Effect of a collaborative approach on the quality of prescribing for geriatric inpatients: a randomized, controlled trial

Potentially inappropriate prescribing in multimorbid and polymedicated older adults with AF: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AIM

Polypharmacy in multimorbid older patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is a risk factor for potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP). We aimed to systematically assess the evidence on the prevalence of PIP and its impact on adverse health outcomes in this patient group.

METHODS

A systematic search of the published peer-reviewed literature describing the prevalence of PIP and/or its association with adverse health outcomes in multimorbid (AF plus one comorbidity) and polymedicated (≥ 2 drugs) adults ≥ 65 years was done up to March 2023. A meta-analysis of the prevalence of PIP of (direct) oral anticoagulants ((D)OACs) was conducted using a random-effects model. Leave-one-out analysis was performed with R (version 4.2.2) and RStudio (version 2022.12.0+353).

RESULTS

Of the 12 studies included, only one reported on the prevalence of overall PIP (65%). The meta-analysis of 10 studies assessing PIP of (D)OACs produced a pooled prevalence [95% confidence interval (CI)] of 35% [30-40%], with significant heterogeneity between the included studies (I2 95%). No statistically significant association was reported in three studies between PIP of (D)OACs, cardiovascular (CV) and all-cause mortality, hospital readmission, CV hospitalisation and stroke. Reported associations between PIP and major bleeding differed, with one study demonstrating a significant association (odds ratio 2.17; 95% CI 1.14-4.12) and the other study not showing such association.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review highlights the scarce evidence regarding the prevalence of PIP and its association with adverse health outcomes in multimorbid older adults with AF. Large, prospective and better-designed studies are needed.

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, so that many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients. This is the third update of this Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions, alone or in combination, in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers up until 13 January 2021, together with handsearching of reference lists to identify additional studies. We ran updated searches in February 2023 and have added potentially eligible studies to 'Characteristics of studies awaiting classification'.

SELECTION CRITERIA

For this update, we included randomised trials only. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy (four or more medicines) in people aged 65 years and older, which used a validated tool to assess prescribing appropriateness. These tools can be classified as either implicit tools (judgement-based/based on expert professional judgement) or explicit tools (criterion-based, comprising lists of drugs to be avoided in older people).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, and two authors extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We pooled study-specific estimates, and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 38 studies, which includes an additional 10 in this update. The included studies consisted of 24 randomised trials and 14 cluster-randomised trials. Thirty-six studies examined complex, multi-faceted interventions of pharmaceutical care (i.e. the responsible provision of medicines to improve patients' outcomes), in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals such as general physicians, pharmacists, nurses and geriatricians, and most were conducted in high-income countries. Assessments using the Cochrane risk of bias tool found that there was a high and/or unclear risk of bias across a number of domains. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome ranged from low to very low. It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care improves medication appropriateness (as measured by an implicit tool) (mean difference (MD) -5.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -9.26 to -2.06; I2 = 97%; 8 studies, 947 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.05; I2 = 67%; 9 studies, 2404 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PIM (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98; I2 = 84%; 13 studies, 4534 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may slightly reduce the number of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -1.05 to 0.09; I2 = 92%; 3 studies, 691 participants; low-certainty evidence), however it must be noted that this effect estimate is based on only three studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk of bias. Likewise, it is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PPO (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.91; I2 = 95%; 7 studies, 2765 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference to hospital admissions (data not pooled; 14 studies, 4797 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference to quality of life (data not pooled; 16 studies, 7458 participants; low-certainty evidence). Medication-related problems were reported in 10 studies (6740 participants) using different terms (e.g. adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions). No consistent intervention effect on medication-related problems was noted across studies. This also applied to studies examining adherence to medication (nine studies, 3848 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy resulted in clinically significant improvement. Since the last update of this review in 2018, there appears to have been an increase in the number of studies seeking to address potential prescribing omissions and more interventions being delivered by multidisciplinary teams.

Implementation of clinical medication review in a geriatric ward to reduce potentially inappropriate prescriptions among older adults

PURPOSE

The impact of several pharmaceutical interventions to reduce the use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potentially omitted medications (POMs) has been recently studied. We aimed to determine whether clinical medication review (CMR) (i.e. a systematic and patient-centred clinical assessment of all medicines currently taken by a patient) performed by a geriatrician and a pharmacist added to standard pharmaceutical care (SPC) (i.e. medication reconciliation and regular prescription review by the pharmacist) resulted in more appropriate prescribing compared to SPC among older inpatients.

METHODS

A retrospective observational single-centre study was conducted in a French geriatric ward. Six criteria for appropriate prescribing were chosen: the number of PIMs and POMs as defined by the STOPP/STARTv2 list, the total number of drugs prescribed, the number of administrations per day and the number of psychotropic and anticholinergic drugs. These criteria were compared between CMR and SPC group using linear and logistic regression models weighted on propensity scores.

RESULTS

There were 137 patients included, 66 in the CMR group and 71 in the SPC group. The mean age was 87 years, the sex ratio was 0.65, the mean number of drugs prescribed was 9, the mean MMSE was 21 and at admission 242 POMs, and 363 PIMs were prescribed. Clinical medication review did not reduce the number of PIMs at discharge compared to SPC (beta = - 0.13 [- 0.84; 0.57], p = 0.71) nor did it reduce the number of drugs prescribed (p = 0.10), the number of psychotropic drugs (p = 0.17) or the anticholinergic load (p = 0.87). Clinical medication review resulted in more POMs being prescribed than in standard pharmaceutical care (beta = - 0.39 [- 0.72; - 0.06], p = 0.02). Cardiology POMs were more implemented in the medication review group (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Clinical medication review did not reduce the number of PIMs but helped clinicians introduce underused drugs, especially cardiovascular drugs, which are known to be associated with morbidity and mortality risk reduction.

Clinical pharmacy interventions in an Austrian hospital: a report highlights the need for the implementation of clinical pharmacy services

BACKGROUND

Clinical pharmacy services face challenges in Austria due to limited implementation and acceptance, outdated legislation and a lack of guidelines and training, despite the evidence from global studies of the positive impact of clinical pharmacists on patient care.

OBJECTIVES

First, to identify the necessary types of clinical pharmacy interventions required at a 360-bed hospital located in Austria. Second, to evaluate the extent to which physicians accept the suggestions made by clinical pharmacists.

METHODS

Over a period of 27 months, a clinical pharmacist made a series of interventions, which were evaluated using a six-point clinical significance scale. To determine the inter-rater reliability, a subset of 25 interventions was assessed for their clinical significance by four independent internal medicine physicians.

RESULTS

A total of 1064 interventions were made by the pharmacist. Clinical pharmacy input was deemed necessary for 986 out of 1364 (72.3%) patients, with an average of 1.08 interventions per patient. The prompt acceptance rate of these interventions by physicians was 83.5% (888/1064), while 12.9% (137/1064) were considered by physicians but not immediately acted upon. The average clinical significance intervention rating was 2.15. The inter-rater reliability agreement between the four MDs and between the four MDs and the pharmacist was classified as 'good' to 'moderate'.

CONCLUSION

This study in a secondary care Austrian hospital demonstrates the requirement for clinical pharmacy services, which are highly valued by other healthcare professionals. The clinical pharmacist is a key member of the multidisciplinary ward team, playing a vital role in reducing drug-related problems and enhancing patient safety. This work should now be scaled and tested in other Austrian hospitals.

Effect of Pharmacist-Led Intervention in Elderly Patients through a Comprehensive Medication Reconciliation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

Polypharmacy can cause drug-related problems, such as potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use and medication regimen complexity in the elderly. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of a collaborative medication review and comprehensive medication reconciliation intervention by a pharmacist and hospitalist for older patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This comprehensive medication reconciliation study was designed as a prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial with patients aged 65 years or older from July to December 2020. Comprehensive medication reconciliation comprised medication reviews based on the PIM criteria. The discharge of medication was simplified to reduce regimen complexity. The primary outcome was the difference in adverse drug events (ADEs) throughout hospitalization and 30 days after discharge. Changes in regimen complexity were evaluated using the Korean version of the medication regimen complexity index (MRCI-K).

RESULTS

Of the 32 patients, 34.4% (n=11/32) reported ADEs before discharge, and 19.2% (n=5/26) ADEs were reported at the 30-day phone call. No ADEs were reported in the intervention group, whereas five events were reported in the control group (p=0.039) on the 30-day phone call. The mean acceptance rate of medication reconciliation was 83%. The mean decreases of MRCI-K between at the admission and the discharge were 6.2 vs. 2.4, although it was not significant (p=0.159).

CONCLUSION

As a result, we identified the effect of pharmacist-led interventions using comprehensive medication reconciliation, including the criteria of the PIMs and the MRCI-K, and the differences in ADEs between the intervention and control groups at the 30-day follow-up after discharge in elderly patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

(Clinical trial number: KCT0005994).

