6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      To what extent is clinical and laboratory information used to perform medication reviews in the nursing home setting? the CLEAR study

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          The aim of this study was to evaluate to what extent laboratory data, actual medication, medical history, and/or drug indication influence the quality of medication reviews for nursing home patients.

          Methods

          Forty-six health care professionals from different fields were requested to perform medication reviews for three different cases. Per case, the amount of information provided varied in three subsequent stages: stage 1, medication list only; stage 2, adding laboratory data and reason for hospital admission; and stage 3, adding medical history/drug indication. Following a slightly modified Delphi method, a multidisciplinary team performed the medication review for each case and stage. The results of these medication reviews were used as reference reviews (gold standard). The remarks from the participants were scored, according to their potential clinical impact, from relevant to harmful on a scale of 3 to −1. A total score per case and stage was calculated and expressed as a percentage of the total score from the expert panel for the same case and stage.

          Results

          The overall mean percentage over all cases, stages, and groups was 37.0% when compared with the reference reviews. For one of the cases, the average score decreased significantly from 40.0% in stage 1, to 30.9% in stage 2, and 27.9% in stage 3; no significant differences between stages was found for the other cases.

          Conclusion

          The low performance, against the gold standard, of medication reviews found in the present study highlights that information is incorrectly used or wrongly interpreted, irrespective of the available information. Performing medication reviews without using the available information in an optimal way can have potential implications for patient safety.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 20

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

          Role of pharmacist counseling in preventing adverse drug events after hospitalization.

          Hospitalization and subsequent discharge home often involve discontinuity of care, multiple changes in medication regimens, and inadequate patient education, which can lead to adverse drug events (ADEs) and avoidable health care utilization. Our objectives were to identify drug-related problems during and after hospitalization and to determine the effect of patient counseling and follow-up by pharmacists on preventable ADEs. We conducted a randomized trial of 178 patients being discharged home from the general medicine service at a large teaching hospital. Patients in the intervention group received pharmacist counseling at discharge and a follow-up telephone call 3 to 5 days later. Interventions focused on clarifying medication regimens; reviewing indications, directions, and potential side effects of medications; screening for barriers to adherence and early side effects; and providing patient counseling and/or physician feedback when appropriate. The primary outcome was rate of preventable ADEs. Pharmacists observed the following drug-related problems in the intervention group: unexplained discrepancies between patients' preadmission medication regimens and discharge medication orders in 49% of patients, unexplained discrepancies between discharge medication lists and postdischarge regimens in 29% of patients, and medication nonadherence in 23%. Comparing trial outcomes 30 days after discharge, preventable ADEs were detected in 11% of patients in the control group and 1% of patients in the intervention group (P = .01). No differences were found between groups in total ADEs or total health care utilization. Pharmacist medication review, patient counseling, and telephone follow-up were associated with a lower rate of preventable ADEs 30 days after hospital discharge. Medication discrepancies before and after discharge were common targets of intervention.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Does pharmacist-led medication review help to reduce hospital admissions and deaths in older people? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

            We set out to determine the effects of pharmacist-led medication review in older people by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis covering 11 electronic databases. Randomized controlled trials in any setting, concerning older people (mean age > 60 years), were considered, aimed at optimizing drug regimens and improving patient outcomes. Our primary outcome was emergency hospital admission (all cause). Secondary outcomes were mortality and numbers of drugs prescribed. We also recorded data on drug knowledge, adherence and adverse drug reactions. We retrieved 32 studies which fitted the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of 17 trials revealed no significant effect on all-cause admission, relative risk (RR) of 0.99 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87, 1.14, P = 0.92], with moderate heterogeneity (I(2) = 49.5, P = 0.01). Meta-analysis of mortality data from 22 trials found no significant benefit, with a RR of mortality of 0.96 (95% CI 0.82, 1.13, P = 0.62), with no heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%). Pharmacist-led medication review may slightly decrease numbers of drugs prescribed (weighted mean difference = -0.48, 95% CI -0.89, -0.07), but significant heterogeneity was found (I(2) = 85.9%, P < 0.001). Results for additional outcomes could not be pooled, but suggested that interventions could improve knowledge and adherence. Pharmacist-led medication review interventions do not have any effect on reducing mortality or hospital admission in older people, and can not be assumed to provide substantial clinical benefit. Such interventions may improve drug knowledge and adherence, but there are insufficient data to know whether quality of life is improved.
              Bookmark
              • 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

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ther Clin Risk Manag
                Ther Clin Risk Manag
                Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
                Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
                Dove Medical Press
                1176-6336
                1178-203X
                2015
                08 May 2015
                : 11
                : 767-777
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Orbis Medical Centre, Sittard, the Netherlands
                [2 ]Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Geriatric Medicine, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
                [3 ]Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Atrium Medical Centre, Heerlen, the Netherlands
                [4 ]Department of Family Medicine and Department of Health Services Research, School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
                [5 ]Department of Internal Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands
                [6 ]Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, Alzheimer Centre Limburg/School for Mental Health and Neurosciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
                [7 ]Department of Methodology and Statistics, School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Carlota Mestres Gonzalvo, Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Orbis Medical Centre, Dr H van der Hoffplein 1, 6162 BG Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands, Tel +31 88 459 7708, Fax +31 88 459 7179, Email c.mestresgonzalvo@ 123456orbisconcern.nl
                Article
                tcrm-11-767
                10.2147/TCRM.S77428
                4431471
                © 2015 Gonzalvo et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License

                The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article