Clinical implementation of systematic medication reconciliation and review as part of the Lund Integrated Medicines Management model--impact on all-cause emergency department revisits

Clinical impact of medication review and deprescribing in older inpatients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy is a primary risk factor for the prescription of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), drug-drug interactions (DDIs), and ultimately, adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Medication review and deprescribing represent effective strategies to simplify therapeutic regimens, minimize risks, and reduce PIM prescriptions. This systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental and observational studies aimed to evaluate the impact of different medication review and deprescribing interventions in hospitalized older patients.

METHODS

Experimental and observational prospective cohort studies evaluating the clinical effects of medication review and deprescribing strategies in older hospitalized patients were searched in the bibliographic databases, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus, from inception until January 8, 2024. A narrative synthesis of the results was provided, along with a meta-analysis of dichotomous data (i.e., re-hospitalizations and mortality).

RESULTS

Overall, 21 randomized controlled trials, 7 non-randomized interventional studies, and 2 prospective cohort studies were included in the systematic review. Of these, 14 (46.7%) assessed medication appropriateness as the primary outcome, while the remaining evaluated clinical outcomes (e.g., length of hospital stay, hospital readmissions, emergency department visits, and incidence of ADRs) and/or quality of life. The meta-analysis revealed a slight but statistically significant 8% reduction in hospital readmissions (HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.85-0.99) following medication review and deprescribing, but no significant impact on mortality (HR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.96-1.00). Of the 30 included studies, 21 were considered at high risk of bias, mostly due to potential deviations from intended interventions and randomization processes. The remaining nine studies had "some concerns" (eight studies) or were considered at "low" risk of bias (one study).

CONCLUSION

Medication review and deprescribing are associated with potential benefits in reducing hospital readmission rates among hospitalized older patients, particularly through the reduction of PIM prescriptions. The integration of thorough medication review and deprescribing protocols in hospital settings may improve post-discharge outcomes and reduce overall healthcare costs.

Effects of a pharmaceutical care intervention on clinical outcomes and patient adherence in coronary heart disease: the MIMeRiC randomized controlled trial

Background

In the treatment of coronary heart disease, secondary prevention goals are still often unmet and poor adherence to prescribed drugs has been suggested as one of the reasons. We aimed to investigate whether pharmaceutical care by a pharmacist at the cardiology clinic trained in motivational interviewing improves clinical outcomes and patient adherence.

Methods

This was a prospective, randomized, controlled, outcomes-blinded trial designed to compare pharmaceutical care follow-up with standard care. After standard follow-up at the cardiology clinic, patients in the intervention group were seen by a clinical pharmacist two to five times as required over seven months. Pharmacists were trained to use motivational interviewing in the consultations and they tailored their support to each patient’s clinical needs and beliefs about medicines. The primary study end-point was the proportion of patients who reached the treatment goal for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 12 months after discharge. The key secondary outcome was patient adherence to lipid-lowering therapy at 15 months after discharge, and other secondary outcomes were the effects on patient adherence to other preventive drugs, systolic blood pressure, disease-specific quality of life, and healthcare use.

Results

316 patients were included. The proportion of patients who reached the target for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol were 37.0% in the intervention group and 44.2% in the control group (P = .263). More intervention than control patients were adherent to cholesterol-lowering drugs (88 vs 77%; P = .033) and aspirin (97 vs 91%; P = .036) but not to beta-blocking agents or renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors.

Conclusions

Our intervention had no positive effects on risk factors for CHD, but it increased patient adherence. Further investigation of the intervention process is needed to explore the difference in results between patient adherence and medication effects. Longer follow-up of healthcare use and mortality will determine if the increased adherence per se eventually will have a meaningful effect on patient health.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02102503, 03/04/2014 retrospectively registered.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12872-021-02178-0.