Medication review in hospitalised patients to reduce morbidity and mortality

BACKGROUND

A medication review can be defined as a structured evaluation of a patient's medication conducted by healthcare professionals with the aim of optimising medication use and improving health outcomes. Optimising medication therapy though medication reviews may benefit hospitalised patients.

OBJECTIVES

We examined the effects of medication review interventions in hospitalised adult patients compared to standard care or to other types of medication reviews on all-cause mortality, hospital readmissions, emergency department contacts and health-related quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

In this Cochrane Review update, we searched for new published and unpublished trials using the following electronic databases from 1 January 2014 to 17 January 2022 without language restrictions: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). To identify additional trials, we searched the reference lists of included trials and other publications by lead trial authors, and contacted experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials of medication reviews delivered by healthcare professionals for hospitalised adult patients. We excluded trials including outpatients and paediatric patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for data clarification and relevant unpublished data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the overall certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

In this updated review, we included a total of 25 trials (15,076 participants), of which 15 were new trials (11,501 participants). Follow-up ranged from 1 to 20 months. We found that medication reviews in hospitalised adults may have little to no effect on mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.05; 18 trials, 10,108 participants; low-certainty evidence); likely reduce hospital readmissions (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98; 17 trials, 9561 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce emergency department contacts (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.03; 8 trials, 3527 participants; low-certainty evidence) and have very uncertain effects on health-related quality of life (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.30; 4 trials, 392 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Medication reviews in hospitalised adult patients likely reduce hospital readmissions and may reduce emergency department contacts. The evidence suggests that mediation reviews may have little to no effect on mortality, while the effect on health-related quality of life is very uncertain. Almost all trials included elderly polypharmacy patients, which limits the generalisability of the results beyond this population.

[Clinical pharmacy in four French-speaking university hospitals, integration and supervision of clinical pharmacists: An exploratory study]

BACKGROUND

Pharmacy practice continues to evolve worldwide. The clinical role of the pharmacists is increasingly recognized and their integration into the health care team is irreversible. Despite this progress, there are still a wide disparity in the scope of practice provided by hospital pharmacists around the world. This disparity can be attributed to a variety of factors.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective is to describe the organization of clinical pharmacy in four university hospitals in four French-speaking countries. The secondary objective is to identify similarities and differences and to identify perspectives for the future.

METHODS

This is an exploratory cross-sectional descriptive study. The study targeted a university hospital (CHU) in France, Belgium, Switzerland and Canada (Quebec). A volunteer expert pharmacist involved in the management of clinical pharmacy at each hospital was approached at the initiative of a team member. A working group of five pharmacists was set up.

RESULTS

During the year 2021, the group met virtually on ten occasions. Although all institutions have an academic mission, they have very different numbers of beds and volumes of activity. The number of pharmacists is also very different (0.83 FTE pharmacist/1000 admissions in Belgium, 0.22 in France, 0.59 in Switzerland and 2.39 in Quebec). In all countries, pharmacists provide clinical pharmacy services to patients in a centralised or decentralised manner, including, to various extent, prescription analysis, medication reconciliation, pharmaceutical interviews and discharge plans.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical pharmacy practice is very heterogeneous in a selection of four French-speaking teaching hospitals. Identification of similarities and differences may inspire improvements in the organization of clinical pharmacy activity. This work has contributed to the establishment of a community of practice on clinical pharmacy in the French-speaking world.

Optimizing pharmacotherapy on geriatric hospital units in Belgium - a national survey

OBJECTIVE

Inappropriate prescribing remains highly prevalent on geriatric units. The aim of this investigation, initiated by the Belgian College for Geriatrics, was to evaluate the implementation of strategies to optimize pharmacotherapy on geriatric units in Belgium.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to identify strategies to support the appropriate use of medications in very old inpatients. These strategies were subsequently validated based on Delphi consensus rounds and a national survey was developed. Experts were selected by the research team in collaboration with the Belgian College for Geriatrics. The survey was sent to the heads of the geriatric departments of all Belgian hospitals (n = 100).

RESULTS

After 3 months a response rate of 55% was achieved. Strategies that were implemented more frequently were the use of electronic prescribing (85%), performing a structured medication review (69%) and providing patient education (76%). In a minority (24%) of hospitals, a clinical pharmacist was directly involved in the multidisciplinary geriatric team. Implementation of clinical decisions support systems (CDSS) was reported by 36% of the hospitals. Educational strategies for healthcare professionals and strategies to optimize transitional care were variable.

CONCLUSION

Taking into account the current body of evidence, strategies that include transitional care components, CDSS or ward-based clinical pharmacy services should be further promoted on Belgian geriatric units.

Influence of a ward-based pharmacist on the medication quality of geriatric inpatients: a before-after study

Background Despite several international studies demonstrating that ward-based pharmacists improve medication quality, ward pharmacists are not generally established in German hospitals. Aim We assessed the effect of a ward-based clinical pharmacist on the medication quality of geriatric inpatients in a German university hospital. Method The before-after study with a historic control group was conducted on the geriatric ward. During the control phase, patients received standard care without the involvement of a pharmacist. The intervention consisted of a clinical pharmacist providing pharmaceutical care from admission to discharge. Medication quality was measured on admission and discharge using the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI). A linear regression analysis was conducted to calculate the influence of the intervention on the MAI. Results Patients in the intervention group (n = 152, mean 83 years) were older and took more drugs at admission compared to the control group (n = 159, 81 years). For both groups, the MAI per patient improved significantly from admission to discharge. Although the intervention did not influence the summated MAI score per patient, the intervention significantly reduced the MAI criteria Dosage (p = 0.006), Correct Directions (p = 0.016) and Practical Directions (p = 0.004) as well as the proportion of overall inappropriate MAI ratings (at least 1 of 9 criteria inappropriate) (p = 0.015). Conclusion Although medication quality was already high in the control group, a ward-based clinical pharmacist could contribute meaningfully to the medication quality on an acute geriatric ward.

Effectiveness of Interventions to Reduce Potentially Inappropriate Medication in Older Patients: A Systematic Review

Background: Age-related multiple comorbidities cause older adults to be prone to the use of potentially inappropriate medicines (PIM) resulting in an increased risk of adverse events. Several strategies have emerged to support PIM prescription, and a huge number of interventions to reduce PIM have been proposed. This work aims to analyze the effectiveness of PIM interventions directed to older adults.

Methods: A systematic review was performed searching the literature in the MEDLINE PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane scientific databases for interventional studies that assessed the PIM interventions in older adults (≥65 years).

Results: Forty-seven articles were included, involving 52 to 124,802 patients. Various types of interventions were analyzed such as medication review, educational strategies, clinical decision support system, and organizational and multifaceted approaches. In the hospital, the most successful intervention was medication review (75.0%), while in primary care, the analysis of all included studies revealed that educational strategies were the most effective. However, the analysis of interventions that have greater evidence by its design was inconclusive.

Conclusion: The results obtained in this work suggested that PIM-setting-directed interventions should be developed to promote the wellbeing of the patients through PIM reduction. Although the data obtained suggested that medication review was the most assertive strategy to decrease the number of PIM in the hospital setting, more studies are necessary.

Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021233484], identifier [PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021233484].

Reviewing Potentially Inappropriate Medication in Hospitalized Patients Over 65 Using Explicit Criteria: A Systematic Literature Review

Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) is a primary health concern affecting the quality of life of patients over 65. PIM is associated with adverse drug reactions including falls, increased healthcare costs, health services utilization and hospital admissions. Various strategies, clinical guidelines and tools (explicit and implicit) have been developed to tackle this health concern. Despite these efforts, evidence still indicates a high prevalence of PIM in the older adult population. This systematic review explored the practice of using explicit tools to review PIM in hospitalized patients and examined the outcomes of PIM reduction. A literature search was conducted in several databases from their inception to 2019. Original studies that had an interventional element using explicit criteria detecting PIM in hospitalized patients over 65 were included. Descriptive narrative synthesis was used to analyze the included studies. The literature search yielded 6116 articles; 25 quantitative studies were included in this systematic literature review. Twenty were prospective studies and five were retrospective. Approximately, 15,500 patients were included in the review. Various healthcare professionals were involved in reviewing PIM including physicians and hospital pharmacists. Several tools were used to review PIM for hospitalized patients over 65, most frequently Beer’s criteria and the STOPP/START tool. The reduction of PIM ranged from 3.5% up to 87%. The most common PIM were benzodiazepines and antipsychotics. This systematic review showed promising outcomes in terms of improving patient outcomes. However, the reduction of PIM varied in the studies, raising the question of the variance between hospitals in the explicit tools used for review. Additional studies need to be conducted to further investigate the outcomes of reviewing PIM at different levels, as well as assessing the cost-effectiveness of using explicit tools in reducing PIM.

