.

          Trial registration

          Clinical trial registry database, NCT01739816; first entry on November 27, 2012.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1384-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Polypharmacy in elderly patients.

          Polypharmacy (ie, the use of multiple medications and/or the administration of more medications than are clinically indicated, representing unnecessary drug use) is common among the elderly. The goal of this research was to provide a description of observational studies examining the epidemiology of polypharmacy and to review randomized controlled studies that have been published in the past 2 decades designed to reduce polypharmacy in older adults. Materials for this review were gathered from a search of the MEDLINE database (1986-June 2007) and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1986-June 2007) to identify articles in people aged >65 years. We used a combination of the following search terms: polypharmacy, multiple medications, polymedicine, elderly, geriatric, and aged. A manual search of the reference lists from identified articles and the authors' article files, book chapters, and recent reviews was conducted to identify additional articles. From these, the authors identified those studies that measured polypharmacy. The literature review found that polypharmacy continues to increase and is a known risk factor for important morbidity and mortality. There are few rigorously designed intervention studies that have been shown to reduce unnecessary polypharmacy in older adults. The literature review identified 5 articles, which are included here. All studies showed an improvement in polypharmacy. Many studies have found that various numbers of medications are associated with negative health outcomes, but more research is needed to further delineate the consequences associated with unnecessary drug use in elderly patients. Health care professionals should be aware of the risks and fully evaluate all medications at each patient visit to prevent polypharmacy from occurring.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The costs of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Adverse Drug Events Prevention Study Group.

            To assess the additional resource utilization associated with an adverse drug event (ADE). Nested case-control study within a prospective cohort study. The cohort included 4108 admissions to a stratified random sample of 11 medical and surgical units in 2 tertiary-care hospitals over a 6-month period. Cases were patients with an ADE, and the control for each case was the patient on the same unit as the case with the most similar pre-event length of stay. Postevent length of stay and total costs. Incidents were detected by self-report stimulated by nurses and pharmacists and by daily chart review, and were classified as to whether they represented ADEs. Information on length of stay and charges was obtained from billing data, and costs were estimated by multiplying components of charges times hospital-specific ratios of costs to charges. During the study period, there were 247 ADEs among 207 admissions. After outliers and multiple episodes were excluded, there were 190 ADEs, of which 60 were preventable. In paired regression analyses adjusting for multiple factors, including severity, comorbidity, and case mix, the additional length of stay associated with an ADE was 2.2 days (P=.04), and the increase in cost associated with an ADE was $3244 (P=.04). For preventable ADEs, the increases were 4.6 days in length of stay (P=.03) and $5857 in total cost (P=.07). After adjusting for our sampling strategy, the estimated postevent costs attributable to an ADE were $2595 for all ADEs and $4685 for preventable ADEs. Based on these costs and data about the incidence of ADEs, we estimate that the annual costs attributable to all ADEs and preventable ADEs for a 700-bed teaching hospital are $5.6 million and $2.8 million, respectively. The substantial costs of ADEs to hospitals justify investment in efforts to prevent these events. Moreover, these estimates are conservative because they do not include the costs of injuries to patients or malpractice costs.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Medication reconciliation during transitions of care as a patient safety strategy: a systematic review.

              Medication reconciliation identifies and resolves unintentional discrepancies between patients' medication lists across transitions in care. The purpose of this review is to summarize evidence about the effectiveness of hospital-based medication reconciliation interventions. Searches encompassed MEDLINE through November 2012 and EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through July 2012. Eligible studies evaluated the effects of hospital-based medication reconciliation on unintentional discrepancies with nontrivial risks for harm to patients or 30-day postdischarge emergency department visits and readmission. Two reviewers evaluated study eligibility, abstracted data, and assessed study quality. Eighteen studies evaluating 20 interventions met the selection criteria. Pharmacists performed medication reconciliation in 17 of the 20 interventions. Most unintentional discrepancies identified had no clinical significance. Medication reconciliation alone probably does not reduce postdischarge hospital utilization but may do so when bundled with interventions aimed at improving care transitions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                markus.messerli@unibas.ch
                e.blozik@uke.de
                noortje.vriends@unibas.ch
                kurt.hersberger@unibas.ch
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                23 April 2016
                23 April 2016
                2016
                : 16
                : 145
                Affiliations
                [ ]Pharmaceutical Care Research Group, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
                [ ]Division of General Practice, Department of Medicine, University Medical Centre Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
                [ ]Division of Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry, Department of Psychology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
                Article
                1384
                10.1186/s12913-016-1384-8
                4842295
                27108410
                84168da3-a84f-441c-a4a7-acccff857643
                © Messerli et al. 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 8 September 2015
                : 14 April 2016
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Health & Social care
                polypharmacy,community pharmacy,medication review,drug-related problems,adherence to medication,medicines use,pharmaceutical care

                Comments

                Comment on this article