Postoperative duration of opioid use and acute healthcare services use in cancer patients hospitalized for thoracic surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain control is an important cancer care component. However, opioid consumption has resulted in a surge of adverse events, with thoracic surgery patients having the highest rate of persistent use. The effect of opioid duration post-discharge and the risk of increased acute healthcare use in this population remains unclear.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of non-metastatic cancer patients was assembled from an academic health center in Montreal (Canada). Clinical data linked to administrative claims from the universal healthcare program was used to determine the association between time-varying opioid patterns and emergency department (ED) visits/re-admissions/death 3 months following thoracic surgery.

RESULTS

Of the 610 patients, 77% had at least one opioid dispensed post-discharge. Compared to non-opioid users, <15 days of use was associated with a 42% decreased risk of acute healthcare events, adjusted HR 0.58, 95% CI (0.40-0.85); longer durations were not associated with an increased risk. Compared to short-term use (<15 days), use of >30 days was associated with a 72% increased risk of the outcome, aHR: 1.72, 95% CI (1.01-2.93).

CONCLUSION

There was a variation in the risk of acute healthcare use associated with postsurgical opioid use. Findings from this study may be used to inform postoperative prescribing practices.

Prospective observational study of medication reviews in internal medicine wards: evaluation of drug-related problems

BACKGROUND

The Lund Integrated Medicines Management model offers a systematic approach for individualising and optimising patient drug treatment. Clinical, economical and humanistic outcomes have been shown as well as results from the medication reconciliation process. There is a need also to describe the medication review process.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the frequency and types of drug-related problems (DRPs) identified during medication reviews and to evaluate the actions of the pharmacists and the physicians regarding the identified DRPs.

METHOD

Structured medication reviews were conducted by a multi-professional team on top of standard care for 719 patients in two internal medicine wards in a Swedish University Hospital. The medication reviews were studied retrospectively to classify DRPs and actions taken.

RESULTS

A total of 573 (80%) of patients had at least one actual DRP; an average of three DRPs per patient and in total 2164. Wrong drug and adverse drug reaction were the most common types of DRPs. The most frequent medication groups involved in DRPs were drugs for the cardiovascular system and the nervous system and the most frequent substances were warfarin, digoxin, furosemide and paracetamol. The 10 most common medications accounted for 27% of the actual DRPs. Of the identified DRPs, a total of 1740 (80%) were acted on. The three most common types of adjustments made were withdrawal of drug therapy, change of drug therapy and initiation of drug therapy. When the pharmacist suggested an adjustment, the physician implemented 88% (1037/1174) of the recommendations.

CONCLUSION

DRPs are common among elderly patients who are admitted to hospital. Systematic identification of high-risk medications and common DRP types enables targeting of prioritised patients for medication reviews.

Medication-related hospital admissions and readmissions in older patients: an overview of literature

Background The number of medication related hospital admissions and readmissions are increasing over the years due to the ageing population. Medication related hospital admissions and readmissions lead to decreased quality of life and high healthcare costs. Aim of the review To assess what is currently known about medication related hospital admissions, medication related hospital readmissions, their risk factors, and possible interventions which reduce medication related hospital readmissions. Method We searched PubMed for articles about the topic medication related hospital admissions and readmissions. Overall 54 studies were selected for the overview of literature. Results Between the different selected studies there was much heterogeneity in definitions for medication related admission and readmissions, in study population and the way studies were performed. Multiple risk factors are found in the studies for example: polypharmacy, comorbidities, therapy non adherence, cognitive impairment, depending living situation, high risk medications and higher age. Different interventions are studied to reduce the number of medication related readmission, some of these interventions may reduce the readmissions like the participation of a pharmacist, education programmes and transition-of-care interventions and the use of digital assistance in the form of Clinical Decision Support Systems. However the methods and the results of these interventions show heterogeneity in the different researches. Conclusion There is much heterogeneity in incidence and definitions for both medication related hospital admissions and readmissions. Some risk factors are known for medication related admissions and readmissions such as polypharmacy, older age and additional diseases. Known interventions that could possibly lead to a decrease in medication related hospital readmissions are spare being the involvement of a pharmacist, education programs and transition-care interventions the most mentioned ones although controversial results have been reported. More research is needed to gather more information on this topic.