Optimization of Nutrition And Medication (OptiNAM) for acutely admitted older patients: protocol for a randomized single-blinded controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Internationally, older patients (≥65 years) account for more than 40% of acute admissions. Older patients admitted to the emergency department (ED) are frequently malnourished and exposed to inappropriate medication prescribing, due in part to the inaccuracy of creatinine-based equations for estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). The overall aims of this trial are to investigate: (1) the efficacy of a medication review (MED intervention) independent of nutritional status, (2) the accuracy of eGFR equations based on various biomarkers compared to measured GFR (mGFR) based on ^99mTechnetium-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid plasma clearance, and (3) the efficacy of an individualized multimodal and transitional nutritional intervention (MULTI-NUT-MED intervention) in older patients with or at risk of malnutrition in the ED.

METHODS

The trial is a single-center block randomized, controlled, observer-blinded, superiority and explorative trial with two parallel groups. The population consists of 200 older patients admitted to the ED: 70 patients without malnutrition or risk of malnutrition and 130 patients with or at risk of malnutrition defined as a Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form score ≤11. All patients without the risk of malnutrition receive the MED intervention, which consists of a medication review by a pharmacist and geriatrician in the ED. Patients with or at risk of malnutrition receive the MULTI-NUT-MED intervention, which consists of the MED intervention in addition to, dietary counseling and individualized interventions based on the results of screening tests for dysphagia, problems with activities of daily living, low muscle strength in the lower extremities, depression, and problems with oral health. Baseline data are collected upon study inclusion, and follow-up data are collected at 8 and 16 weeks after discharge. The primary outcomes are (1) change in medication appropriateness index (MAI) score from baseline to 8 weeks after discharge, (2) accuracy of different eGFR equations compared to mGFR, and (3) change in health-related quality of life (measured with EuroQol-5D-5L) from baseline to 16 weeks after discharge.

DISCUSSION

The trial will provide new information on strategies to optimize the treatment of malnutrition and inappropriate medication prescribing among older patients admitted to the ED.

TRAIL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NTC03741283 . Retrospectively registered on 14 November 2018.

Medication appropriateness on an acute geriatric care unit: the impact of the removal of a clinical pharmacist

BACKGROUND

evidence is largely available indicating benefits to adding a pharmacist on acute care wards. The benefits of maintaining pharmacotherapeutic consultant services on a geriatric ward remain unexplored.

OBJECTIVES

to determine the impact of the removal of a clinical pharmacist from an acute geriatric ward on patients' Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) scores, admission-related outcomes and drug burdens.

METHODS

researchers consulted the archives for records of patients admitted to the geriatric care unit before and after the pharmacist's withdrawal. The primary outcome of differential MAI scores and secondary outcomes of rehospitalisations, emergency department visits, durations of hospitalisation and differential drug count were compared pre- and post-intervention. An interrupted time series analysis regression model was used for the primary outcome.

RESULTS

a total of 305 patients admitted before (n = 208) and after (n = 97) the pharmacist's withdrawal were included in the study. The intervention had a significant impact on the primary outcome, increasing the relative differential MAI score (adjusted mean) by 9.3 points (95% confidence interval 3.9-14.6). As for the secondary outcomes, differences in admission-related outcomes were non-significant but the mean differential drug count significantly increased post-intervention from 0.02 to 1.36 (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

the removal of the pharmacist led to an increase in inappropriate drug prescription. Careful consideration should be given to decisions regarding the removal of the pharmacist from acute geriatric care teams.

Effectiveness of interventions aiming to reduce inappropriate drug prescribing: an overview of interventions

Objective

Inappropriate prescribing of drugs is associated with unnecessary harms for patients and healthcare costs. Interventions to reduce these prescriptions are widely studied, yet the effectiveness of different types of interventions remains unclear. Therefore, we provide an overview regarding the effectiveness of intervention types that aim to reduce inappropriate drug prescriptions, unrestricted by target drugs, population or setting.

Methods

For this overview, systematic reviews (SRs) were used as the source for original studies. EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched from inception to August 2018. All SRs aiming to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to reduce inappropriate prescribing of drugs were eligible for inclusion. The SRs and their original studies were screened for eligibility. Interventions of the original studies were categorized by type of intervention. The percentage of interventions showing a significant reduction of inappropriate prescribing were reported per intervention category.

Key findings

Thirty-two SRs were included, which provided 319 unique interventions. Overall, 61.4% of these interventions showed a significant reduction in inappropriate prescribing of drugs. Strategies that were most frequently effective in reducing inappropriate prescribing were multifaceted interventions (73.2%), followed by interventions containing additional diagnostic tests (antibiotics) (70.4%), computer interventions (69.2%), audit and feedback (66.7%), patient-mediated interventions (62.5%) and multidisciplinary (team) approach (57.1%). The least frequently effective intervention was an education for healthcare professionals (50.0%).

Conclusion

The majority of the interventions were effective in reducing inappropriate prescribing of drugs. Multifaceted interventions most frequently showed a significant reduction of inappropriate prescribing. Education for healthcare professionals is the most frequently included intervention in this overview, yet this category is least frequently effective.

Factors affecting physician implementation of hospital pharmacists' medication appropriateness recommendations in older adults

AIMS

Non-implementation of pharmacist recommendations by physician prescribers may prolong potentially inappropriate prescribing in hospitalised older adults, increasing the risk of adverse clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to ascertain the key factors affecting physician prescriber implementation of pharmacists' medication appropriateness recommendations in hospitalised older adults.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with hospital pharmacists and physicians who provided care to older adults (≥65 years) in 2 acute university teaching hospitals in Ireland. Content analysis was employed to identify the key themes that influence physician prescriber implementation of pharmacist recommendations.

RESULTS

Fourteen interviews were conducted with 6 hospital pharmacists and 8 hospital physicians between August 2018 and August 2019. Five key factors were found to affect physician implementation of pharmacist recommendations: (i) the clinical relevance and complexity of the recommendation-recommendations of higher priority and those that do not require complex decision-making are implemented more readily; (ii) interprofessional communication-recommendations provided verbally, particularly those communicated face to face with confidence and assertion, are more likely to be implemented than written recommendations; (iii) physician role and identity-the grade, specialty, and personality of the physician significantly affect implementation; (iv) knowing each other and developing trusting relationships-personal acquaintance and the development of interprofessional trust and rapport greatly facilitate recommendation implementation; and (v) the hospital environment-organisational issues such as documentation in the patient notes, having the opportunity to intervene, and the clinical pharmacy model all affect implementation.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a deeper understanding of the underlying behavioural determinants affecting physician prescriber implementation of pharmacist recommendations and will aid in the development of theoretically-informed interventions to improve medication appropriateness in hospitalised older adults.

REview of potentially inappropriate MEDIcation pr[e]scribing in Seniors (REMEDI[e]S): French implicit and explicit criteria

PURPOSE

To establish a consensus on both explicit and implicit criteria in order to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in French older people aged 75 years and over or 65 years and over with multimorbidity.

METHODS

Fifteen experts in geriatrics, general practice, pharmacy, and clinical pharmacology were involved in a two-round Delphi survey to assess preliminary explicit and implicit criteria based on an extensive literature review and up-to-date evidence data. Experts were asked to rate their level of agreement using a 5-level Likert scale for inclusion of criteria and also for rationale and therapeutic alternatives. A consensus was considered as reached if at least 75% of the experts rated criteria as "strongly agreed" or "agreed."

RESULTS

The new tool included a seven-step algorithm (implicit criteria) encompassing the three main domains that define PIP (i.e. overprescribing, underprescribing, and misprescribing) and 104 explicit criteria. Explicit criteria were divided into 6 tables related to inappropriate drug duplications (n = 7 criteria), omissions of medications and/or medication associations (n = 16), medications with an unfavourable benefit/risk ratio and/or a questionable efficacy (n = 39), medications with an unsuitable dose (n = 4) or duration (n = 6), drug-disease (n = 13), and drug-drug interactions (n = 19).

CONCLUSION

The REMEDI[e]S tool (REview of potentially inappropriate MEDIcation pr[e]scribing in Seniors) is an original mixed tool, adapted to French medical practices, aimed at preventing PIP both at the individual level in clinical practice and the population level in large-scale studies. Therefore, its use could contribute to an improvement in healthcare professionals' prescribing practices and safer care in older adults.

Effects of hospital pharmacist interventions on health outcomes in older polymedicated inpatients: a scoping review

PURPOSE

To identify the evidence that supports the effect of interventions made by hospital pharmacists, individually or in collaboration with a multidisciplinary team, in terms of healthcare outcomes, a more effective utilization of resources and lower costs in older polymedicated inpatients.

