4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Evaluation of drug-related problems in older polypharmacy primary care patients

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

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

          Clinical medication review by a pharmacist of elderly people living in care homes--randomised controlled trial.

          to measure the impact of pharmacist-conducted clinical medication review with elderly care home residents. randomised controlled trial of clinical medication review by a pharmacist against usual care. sixty-five care homes for the elderly in Leeds, UK. a total of 661 residents aged 65+ years on one or more medicines. clinical medication review by a pharmacist with patient and clinical records. Recommendations to general practitioner for approval and implementation. Control patients received usual general practitioner care. primary: number of changes in medication per participant. Secondary: number and cost of repeat medicines per participant; medication review rate; mortality, falls, hospital admissions, general practitioner consultations, Barthel index, Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE). the pharmacist reviewed 315/331 (95.2%) patients in 6 months. A total of 62/330 (18.8%) control patients were reviewed by their general practitioner. The mean number of drug changes per patient were 3.1 for intervention and 2.4 for control group (P < 0.0001). There were respectively 0.8 and 1.3 falls per patient (P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference for GP consultations per patient (means 2.9 and 2.8 in 6 months, P = 0.5), hospitalisations (means 0.2 and 0.3, P = 0.11), deaths (51/331 and 48/330, P = 0.81), Barthel score (9.8 and 9.3, P = 0.06), SMMSE score (13.9 and 13.8, P = 0.62), number and cost of drugs per patient (6.7 and 6.9, P = 0.5) (pounds sterling 42.24 and pounds sterling 42.94 per 28 days). A total of 75.6% (565/747) of pharmacist recommendations were accepted by the general practitioner; and 76.6% (433/565) of accepted recommendations were implemented. general practitioners do not review most care home patients' medication. A clinical pharmacist can review them and make recommendations that are usually accepted. This leads to substantial change in patients' medication regimens without change in drug costs. There is a reduction in the number of falls. There is no significant change in consultations, hospitalisation, mortality, SMMSE or Barthel scores.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Does home based medication review keep older people out of hospital? The HOMER randomised controlled trial.

            To determine whether home based medication review by pharmacists affects hospital readmission rates among older people. Randomised controlled trial. Home based medication review after discharge from acute or community hospitals in Norfolk and Suffolk. 872 patients aged over 80 recruited during an emergency admission (any cause) if returning to own home or warden controlled accommodation and taking two or more drugs daily on discharge. Two home visits by a pharmacist within two weeks and eight weeks of discharge to educate patients and carers about their drugs, remove out of date drugs, inform general practitioners of drug reactions or interactions, and inform the local pharmacist if a compliance aid is needed. Control arm received usual care. Total emergency readmissions to hospital at six months. Secondary outcomes included death and quality of life measured with the EQ-5D. By six months 178 readmissions had occurred in the control group and 234 in the intervention group (rate ratio = 1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.58; P = 0.009, Poisson model). 49 deaths occurred in the intervention group compared with 63 in the control group (hazard ratio = 0.75, 0.52 to 1.10; P = 0.14). EQ-5D scores decreased (worsened) by a mean of 0.14 in the control group and 0.13 in the intervention group (difference = 0.01, -0.05 to 0.06; P = 0.84, t test). The intervention was associated with a significantly higher rate of hospital admissions and did not significantly improve quality of life or reduce deaths. Further research is needed to explain this counterintuitive finding and to identify more effective methods of medication review.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Improving the quality of pharmacotherapy in elderly primary care patients through medication reviews: a randomised controlled study.

              Polypharmacy in the Swedish elderly population is currently a prioritised area of research with a focus on reducing the use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). Multi-professional interventions have previously been tested for their ability to improve drug therapy in frail elderly patients. This study aimed to assess a structured model for pharmacist-led medication reviews in primary health care in southern Sweden and to measure its effects on numbers of patients with PIMs (using the definition of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare) using ≥10 drugs and using ≥3 psychotropics. This study was a randomised controlled clinical trial performed in a group of patients aged ≥75 years and living in nursing homes or the community and receiving municipal health care. Medication reviews were performed by trained clinical pharmacists based on nurse-initiated symptom assessments with team-based or distance feedback to the physician. Data were collected from the patients' electronic medication lists and medical records at baseline and 2 months after the medication review. A total of 369 patients were included: 182 in the intervention group and 187 in the control group. One-third of the patients in both groups had at least one PIM at baseline. Two months after the medication reviews, the number of intervention group patients with at least one PIM and the number of intervention group patients using ten or more drugs had decreased (p = 0.007 and p = 0.001, respectively), while there were no statistically significant changes in the control patients. No changes were seen in the number of patients using three or more psychotropic drugs, although the dosages of these drugs tended to decrease. Drug-related problems (DRPs) were identified in 93 % of the 182 patients in the intervention group. In total, there were 431 DRPs in the intervention group (a mean of 2.5 DRPs per patient, range 0-9, SD 1.5 at 95 % CI) and 16 % of the DRPs were related to PIMs. Medication reviews involving pharmacists in primary health care appear to be a feasible method to reduce the number of patients with PIMs, thus improving the quality of pharmacotherapy in elderly patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
                J Eval Clin Pract
                Wiley
                13561294
                August 2017
                August 2017
                March 29 2017
                : 23
                : 4
                : 860-865
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacokinetics and Clinical Pharmacy; University of Belgrade; Belgrade Serbia
                [2 ]Department of Pharmacotherapy and Pharmaceutical Care; University of Groningen; Groningen the Netherlands
                Article
                10.1111/jep.12737
                28370742
                ba157277-7c4f-4886-b54c-72d27d5a8577
                © 2017

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article