Promoting clinical pharmacy services through advanced medication review in the emergency department

Objectives

To determine if an advanced medication review carried out in the emergency department (ED) increases the number of pharmacotherapy recommendations (PR) and the severity of the detected prescribing errors.

Methods

We designed an analytic observational prospective cohort study with preintervention assessment (PRE) and postintervention assessment (POST). In PRE, prescription review was done by pharmacists located in the pharmacy department; they took into account only the information provided by the computerised physician order entry system. In POST, pharmacists were physically present in the ED and performed an advanced medication review. The main variables were number of PR and the severity of detected prescribing errors according to the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) severity index. Clinical variables were number of calls to physicians on duty during the first 48 hours of admission, readmissions at 30 days, visits to the ED at 30 days, inhospital mortality and length of stay.

Results

The study population comprised 102 patients (51 in PRE and 51 in POST). In PRE, the number of PR per patient was 1.1; in POST, this value increased by 53% (1.7 PR per patient; P=0.014), especially in the case of PR related to home medications. The severity of prescribing errors was higher in POST (P=0.004). There was a trend towards better results for all clinical outcomes in POST although statistical significance was not reached.

Conclusions

An advanced medication review in the ED increases the number of PR and the severity of the detected prescribing errors.

Medication Discrepancies in Discharge Summaries and Associated Risk Factors for Elderly Patients with Many Drugs

Background and Objective

Elderly patients are at high risk for medication errors in care transitions. The discharge summary aims to counteract drug-related problems due to insufficient information transfer in care transitions, hence the accuracy of its medication information is of utmost importance. The purpose of this study was to describe the medication discrepancy rate and associated risk factors in discharge summaries for elderly patients.

Methods

Pharmacists collected random samples of discharge summaries from ten hospitals in southern Sweden. Medication discrepancies, organisational, and patient- and care-specific factors were noted. Patients aged ≥ 75 years with five or more drugs were further included. Descriptive and logistic regression analyses were performed.

Results

Discharge summaries for a total of 933 patients were included. Average age was 83.1 years, and 515 patients (55%) were women. Medication discrepancies were noted for 353 patients (38%) (mean 0.87 discrepancies per discharged patient, 95% confidence interval 0.76–0.98). Unintentional addition of a drug was the most common discrepancy type. Central nervous system drugs/analgesics were most commonly affected. Major risk factors for the presence of discrepancies were multi-dose drug dispensing (adjusted odds ratio 3.42, 95% confidence interval 2.48–4.74), an increasing number of drugs in the discharge summary (adjusted odds ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 1.05–1.13) and discharge from departments of surgery (adjusted odds ratio 2.96, 95% confidence interval 1.55–5.66). By contrast, an increasing number of drug changes reduced the odds of a discrepancy (adjusted odds ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.88–0.99).

Conclusions

Medication discrepancies were common. In addition, we identified certain circumstances in which greater vigilance may be of considerable value for increased medication safety for elderly patients in care transitions.

An inventory of collaborative medication reviews for older adults - evolution of practices

Background

Collaborative medication review (CMR) practices for older adults are evolving in many countries. Development has been under way in Finland for over a decade, but no inventory of evolved practices has been conducted. The aim of this study was to identify and describe CMR practices in Finland after 10 years of developement.

Methods

An inventory of CMR practices was conducted using a snowballing approach and an open call in the Finnish Medicines Agency’s website in 2015. Data were quantitatively analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitatively by inductive thematic content analysis. Clyne et al’s medication review typology was applied for evaluating comprehensiveness of the practices.

Results

In total, 43 practices were identified, of which 22 (51%) were designed for older adults in primary care. The majority (n = 30, 70%) of the practices were clinical CMRs, with 18 (42%) of them being in routine use. A checklist with criteria was used in 19 (44%) of the practices to identify patients with polypharmacy (n = 6), falls (n = 5), and renal dysfunction (n = 5) as the most common criteria for CMR. Patients were involved in 32 (74%) of the practices, mostly as a source of information via interview (n = 27, 63%). A medication care plan was discussed with the patient in 17 practices (40%), and it was established systematically as usual care to all or selected patient groups in 11 (26%) of the practices. All or selected patients’ medication lists were reconciled in 15 practices (35%). Nearly half of the practices (n = 19, 44%) lacked explicit methods for following up effects of medication changes. When reported, the effects were followed up as a routine control (n = 9, 21%) or in a follow-up appointment (n = 6, 14%).