METHODS

We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. We also conducted a hand search by checking the references cited in the primary studies and studies included in reviews identified during the process of research. Four review authors working by pairs searched for studies, extracted data, and drew up the results tables.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies were included in the review. In 13 of them pharmacists carried out their intervention exclusively while the patients were in hospital, whereas in 13 interventions were delivered during admission and after hospital discharge. Outcomes identified were mortality, length of stay, visits to the emergency department, readmissions and reported quality of life, among others. Pharmacist interventions were found to be beneficial in fifteen studies, specifically on hospital readmissions, visits to the emergency department and healthcare costs.

CONCLUSION

There is no hard evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of hospital pharmacist interventions in older polymedicated patients. Mortality does not show as a relevant outcome. Other health care outcomes, such as hospital readmissions, visits to the emergency department and healthcare costs, seem to be more relevant and amenable to change. Interventions that include pharmacists in multidisciplinary geriatric teams seem to be more promising that isolated pharmacist interventions. Interventions prolonged after hospital discharge seem to be more appropriate that interventions delivered only during hospital admission. Better-designed studies should be conducted in the future to provide further insight into the effect of hospital pharmacist interventions.

A pharmacist's unique opportunity within a multidisciplinary team to reduce drug-related problems for older adults in an intermediate care setting

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of research describing the pharmacist's role in the multidisciplinary care of older adults in the intermediate care setting.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the types of drug-related problems (DRPs) in older patients in this setting, to evaluate the implementation rate of pharmacist recommendations and the factors affecting implementation, and to assess the clinical significance of these recommendations.

METHODS

Data were collected over a 12-week period on one pharmacist's recommendations to reduce clinically relevant DRPs identified during medication reconciliation and review for all patients ≥65 years admitted to an intermediate care unit. The clinical significance of the recommendations was judged by four independent assessors using a validated tool. Statistical significance was predetermined as p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Of 494 clinically relevant DRPs identified in 91 patients (mean age: 82 years), 406 recommendations were communicated to the medical team, and 89.2% were implemented. Overall, 48.5% were communicated verbally, but no difference was found between the implementation rates of verbal and written recommendations (87.8% versus 90.4%; p = 0.4). Medication reconciliation recommendations were implemented more commonly than those regarding medication review (96.5% versus 79.5%; p < 0.0001). Recommendations judged to be of 'moderate significance' (66.8% of total) were implemented more often than those of 'minor significance' (93.2% versus 81.6%; p < 0.001). The consultant was provided with a significantly higher proportion of recommendations of 'moderate significance' when compared to the junior doctor (79.6% versus 63.3%; p = 0.02), but implemented significantly fewer recommendations (69.4% versus 91.9%; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The high implementation rate in this study shows the importance of pharmacist involvement to reduce DRPs in the multidisciplinary care of older adults in an intermediate care unit. Future research should focus on investigating the impact of pharmacist interventions on older patient outcomes and the associated cost-effectiveness in this setting.

Reduction in unplanned hospitalizations associated with a physician focused intervention to reduce potentially inappropriate medication use among older adults: a population-based cohort study

Background

A multimodal general practitioner-focused intervention in the Local Health Authority (LHA) of Parma, Italy, substantially reduced the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use among older adults. Our objective was to estimate changes in hospitalization rates associated with the Parma LHA quality improvement initiative that reduced PIM use.

Methods

This population-based longitudinal cohort study was conducted among older residents (> 65 years) using the Parma LHA administrative healthcare database. Crude and adjusted unplanned hospitalization rates were estimated in 3 periods (pre-intervention: 2005–2008, intervention: 2009–2010, post-intervention: 2011–2014). Multivariable negative binomial models estimated trends in quarterly hospitalization rates among individuals at risk during each period using a piecewise linear spline for time, adjusted for time-dependent and time-fixed covariates.

Results

The pre-intervention, intervention, and post-intervention periods included 117,061, 107,347, and 121,871 older adults and had crude hospitalization rates of 146.2 (95% CI: 142.2–150.3), 146.8 (95% CI: 143.6–150.0), and 140.8 (95% CI: 136.9–144.7) per 1000 persons per year, respectively. The adjusted pre-intervention hospitalization rate was declining by 0.7% per quarter (IRR = 0.993; 95% CI: 0.991–0.995). The hospitalization rate declined more than twice as fast during the intervention period (1.8% per quarter, IRR = 0.982; 95% CI: 0.979–0.985) and was nearly constant post-intervention (IRR: 0.999; 95% CI: 0.997–1.001). Contrasting model predictions for the intervention period (Q1 2009 to Q4 2010), the intervention was associated with 1481 avoided hospitalizations.

Conclusion

In a large population of older adults, a multimodal general practitioner-focused intervention to decrease PIM use was associated with a decline in the unplanned hospitalization rate. Such interventions to reduce high risk medication use among older adults warrant consideration by health systems seeking to improve health outcomes and reduce high-cost acute care utilization.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-021-02172-3.

A Collaborative Deprescribing Intervention in a Subacute Medical Outpatient Clinic: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Medication deprescribing is essential to prevent inappropriate medication use in multimorbid patients. However, experience of deprescribing in Danish Subacute Medical Outpatient Clinics (SMOCs) is limited. The objective of our pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility and sustainability of a collaborative deprescribing intervention by a pharmacist and a physician to multimorbid patients in a SMOC. A randomized controlled pilot study was conducted, with phone follow-up at 30 and 365+ days. A senior pharmacist performed a systematic deprescribing intervention using the Screening Tool of Older Persons' potentially inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP) criteria, the Danish deprescribing list, and patient interviews. A senior physician received the proposed recommendations and decided which should be implemented. The main outcome was the number of patients having ≥1 medication where deprescribing status was sustained 30 days after inclusion. Out of 76 eligible patients, 72 (95%) were included and 67 (93%) completed the study (57% male; mean age 73 years; mean number of 10 prescribed medications). Nineteen patients (56%) in the intervention group and four (12%) in the control group had ≥1 medication where deprescribing status was sustained 30 days after inclusion (p = 0.015). In total, 37 medications were deprescribed in the intervention group and five in the control group. At 365+ days after inclusion, 97% and 100% of the deprescribed medications were sustained in the intervention and control groups, respectively. The three most frequently deprescribed medication groups were analgesics, cardiovascular, and gastrointestinal medications. In conclusion, a collaborative deprescribing intervention for multimorbid patients was feasible and resulted in sustainable deprescribing of medication in a SMOC.

Underprescription of medications in older adults: causes, consequences and solutions-a narrative review

PURPOSE

Under-prescription is defined as the omission of a medication that is indicated for the treatment of a condition or a disease, without any valid reason for not prescribing it. The aim of this review is to provide an updated overview of under-prescription, summarizing the available evidence concerning its prevalence, causes, consequences and potential interventions to reduce it.

METHODS

A PubMed search was performed, using the following keywords: under-prescription; under-treatment; prescribing omission; older adults; polypharmacy; cardiovascular drugs; osteoporosis; anticoagulant. The list of articles was evaluated by two authors who selected the most relevant of them. The reference lists of retrieved articles were screened for additional pertinent studies.

RESULTS

Although several pharmacological therapies are safe and effective in older patients, under-prescription remains widespread in the older population, with a prevalence ranging from 22 to 70%. Several drugs are underused, including cardiovascular, oral anticoagulant and anti-osteoporotic drugs. Many factors are associated with under-prescription, e.g. multi-morbidity, polypharmacy, dementia, frailty, risk of adverse drug events, absence of specific clinical trials in older patients and economic factors. Under-prescription is associated with negative consequences, such as higher risk of cardiovascular events, worsening disability, hospitalization and death. The implementation of explicit criteria for under-prescription, the use of the comprehensive geriatric assessment by geriatricians, and the involvement of a clinical pharmacist seem to be promising options to reduce under-prescription.

CONCLUSION

Under-prescription remains widespread in the older population. Further studies should be performed, to provide a better comprehension of this phenomenon and to confirm the efficacy of corrective interventions.

Medication review and reconciliation in older adults

Older people are frequently exposed to polypharmacy, inappropriate prescribing, and adverse drug events. Two clinical processes can help geriatricians to optimize and increase the safety of drug prescriptions for older adults: medication reconciliation and medication review. Medication reconciliation provides the best possible medication history and identifies and resolves discrepancies in drug prescriptions. During the medication review, the best possible medication history is crosschecked against other data, including morbidities, patient's preferences, or geriatric syndromes, to produce a personalized medication strategy. Alignment of treatment recommendations with patient preferences and goals through shared decision-making is particularly important in medication review. Medication reconciliation and medication review have proven to be effective, but their broad implementation remains difficult. Indeed, these procedures are time-consuming and require specific skills, coordination between different healthcare professionals, organizations and dedicated means. The involvement of geriatricians therefore remains essential for the successful implementation of medication reconciliation and medication review in geriatric settings and among frail older people.

Medication review interventions to reduce hospital readmissions in older people

Objective

To assess the efficacy of medication review as an isolated intervention and with several co‐interventions for preventing hospital readmissions in older adults.

