24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Impact of a Pharmacist-included Mobile Geriatrics team intervention on potentially inappropriate drug prescribing: protocol for a prospective feasibility study (PharMoG study)

      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

          Introduction

          Research has shown that potentially inappropriate drug prescription (PIDP) is highly prevalent in older people. The presence of PIDPs is associated with adverse health outcomes. This study aims to evaluate the impact of a PHARmacist-included MObile Geriatrics (PharMoG) team intervention on PIDPs in older patients hospitalised in the medical, surgical and emergency departments of a university hospital.

          Methods and analysis

          The PharMoG study is a prospective, interventional, single-centre feasibility study describing the impact of a PharMoG team on PIDPs in older hospitalised patients. Pharmacist intervention will be a treatment optimisation (clinical medication review) based on a combination of explicit and implicit criteria to detect PIDPs. The primary outcome is the acceptance rate of the mobile team’s proposed treatment optimisations related to PIDPs, measured at the patient’s discharge from the department. This pharmacist will work in cooperation with the physician of the mobile geriatric team. After the intervention of the mobile geriatric team, the proposals for improving therapy will be sent to the hospital medical team caring for the patient and to the patient’s attending physician. The patient will be followed for 3 months after discharge from the hospital.

          Ethics and dissemination

          This study was approved by the South-West and Overseas Territories II Ethics Committee. Oral consent must be obtained prior to participation, either from the patient or from the patient’s representative (trusted person and/or a family member). The results will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

          Trial registration number

          NCT04151797.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

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

          A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation

          The objective of this study was to develop a prospectively applicable method for classifying comorbid conditions which might alter the risk of mortality for use in longitudinal studies. A weighted index that takes into account the number and the seriousness of comorbid disease was developed in a cohort of 559 medical patients. The 1-yr mortality rates for the different scores were: "0", 12% (181); "1-2", 26% (225); "3-4", 52% (71); and "greater than or equal to 5", 85% (82). The index was tested for its ability to predict risk of death from comorbid disease in the second cohort of 685 patients during a 10-yr follow-up. The percent of patients who died of comorbid disease for the different scores were: "0", 8% (588); "1", 25% (54); "2", 48% (25); "greater than or equal to 3", 59% (18). With each increased level of the comorbidity index, there were stepwise increases in the cumulative mortality attributable to comorbid disease (log rank chi 2 = 165; p less than 0.0001). In this longer follow-up, age was also a predictor of mortality (p less than 0.001). The new index performed similarly to a previous system devised by Kaplan and Feinstein. The method of classifying comorbidity provides a simple, readily applicable and valid method of estimating risk of death from comorbid disease for use in longitudinal studies. Further work in larger populations is still required to refine the approach because the number of patients with any given condition in this study was relatively small.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials.

            The protocol of a clinical trial serves as the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and appraisal. However, trial protocols and existing protocol guidelines vary greatly in content and quality. This article describes the systematic development and scope of SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013, a guideline for the minimum content of a clinical trial protocol.The 33-item SPIRIT checklist applies to protocols for all clinical trials and focuses on content rather than format. The checklist recommends a full description of what is planned; it does not prescribe how to design or conduct a trial. By providing guidance for key content, the SPIRIT recommendations aim to facilitate the drafting of high-quality protocols. Adherence to SPIRIT would also enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, sponsors, funders, research ethics committees or institutional review boards, peer reviewers, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators, and other key stakeholders.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 2

              Purpose: screening tool of older people's prescriptions (STOPP) and screening tool to alert to right treatment (START) criteria were first published in 2008. Due to an expanding therapeutics evidence base, updating of the criteria was required. Methods: we reviewed the 2008 STOPP/START criteria to add new evidence-based criteria and remove any obsolete criteria. A thorough literature review was performed to reassess the evidence base of the 2008 criteria and the proposed new criteria. Nineteen experts from 13 European countries reviewed a new draft of STOPP & START criteria including proposed new criteria. These experts were also asked to propose additional criteria they considered important to include in the revised STOPP & START criteria and to highlight any criteria from the 2008 list they considered less important or lacking an evidence base. The revised list of criteria was then validated using the Delphi consensus methodology. Results: the expert panel agreed a final list of 114 criteria after two Delphi validation rounds, i.e. 80 STOPP criteria and 34 START criteria. This represents an overall 31% increase in STOPP/START criteria compared with version 1. Several new STOPP categories were created in version 2, namely antiplatelet/anticoagulant drugs, drugs affecting, or affected by, renal function and drugs that increase anticholinergic burden; new START categories include urogenital system drugs, analgesics and vaccines. Conclusion: STOPP/START version 2 criteria have been expanded and updated for the purpose of minimizing inappropriate prescribing in older people. These criteria are based on an up-to-date literature review and consensus validation among a European panel of experts.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2020
                2 December 2020
                : 10
                : 12
                : e040917
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentDepartment of Pharmacy , Toulouse University Hospital , Toulouse, France
                [2 ] departmentInstitute of Aging , Gérontopôle, INSPIRE project, Toulouse University Hospital , Toulouse, France
                [3 ] departmentCentre for Epidemiology and Population Health Research (CERPOP), UMR 1027 , Inserm, University of Toulouse (UPS) , Toulouse, France
                [4 ] departmentDepartment of Geriatrics , Toulouse University Hospital , Toulouse, France
                [5 ] departmentDepartment of Research and Innovation , Toulouse University Hospital , Toulouse, France
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Arnaud Pagès; pages.ar@ 123456chu-toulouse.fr
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2337-8693
                Article
                bmjopen-2020-040917
                10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040917
                7713213
                33268421
                8926cb8d-04e8-4faf-8d9a-e23376642802
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 25 May 2020
                : 02 November 2020
                : 02 November 2020
                Categories
                Geriatric Medicine
                1506
                1698
                Protocol
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                geriatric medicine,clinical pharmacology,organisation of health services
                Medicine
                geriatric medicine, clinical pharmacology, organisation of health services

                Comments

                Comment on this article