Conclusions

Different MRs in varying settings were available and in routine use, the majority being comprehensive CMRs designed for primary outpatient care and for older adults. Even though practices might benefit from national standardization, flexibility in their customization according to context, medical and patient needs, and available resources is important.

Multifaceted Pharmacist-led Interventions in the Hospital Setting: A Systematic Review

Clinical pharmacy services often comprise complex interventions. In this MiniReview, we conducted a systematic review aiming to evaluate the impact of multifaceted pharmacist-led interventions in a hospital setting. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL for peer-reviewed articles published from 2006 to 1 March 2018. Controlled trials concerning hospitalized patients in any setting receiving patient-related multifaceted pharmacist-led interventions were considered. All types of outcome were accepted. Inclusion and data extraction were performed. Study characteristics were collected, and risk of bias assessment was conducted utilizing the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools. All stages were conducted by at least two independent reviewers. The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017075808). A total of 11,896 publications were identified, and 28 publications were included. Of these, 17 were conducted in Europe. Six of the included publications were multi-centre studies, and 16 were randomized trials. Usual care was the comparator. Significant results on quality of medication use were reported as positive in eleven studies (n = 18; 61%) and negative in one (n = 18, 6%). Hospital visits were reduced significantly in seven studies (n = 16; 44%). Four studies (n = 12; 33%) reported a positive significant effect on either length of stay or time to revisit, and one study reported a negative effect (n = 12; 6%). All studies investigating mortality (n = 6), patient-reported outcome (n = 7) and cost-effectiveness (n = 1) showed no significant results. This MiniReview indicates that multifaceted pharmacist-led interventions in a hospital setting may improve the quality of medication use and reduce hospital visits and length of stay, while no effect was seen on mortality, patient-reported outcome and cost-effectiveness.

Impact of medication reconciliation and review and counselling, on adverse drug events and healthcare resource use

Background Adverse drug events from preventable medication errors can result in patient morbidity and mortality, and in cost to the healthcare system. Medication reconciliation can improve communication and reduce medication errors at transitions in care. Objective Evaluate the impact of medication reconciliation and counselling intervention delivered by a pharmacist for medical patients on clinical outcomes 30 days after discharge. Setting Sultan Qaboos University Hospital, Muscat, Oman. Methods A randomized controlled study comparing standard care with an intervention delivered by a pharmacist and comprising medication reconciliation on admission and discharge, a medication review, a bedside medication counselling, and a take-home medication list. Medication discrepancies during hospitalization were identified and reconciled. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by reviewing electronic health records and telephone interviews. Main outcome measures Rates of preventable adverse drug events as primary outcome and healthcare resource utilization as secondary outcome at 30 days post discharge. Results A total of 587 patients were recruited (56 ± 17 years, 57% female); 286 randomized to intervention; 301 in the standard care group. In intervention arm, 74 (26%) patients had at least one discrepancy on admission and 100 (35%) on discharge. Rates of preventable adverse drug events were significantly lower in intervention arm compared to standard care arm (9.1 vs. 16%, p = 0.009). No significant difference was found in healthcare resource use. Conclusion The implementation of an intervention comprising medication reconciliation and counselling by a pharmacist has significantly reduced the rate of preventable ADEs 30 days post discharge, compared to the standard care. The effect of the intervention on healthcare resource use was insignificant. Pharmacists should be included in decentralized, patient-centred roles. The findings should be interpreted in the context of the study's limitations.