Methods

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and CINAHL were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of medication review interventions with or without co‐interventions to prevent hospital readmissions in hospitalized or recently discharged adults aged ≥65, until September 13, 2019. Included outcomes were “at least one all‐cause hospital readmission within 30 days and at any time after discharge from the index admission.”

Results

Twenty‐five studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 11 studies (7,318 participants) contributed to the network meta‐analysis (NMA) on all‐cause hospital readmission within 30 days. Medication review in combination with (a) medication reconciliation and patient education (risk ratio (RR) 0.45; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26–0.80) and (b) medication reconciliation, patient education, professional education and transitional care (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.49–0.84) were associated with a lower risk of all‐cause hospital readmission compared to usual care. Medication review in isolation did not significantly influence hospital readmissions (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.45–2.51). The NMA on all‐cause hospital readmission at any time included 24 studies (11,677 participants). Medication review combined with medication reconciliation, patient education, professional education and transitional care resulted in a reduction of hospital readmissions (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.74–0.91) compared to usual care. The quality of the studies included in this systematic review raised some concerns, mainly regarding allocation concealment, blinding and contamination.

Conclusion

Medication review in combination with medication reconciliation, patient education, professional education and transitional care, was associated with a lower risk of hospital readmissions compared to usual care. An effect of medication review without co‐interventions was not demonstrated. Trials of higher quality are needed in this field.

Theory and practical guidance for effective de-implementation of practices across health and care services: a realist synthesis

Background

Health-care systems across the globe are facing increased pressures to balance the efficient use of resources and at the same time provide high-quality care. There is greater requirement for services to be evidence based, but practices that are of limited clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness still occur.

Objectives

Our objectives included completing a concept analysis of de-implementation, surfacing decision-making processes associated with de-implementing through stakeholder engagement, and generating an evidence-based realist programme theory of ‘what works’ in de-implementation.

Design

A realist synthesis was conducted using an iterative stakeholder-driven four-stage approach. Phase 1 involved scoping the literature and conducting stakeholder interviews to develop the concept analysis and an initial programme theory. In Phase 2, systematic searches of the evidence were conducted to test and develop this theory, expressed in the form of contingent relationships. These are expressed as context–mechanism–outcomes to show how particular contexts or conditions trigger mechanisms to generate outcomes. Phase 3 consisted of validation and refinement of programme theories through stakeholder interviews. The final phase (i.e. Phase 4) formulated actionable recommendations for service leaders.

Participants

In total, 31 stakeholders (i.e. user/patient representatives, clinical managers, commissioners) took part in focus groups and telephone interviews.

Data sources

Using keywords identified during the scoping work and concept analysis, searches of bibliographic databases were conducted in May 2018. The databases searched were the Cochrane Library, Campbell Collaboration, MEDLINE (via EBSCOhost), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (via EBSCOhost), the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library and the following databases via the ProQuest platform: Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Social Sciences Database and Sociological Abstracts. Alerts were set up for the MEDLINE database from May 2018 to December 2018. Online sources were searched for grey literature and snowballing techniques were used to identify clusters of evidence.

Results

The concept analysis showed that de-implementation is associated with five main components in context and over time: (1) what is being de-implemented, (2) the issues driving de-implementation, (3) the action characterising de-implementation, (4) the extent that de-implementation is planned or opportunistic and (5) the consequences of de-implementation. Forty-two papers were synthesised to identify six context–mechanism–outcome configurations, which focused on issues ranging from individual behaviours to organisational procedures. Current systems can perpetuate habitual decision-making practices that include low-value treatments. Electronic health records can be designed to hide or remove low-value treatments from choice options, foregrounding best evidence. Professionals can be made aware of their decision-making strategies through increasing their attention to low-value practice behaviours. Uncertainty about diagnosis or patients’ expectations for certain treatments provide opportunities for ‘watchful waiting’ as an active strategy to reduce inappropriate investigations and prescribing. The emotional component of clinician–patient relationships can limit opportunities for de-implementation, requiring professional support through multimodal educational interventions. Sufficient alignment between policy, public and professional perspectives is required for de-implementation success.

Limitations

Some specific clinical issues (e.g. de-prescribing) dominate the de-implementation evidence base, which may limit the transferability of the synthesis findings. Any realist inquiry generates findings that are essentially cumulative and should be developed through further investigation that extends the range of sources into, for example, clinical research and further empirical studies.

Conclusions

This review contributes to our understanding of how de-implementation of low-value procedures and services can be improved within health-care services, through interventions that make professional decision-making more accountable and the prominence of a whole-system approach to de-implementation. Given the whole-system context of de-implementation, a range of different dissemination strategies will be required to engage with different stakeholders, in different ways, to change practice and policy in a timely manner.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017081030.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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

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.

Impact of pharmacist interventions during transition of care in older adults to reduce the use of healthcare services: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Current literature has shown increasing risk of error in transition of care between different healthcare settings, especially in the older population. Moreover, drug-related hospital readmission has been reported due to lack of appropriate communication. However, the literature is not clear about the impact of pharmacist interventions during transition of care of older adults on the reduction in use of healthcare services.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of the scoping review was to describe the impact of pharmacist interventions during transitions of care for older adults on the use of healthcare services.

METHODS

MEDLINE was searched for randomized controlled trials and controlled studies that analyzed pharmacist interventions during transition of care of older adults with regard to use of healthcare services. Four reviewers, grouped in pairs, independently screened all references published from 1990 to 2019 and extracted and analyzed the data. A pharmaceutical model of 8 pharmacist-led interventions was adapted from literature to compare the included studies.

RESULTS

There were 1527 publications screened, 17 of which met inclusion criteria. Pharmacist-led interventions decreased the use of healthcare services in 11 of these studies. The majority of studies were of very good or good quality based on Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Pharmacist were implicated at all times during the transition of care process (i.e. admission/during stay, discharge and post-discharge) in 4 of the effective studies, whereas none did in the not effective studies. More interventions were accomplished by pharmacists in studies with positive outcomes.

CONCLUSION

By diversifying their interventions at different moments throughout transition of care, pharmacists can reduce the use of healthcare services for older adults during transition of care. This scoping review also shows the need to better understand key components of post-discharge interventions and to have a dynamic pharmaceutical model accepted by the scientific community.

Effects of stratified medication review in high-risk patients at admission to hospital: a randomised controlled trial

Background:

Patients at high risk of medication errors will potentially benefit most from medication reviews. An algorithm, MERIS, can identify the patients who are at highest risk of medication errors. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of performing stratified medication reviews on patients who according to MERIS were at highest risk of medication errors.

Methods:

A randomised controlled trial was performed at the Acute Admissions Unit, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. Patients were included at admission to the hospital and were randomised to control or intervention. The intervention consisted of stratified medication review at admission on patients with a high MERIS score. Clinical pharmacists and clinical pharmacologists performed the medication reviews; the clinical pharmacologists performed the reviews on patients with the highest MERIS score. The primary outcome measure was the number of prescribing errors during the hospitalisation. Secondary outcomes included self-experienced quality of life, health-care utilisation and mortality measured at follow-up 90 days after discharge.

Results:

A total of 375 patients were included, of which medication reviews were performed in 64 patients. The medication reviews addressed 63 prescribing errors in 37 patients and 60 other drug-related problems. No difference in the number of prescribing errors during hospitalisation between the intervention group (n = 165) and control group (n = 153) was found, corresponding to 0.11 prescribing errors per drug (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.08–0.14) versus 0.13 per drug (95% CI: 0.09–0.16), respectively. No differences in secondary outcomes were observed.

Conclusion:

A stratified medication review approach based on the individual patient’s risk of medication errors did not show impact on the chosen outcomes.

Plain language summary

How does a medication review at admission affect patients who are in high risk of medication errors?

Patients are at risk of medication errors at admission to hospital. Medication reviews aim to detect and solve these. Yet, due to limited resources in healthcare, it would be beneficial to detect the patients who are most at risk of medication errors and perform medication reviews on those patients.

In this study we investigated whether an algorithm, MERIS, could detect patients who are at highest risk of medication errors; we also studied whether performing medication reviews on patients at highest risk of medication errors would have an effect on, for example, the number of medication errors during hospitalisation, qualify of life and number of readmissions. We included 375 patients in a Danish acute admission unit and they were divided into control group and intervention group. Patients in the intervention group received a medication review at admission if they were considered at high risk of medication errors, assessed with the aid of MERIS. In summary, 64 patients in the intervention group were most at risk of medication errors and therefore received a medication review.

We conclude in the study that MERIS was useful in identifying relevant patients for medication reviews. Yet, the medication reviews performed at admission did not impact on the chosen outcomes.

A survey on what pharmacists and physicians caring for nursing home residents expect of user-friendly lists of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP lists)

INTRODUCTION

Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP, including potentially inappropriate medication, PIM) is frequent. In research and practice, the use of PIP lists could optimize a patient's medication. However, they are barely used, possibly because of their limited user-friendliness. This study aimed at evaluating the opinions of pharmacists and physicians caring for nursing home residents on user-friendliness as well as knowledge and current use of PIP lists.

METHODS

Semi-structured telephone interviews and paper-based surveys were conducted with physicians and pharmacists who care for nursing home residents. Descriptive analysis and Fisher's exact test were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 30 practitioners participated in the survey, eight of whom were interviewed by phone. 43 % (13/30) of the participants had already heard of PIP lists, and 46 % (6/13) of them made use of a PIP list. Less experienced professionals had more often heard of PIP lists than more experienced ones. The most important aspects of user-friendliness were: time required to use the list, electronic availability, clear structure and provision of reasons why a medication is potentially inappropriate. Physicians preferred a PIP list adapted to the Swiss drug market more often than pharmacists.

DISCUSSION

Knowledge and current use of PIP lists are limited, which is partially consistent with the results of other studies. Participants with less professional experience have heard of PIP lists more frequently, opinions on user-friendliness differ between professions, and preferences seem to be, overall, highly individual.

CONCLUSION

In order for PIP lists to be used more frequently, the aspects of user-friendliness should be taken into account. Personalizable PIP lists could be an interesting development.

Quality of clinical direct oral anticoagulant prescribing and identification of risk factors for inappropriate prescriptions

AIMS

Even though the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is safe based on clinical outcomes, drug safety also depends on appropriateness of drug prescription, which is challenging for DOACs since many patient factors need to be considered. The aim of this study was to assess the appropriateness of DOAC prescriptions and to identify risk factors of determinants for inappropriate DOAC prescriptions.

METHODS

A retrospective study in a nonuniversity teaching hospital was performed of hospitalized patients (≥18 years) who received an initial DOAC prescription between February and August 2018. Appropriateness of prescribing was evaluated on 8 criteria by using a modified version of the medication appropriateness index.

RESULTS

A total of 770 initial DOAC prescriptions of inpatients were evaluated: 267 patients (34.6%) had at least met 1 inappropriate criterion for a DOAC prescription. The most frequent inappropriate criterion was dosage (17.4%). Of the 4 DOACs, dabigatran (21.6%) and apixaban (21.2%) were mostly inappropriate dosed. In a multivariable analysis, reduced renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate <50 mL/min; odds ratio [OR] = 2.35; P < .001), a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (OR = 1.87; P = .004), and 'prescribed by surgeons' (OR = 1.9; P = .013) were independently associated with inappropriateness of prescribing.

CONCLUSION

This study has highlighted a high degree of inappropriate prescribing of DOACs. These results underline the need for targeted interventions to improve DOAC prescribing.

Application of the intervention Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews within a Cochrane review: an illustrative case study

Background: The intervention Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews (iCAT_SR) has been developed to facilitate detailed assessments of intervention complexity in systematic reviews. Worked examples of the tool’s application are needed to promote its use and refinement. The aim of this case study was to apply the iCAT_SR to a subset of 20 studies included in a Cochrane review of interventions aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in older people.

Methods: Interventions were assessed independently by two authors using the six core iCAT_SR dimensions: (1) ‘Target organisational levels/categories’; (2) ‘Target behaviour/actions’; (3) ‘Active intervention components’; (4) ‘Degree of tailoring’; (5) ‘Level of skill required by intervention deliverers’; (6) ‘Level of skill required by intervention recipients’. Attempts were made to apply four optional dimensions: ‘Interaction between intervention components’; ‘Context/setting’; ‘Recipient/provider factors’; ‘Nature of causal pathway’. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen’s Kappa coefficient. Disagreements were resolved by consensus discussion. The findings are presented narratively.

Results: Assessments involving the core iCAT_SR dimensions showed limited consistency in intervention complexity across included studies, even when categorised according to clinical setting. Interventions were delivered across various organisational levels and categories (i.e. healthcare professionals and patients) and typically comprised multiple components. Intermediate skill levels were required by those delivering and receiving the interventions across all studies. A lack of detail in study reports precluded application of the iCAT_SR’s optional dimensions. The inter-rater reliability was substantial (Cohen's Kappa = 0.75)

Conclusions: This study describes the application of the iCAT_SR to studies included in a Cochrane systematic review. Future intervention studies need to ensure more detailed reporting of interventions, context and the causal pathways underlying intervention effects to allow a more holistic understanding of intervention complexity and facilitate replication in other settings. The experience gained has helped to refine the original guidance document relating to the application of iCAT_SR.

Facilitators and barriers for performing comprehensive medication reviews and follow-up by multiprofessional teams in older hospitalised patients

PURPOSE

There is a lack of knowledge about factors that influence the performance of comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) by multiprofessional teams in hospital practice. This study aimed to explore the facilitators and barriers for performing CMRs and post-discharge follow-up in older hospitalised patients from the healthcare professional perspective.

METHODS

Physicians and ward-based pharmacists were recruited from an ongoing trial at four hospitals in Sweden. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 physicians and 7 pharmacists. Interview topics were working processes, resources, competences, medication-related problems, intervention effects and collaboration. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Identified subthemes were categorised as facilitators or barriers and grouped into overarching main themes.

RESULTS

In total, 21 facilitators and 25 barriers were identified across all CFIR domains and grouped in 6 main themes: (a) CMRs and follow-up are needed, but not in all patients; (b) there is a general belief in positive effects; (c) lack of resources is an issue, although the performance of CMRs may save time; (d) pharmacists' knowledge and skills are valuable, but they need more clinical competence; (e) compatibility with hospital practice is challenging, and roles and responsibilities are unclear and (f) personal contact at the ward is essential for physician-pharmacist collaboration.

CONCLUSION

Multiple facilitators and barriers for performing CMRs and post-discharge follow-up in older hospitalised patients exist. These factors should be addressed in future initiatives with similar interventions by multiprofessional teams to ensure successful implementation and performance in hospital practice.

Clinical Pharmacy Services in Older Inpatients: An Evidence-Based Review

BACKGROUND

Hospital admissions in older adults are frequently drug related and avoidable. Clinical pharmacy interventions during hospital stay might reduce drug-related harm and reduce hospital visits. Moreover, several recent positive clinical pharmacy investigations incorporated a transitional care component to further improve medication use after discharge. It is currently unclear what the strength of evidence is and what the exact components should be of such clinical pharmacy interventions in older adults.

OBJECTIVE

An evidence-based review was performed to determine the status of the evidence and also to explore whether a clinical pharmacy intervention incorporating transitional care was associated with reduced hospital visits after discharge.

METHODS

Prospective controlled investigations were included if they contained a clinical pharmacy intervention that was initiated before discharge in older inpatients. Relevant quasi-experimental and randomized controlled trials were searched in MEDLINE. First, an evidence-based review was performed, including a description of the study design, characteristics, and outcomes. Major components of successful clinical pharmacy interventions were described and potential implications for clinical practice and research were determined. Second, the Fisher's exact test was used to explore the association between transitional care and reduced hospital visits. Third, based on these findings, a medication review proposal was developed to improve medication use in older adults.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies were included, with 26 randomized controlled trials. Median patient follow-up after discharge was 90 days (interquartile range 37-180 days) and investigators enrolled a median of 210 (interquartile range 110-498) study participants. On average, patients were aged 77.5 years (interquartile range 73-82.2 years). Nine randomized controlled trials had sufficient power to detect a reduction in hospital visits after discharge; this was reduced in three randomized controlled trials. Post-discharge follow-up was not associated with reduced post-discharge hospital visits (20 randomized controlled trials: follow-up vs. no follow-up: 6/11 vs. 1/9, p = 0.070). There was a significant reduction in post-discharge hospital visits in patients aged 75 years or older (12 randomized controlled trials: follow-up vs. no follow-up: 5/7 vs. 0/5, p = 0.028). A medication review proposal was developed, consisting of six steps.

CONCLUSIONS

Three powered randomized controlled trials were identified that found a significant association between a pharmacist-led intervention in older adults and a reduction in post-discharge hospital visits. In clinical practice, an intervention consisting of medication reconciliation, review, counseling, and post-discharge follow-up should be provided to such high-risk inpatients. Regarding research priorities, large, multi-center randomized controlled trials should be performed to generate more evidence on the impact of clinical pharmacy interventions on the patient trajectory and economic outcomes.

Reduction of potentially inappropriate medication in the elderly: design of a cluster-randomised controlled trial in German primary care practices (RIME)

Background:

Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) is considered to have potentially more harmful than beneficial health effects in elderly patients. A German example for a PIM list is the PRISCUS list that has been available since 2010. PIMs are associated with an increased risk of hospitalisation and adverse health outcomes. Furthermore, drug–drug interactions (DDI) may pose additional risks to patients. It is not yet clear how numbers of PIM and DDI can be reduced in community-dwelling seniors in primary care; nor is it clear whether patients would benefit from such deprescribing.

Methods:

The cluster-randomised controlled study on the “Reduction of potentially Inappropriate Medication in the Elderly” (RIME study) is designed to examine whether an intervention based on the PRISCUS list can lower the proportion of community-dwelling people of ⩾70 years taking at least one PIM and/or medication inducing at least one dangerous DDI. The intervention consists of professional education and training on the reduction of PIM and DDI, and will be offered to either general practitioners (GPs) alone or GPs and their office staff in the experimental study arm. The control group will be offered professional education and training on more general issues of prescribing in the elderly, not specifically addressing PIM or DDI. The primary endpoint is the difference in the proportion of patients with at least one PIM or DDI between the start of the study and study closure after 12 months as compared between intervention and control group. Secondary endpoints include overall mortality, number of hospitalisations during the course of the study, quality of life and costs. Secondary analyses will be explorative, with the cluster randomisation being factored in.

Discussion:

The RIME study will contribute to answering the question of whether an intervention based on the PRISCUS list can reduce the proportion of community-dwelling seniors aged ⩾70 years with at least one PIM and/or DDI, and whether this will result in positive health effects, for example, as regards hospitalisations.

Trial registration

The Study has been registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) under the number DRKS00003610.

A systematic review of older patients' experiences and perceptions of communication about managing medication across transitions of care

BACKGROUND

Communication about managing medications may be difficult when older people move across transitions of care. Communication breakdowns may result in medication discrepancies or incidents.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to explore older patients' experiences and perceptions of communication about managing medications across transitions of care.

DESIGN

A systematic review.

METHODS

A comprehensive review was conducted of qualitative, quantitative and mixed method studies using CINAHL Complete, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO, Web of Science, INFORMIT and Scopus. These databases were searched from inception to 14.12.2018. Key article cross-checking and hand searching of reference lists of included papers were also undertaken.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

studies of the medication management perspectives of people aged 65 or older who transferred between care settings. These settings comprised patients' homes, residential aged care and acute and subacute care. Only English language studies were included. Comments, case reports, systematic reviews, letters, editorials were excluded. Thematic analysis was undertaken by synthesising qualitative data, whereas quantitative data were summarised descriptively. Methodological quality was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

RESULTS

The final review comprised 33 studies: 12 qualitative, 17 quantitative and 4 mixed methods studies. Twenty studies addressed the link between communication and medication discrepancies; ten studies identified facilitators of self-care through older patient engagement; 18 studies included older patients' experiences with health professionals about their medication regimen; and, 13 studies included strategies for communication about medications with older patients. Poor communication between primary and secondary care settings was reported as a reason for medication discrepancy before discharge. Older patients expected ongoing and tailored communication with providers and timely, accurate and written information about their medications before discharge or available for the post-discharge period.

CONCLUSIONS

Communication about medications was often found to be ineffective. Most emphasis was placed on older patients' perspectives at discharge and in the post-discharge period. There was little exploration of older patients' views of communication about medication management on admission, during hospitalisation, or transfer between settings.

The Role of the Clinical Pharmacist in an Irish University Teaching Hospital: A Mixed-Methods Study

Medication review (MR) is a vital part of the pharmacist’s role in hospital. However, in the South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital (SIVUH), Cork, Ireland, this has not been fully implemented due to resource issues. In addition, the cost of providing this service has not been evaluated. Moreover, it is not clear how other members of the multidisciplinary team e.g., Nurses, value any interventions made as a result of the MR. This mixed methods study assessed the impact of MR in terms of (i) potential clinical harm, (ii) cost avoidance and (iii) the views of nursing staff on the role of the pharmacist. The setting is a 192-bed, voluntary, acute hospital, in the Munster region of Ireland. Study I: The pharmacist provided MR to patients conventionally once a week. Any interventions were then assessed for potential clinical harm and to calculate cost avoidance. Study II: Semi-structured interviews, guided by a topic guide were completed with 12 nurses (11 female). Thematic analysis was used to code the main themes. Main outcome measure: To estimate the cost, cost avoidance, and the net cost benefit ratio of MR provided by pharmacists. Study I: Of 128 patients who received the MR, 113 interventions were made. The estimated cost of providing the MR was €2559 (senior pharmacist). Using €1084 as the cost of an adverse drug event (ADE), the cost avoidance was calculated at €42,330. This led to a net cost benefit of €39,771 (senior pharmacist) which equated to a net cost benefit ratio of 16.5:1. Study II: The main themes were (i) perceptions of pharmacy services, (ii) the role of the pharmacist—past, present and future, and (iii) teamwork and communication. Nurses expressed a desire to have more pharmacists present on the wards.

A Collaborative Medication Review Including Deprescribing for Older Patients in an Emergency Department: A Longitudinal Feasibility Study

Medication review for older patients with polypharmacy in the emergency department (ED) is crucial to prevent inappropriate prescribing. Our objective was to assess the feasibility of a collaborative medication review in older medical patients (≥65 years) using polypharmacy (≥5 long-term medications). A pharmacist performed the medication review using the tools: Screening Tool of Older Persons’ potentially inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP) criteria, a drug–drug interaction database (SFINX), and Renbase^® (renal dosing database). A geriatrician received the medication review and decided which recommendations should be implemented. The outcomes were: differences in Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) and Assessment of Underutilization Index (AOU) scores between admission and 30 days after discharge and the percentage of patients for which the intervention was completed before discharge. Sixty patients were included from the ED, the intervention was completed before discharge for 50 patients (83%), and 39 (61.5% male; median age 80 years) completed the follow-up 30 days after discharge. The median MAI score decreased from 14 (IQR 8-20) at admission to 8 (IQR 2-13) 30 days after discharge (p < 0.001). The number of patients with an AOU score ≥1 was reduced from 36% to 10% (p < 0.001). Thirty days after discharge, 83% of the changes were sustained and for 28 patients (72%), 1≥ medication had been deprescribed. In conclusion, a collaborative medication review and deprescribing intervention is feasible to perform in the ED.

Association between potentially inappropriate medications at discharge and unplanned readmissions among hospitalised elderly patients at a single centre in Japan: a prospective observational study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use at admission and discharge among hospitalised elderly patients and evaluate the association between PIMs at discharge and unplanned readmission in Japan.

DESIGN

A prospective observational study conducted by using electronic medical records.

PARTICIPANTS

All consecutive patients aged 65 years or older who were admitted to the internal medicine ward were included. Patients who were electively admitted for diagnostic procedures were excluded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was 30-day unplanned readmissions. The secondary outcome was the prevalence of any PIM use at admission and discharge. PIMs were defined based on the Beers Criteria. The association between any PIM use at discharge and the primary outcome was evaluated by using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Seven hundred thirty-nine eligible patients were included in this study. The median patient age was 82 years (IQR 74-88); 389 (52.6%) were women, and the median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 2 (IQR 0-3). The proportions of patients taking any PIMs at admission and discharge were 47.2% and 32.2%, respectively. Of all the patients, 39 (5.3%) were readmitted within 30 days after discharge for the index hospitalisation. The use of PIMs at discharge was not associated with an increased risk of 30-day readmission (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.87). This result did not change after adjusting for patient age, sex, number of medications, duration of hospital stay and comorbidities (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.66).

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of any PIM use at discharge was high among hospitalised elderly patients in a Japanese hospital. Although the use of PIMs at discharge was not associated with an increased risk of unplanned readmission, given a lack of power of this study due to a low event rate, further studies investigating this association are needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000027189.

Factors associated with the use of potentially inappropriate medication by elderly patients prescribed at hospital discharge

Objective

To analyze the frequency of use of potentially inappropriate medication prescribed to elderly at hospital discharge from a public hospital, considering the Brazilian Consensus on Potentially Inappropriate Medication for Elderly, and to identify the associated factors.

Methods

Patients aged ≥60 years, admitted in clinical and geriatric units of a public hospital were invited to participate in the study. The information about the use of medicines was collected from the patient’s electronic record and through telephone contact. The Brazilian Consensus on Potentially Inappropriate Medication for Elderly was used to classify the medication, regardless of the clinical condition.

Results

A total of 255 elders were included in this study. The frequency of use of potentially inappropriate medication by elderly was 58.4%. The potentially inappropriate medication use in elderly was positively associated with the presence of depression (odds ratio of 2.208) and polypharmacy (odds ratio of 2.495). The hospitalization in a geriatric unit showed an inverse association with the potentially inappropriate medication use in elderly (odds ratio of 0.513).

Conclusion

The frequency of potentially inappropriate medication prescription to elderly upon hospital discharge was high. The presence of depression and polypharmacy were directly associated with use of potentially inappropriate medication in the elderly. Admission to the geriatric clinic has become a protection factor for the use of potentially inappropriate medication in elderly. Strategies to improve the elderly pharmacotherapy should implemented aiming at healthcare quality and safety in the transition of care.

The impact of a medication reconciliation programme at geriatric hospital admission: A pre-/postintervention study

AIMS

The aim of this study was to improve medication reconciliation and reduce the occurrence of duplicate prescriptions by pharmacists and physicians within 72 hours of hospital admission using an intelligent prescription system combined with the National Health Insurance PharmaCloud system to integrate the database with the medical institution computerized physician order entry (CPOE) system.

METHODS

This 2-year intervention study was implemented in the geriatric ward of a hospital in Taiwan. We developed an integrated CPOE system linked with the PharmaCloud database and established an electronic platform for coordinated communication with all healthcare professionals. Patients provided written informed consent to access their PharmaCloud records. We compared the intervention effectiveness within 72 hours of admission for improvement in pharmacist medication reconciliation, increased at-home medications documentation and decreased costs from duplicated at-home prescriptions.

RESULTS

The medication reconciliation rate within 72 hours of admission increased from 44.0% preintervention to 86.8% postintervention (relative risk = 1.97, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.69-2.31; P < .001). The monthly average of patients who brought and took home medications documented in the CPOE system during hospitalization increased by 7.54 (95% CI 5.58-20.49, P = .22). The monthly average of home medications documented increased by 102.52 (95% CI 38.44-166.60; P = .01). Savings on the monthly average prescription expenditures of at-home medication increased by US$ 2,795.52 (95% CI US$1310.41-4280.63; P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Integrating medication data from PharmaCloud to the hospital's medical chart system improved pharmacist medication reconciliation, which decreased duplicated medications and reduced in-hospital medication costs.

Evaluation of a Pharmacist-Based Intervention to Reduce Readmissions in Geriatric High-Utilizer Patients: A Pilot Study

Purpose

The goal of this study was to determine if a pharmacist-led intervention to improve medication safety at hospital discharge reduced the number of hospital readmissions among geriatric high-utilizer patients. This study is the first to test a pharmacist-based intervention in a high-utilizer population.

Methods

This was a quasi-experimental pilot study done at a safety-net hospital in the southeastern US. Fifty-seven patients 65 years old and older who were in the 95th percentile for number of hospital admissions in a year were included. On the day of discharge, one of the study pharmacists reviewed the discharge medication list and calculated the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) for each medication and reviewed for Beers Criteria. Any medication identified as potentially high-risk or inappropriate was flagged by the pharmacist and discussed with the team. The primary outcome was the number of admissions in the year following the intervention in the intervention group versus the control group.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences in the number of admissions, the MAI scores, or the number of medications meeting Beers Criteria between the two groups.

Conclusion

Although this study did not demonstrate a decrease in hospital admissions, it shows that pharmacist review of medications at discharge can identify potentially unnecessary medications that could lead to confusion or adverse events. Further research is necessary to identify interventions to prevent readmissions in this high-risk population.

Polypharmacy and drug-drug interactions among older and younger male prisoners in Switzerland

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to determine the prevalence of polypharmacy and drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in older and younger prisoners, and compared if age group is associated with risks of polypharmacy and DDIs.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

For 380 prisoners from Switzerland (190 were 49 years and younger; 190 were 50 years and older), data concerning their medication use were gathered. MediQ identified if interactions of two or more substances could lead to potentially adverse DDI. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and generalised linear mixed models.

FINDINGS

On average, older prisoners took 3.8 medications, while younger prisoners took 2.1 medications. Number of medications taken on one reference day was higher by a factor of 2.4 for older prisoners when compared to younger prisoners (p = 0.002). The odds of polypharmacy was significantly higher for older than for younger prisoners (>=5 medications: odds ratio = 5.52, p = 0.035). Age group analysis indicated that for potentially adverse DDI there was no significant difference (odds ratio = 0.94; p = 0.879). However, when controlling for the number of medication, the risk of adverse DDI was higher in younger than older prisoners, but the result was not significant.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

Older prisoners are at a higher risk of polypharmacy but their risk for potentially adverse DDI is not significantly different from that of younger prisoners. Special clinical attention must be given to older prisoners who are at risk for polypharmacy. Careful medication management is also important for younger prisoners who are at risk of very complex drug therapies.

Evaluation of drug-related problems and subsequent clinical pharmacists' interventions at a Swiss university hospital

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

The evaluation of clinical pharmacy services is essential for their further development and establishment. We analysed drug-related problems (DRPs) and subsequent clinical pharmacists' interventions (PIs) at a Swiss university hospital.

METHOD

We conducted a retrospective analysis of DRPs and subsequent PIs that were identified and implemented during interdisciplinary ward rounds in internal medicine at the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland, between 2015 and 2017. We estimated the potential clinical and economic impact of PIs using a validated evaluation tool (CLEO_de ).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Based on medication reviews of 5441 patients, clinical pharmacists identified 5024 DRPs, of which 2892 DRPs (57.6%) were followed by a PI that was directly accepted and implemented by the physician in charge and included in the present analysis. The leading cause and type of PIs were inappropriate dose and dose adjustment, respectively. Overall, 97.8% of DRPs were followed by PIs with an expected clinical benefit for the patients (major: 11.1%; moderate: 27.6%; minor: 59.1%). The drugs most often involved in PIs of major clinical impact were antithrombotics, acid blockers and cardiovascular drugs. With regard to the economic impact, 40.7% of DRPs implied PIs resulting in an increase of immediate therapy costs, whereas 39.3% implied PIs resulting in a decrease of immediate therapy costs. The remaining PIs were cost-neutral.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

This study emphasizes that clinical pharmacists may help improve the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapy on acute care medical wards.

External validation of a clinical pharmacy intervention in geriatric inpatients: a controlled study

Background Clinical pharmacist interventions have been shown to improve drug use in older adults. Study findings are seldom externally validated however. Objective First, to validate a minimized iteration of a previously tested intervention of clinical pharmacists in a non-academic setting with limited staffing resources. Second, to compare the potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) reduction to two previous controlled interventional studies. Methods A controlled study was performed at geriatric wards. The control group received usual care. The intervention group was exposed to a clinical pharmacist led medication review, based on the use of the RASP list, (the Rationalization of Home Medication by an Adjusted STOPP list in Older Patients). Drug use on admission and at discharge were evaluated, including the number of RASP-identified potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). The PIM reduction was compared to two previous controlled study findings using a linear mixed model. Results Drug use declined during hospital stay, without differences between control (n = 29) and intervention group (n = 32). Antidepressants and hypnotic drugs were discontinued more frequently in IG patients. More PIMs were reduced in the intervention patients (control vs. intervention: 1.0 vs. 3.0, p < 0.001). Across three controlled studies, a robust reduction of 1.56 PIMs (95% confidence interval 1.10-2.02, p < 0.001) was observed in favor of the CP interventions. Conclusion The minimal CP intervention resulted in fewer RASP PIMs. No net reduction of drug use was observed, yet fewer antidepressants and hypnotic drugs were used. The RASP PIM reduction was comparable to previous investigations.

Improving care for elderly patients living with polypharmacy: protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized trial in community-based primary care practices in Canada

Background

Elders living with polypharmacy may be taking medications that do not benefit them. Polypharmacy can be associated with elevated risks of poor health, reduced quality of life, high care costs, and persistently complex care needs. While many medications could be problematic, this project targets medications that should be deprescribed for most elders and for which guidelines and evidence-based deprescribing tools are available. These are termed potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) and are as follows: proton pump inhibitors, benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, and sulfonylureas. Implementation strategies for deprescribing PIPs in complex older patient populations are needed.

Methods

This will be a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial in community-based primary care practices across Canada. Eligible practices provide comprehensive primary care and have at least one physician that consents to participate. Community-dwelling patients aged 65 years and older with ten or more unique medication prescriptions in the past year will be included. The objective is to assess whether the intervention reduces targeted PIPs for these patients compared with usual care. The intervention, Structured Process Informed by Data, Evidence and Research (SPIDER), is a collaboration between quality improvement (QI) and research programs. Primary care teams will form interprofessional Learning Collaboratives and work with QI coaches to review electronic medical record data provided by their regional Practice Based Research Networks (PBRNs), identify areas of improvement, and develop and implement changes. The study will be tested for feasibility in three PBRNs (Toronto, Montreal, and Edmonton) using prospective single-arm mixed methods. Findings will then guide a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial in five PBRNs (Calgary, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Montreal, and Halifax). Seven practices per PBRN will be recruited for each arm. The analysis will be by intention to treat. Ten percent of patients who have at least one PIP at baseline will be randomly selected to participate in the assessment of patient experience and self-reported outcomes. Qualitative methods will be used to explore patient and physician experience and evaluate SPIDER’s processes.

Conclusion

We are testing SPIDER in a primary care population with complex care needs. This could provide a widely applicable model for care improvement.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03689049; registered September 28, 2018

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-019-0904-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.