Review of the Role of the Pharmacist in Reducing Hospital Readmissions

Hospital readmissions remain a public health concern despite progress in reducing and preventing its occurrence. Among strategies that have been implemented to reduce readmission most involves medication management. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions involving pharmacists to reduce hospital readmissions. PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for primary literature from January 1990 to July 2016 with search terms such as “hospital readmission,” and “Pharmacist,” or “Pharmacy,” or “medications.” Studies with an abstract in English which highlighted a pharmacist involvement based on the type of intervention, country of origin, type of study, and findings were summarized. The outcomes of these interventions to reduce hospital readmissions were mixed. Of the 29 studies, 16 (55%) showed a statistically significant reduction in readmissions ranging from 3.3% to 30%. Most of the interventions focused mainly on patient education postdischarge (8) or in addition to medication reconciliation predischarge (9). There were no studies from Africa or Asia but mainly from the United States (72%). Although multiple factors contribute to hospital readmission, this review highlights the important role pharmacists can play singularly and as part of interdisciplinary teams. Most effective interventions often involved medication review and patient education postdischarge.

The impact of pharmacists-led medicines reconciliation on healthcare outcomes in secondary care: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Adverse drug events (ADEs) impose a major clinical and cost burden on acute hospital services. It has been reported that medicines reconciliation provided by pharmacists is effective in minimizing the chances of hospital admissions related to adverse drug events.

Objective

To update the previous assessment of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation by restricting the review to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only.

Methods

Six major online databases were sifted up to 30 December 2016, without inception date (Embase, Medline Ovid, PubMed, BioMed Central, Web of Science and Scopus) to assess the effect of pharmacist-led interventions on medication discrepancies, preventable adverse drug events, potential adverse drug events and healthcare utilization. The Cochrane tool was applied to evaluate the chances of bias. Meta-analysis was carried out using a random effects model.

Results

From 720 articles identified on initial searching, 18 RCTs (6,038 patients) were included. The quality of the included studies was variable. Pharmacists-led interventions led to an important decrease in favour of the intervention group, with a pooled risk ratio of 42% RR 0.58 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.67) P<0.00001 in medication discrepancy. Reductions in healthcare utilization by 22% RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.00) P = 0.05, potential ADEs by10% RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.03) P = 0.65 and preventable ADEs by 27% RR 0.73 (0.22 to 2.40) P = 0.60 were not considerable.

Conclusion

Pharmacists-led interventions were effective in reducing medication discrepancies. However, these interventions did not lead to a significant reduction in potential and preventable ADEs and healthcare utilization.

Motivational Interviewing and Medication Review in Coronary Heart Disease (MIMeRiC): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial Investigating Effects on Clinical Outcomes, Adherence, and Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

Preventive treatment goals for blood pressure and cholesterol levels continue to be unmet for many coronary patients. The effect of drug treatment depends on both its appropriateness and the patients' adherence to the treatment regimen. There is a need for adherence interventions that have a measurable effect on clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the effects on treatment goals of an intervention designed to improve patient adherence and treatment quality in secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. A protocol for the prespecified process evaluation of the trial is published separately.

METHODS

The Motivational Interviewing and Medication Review in Coronary heart disease (MIMeRiC) trial is a prospective, randomized, outcomes-blinded trial designed to compare individualized follow-up by a clinical pharmacist using motivational interviewing (MI) and medication review with standard follow-up. Patients were randomized to 2 groups after stratification according to their beliefs about medicines. After standard follow-up at the cardiology clinic, patients in the intervention group are seen individually by a clinical pharmacist 2 to 5 times as required over 7 months, at the clinic. The pharmacist reviews each patient's medication and uses MI to manage any problems with prescribing and adherence. The primary study outcome is the proportion of patients who have reached the treatment goal for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 12 months after discharge. Secondary outcomes are the effects on patient adherence, systolic blood pressure, disease-specific quality of life, and health care use.

RESULTS

The protocol for this study was approved by the Regional Ethics Committee, Linköping, in 2013. Enrollment started in October 2013 and ended in December 2016 when 417 patients had been included. Follow-up data collection will conclude in March 2018. Publication of the primary and secondary outcome results from the MIMeRiC trial is anticipated in 2019.

CONCLUSIONS

The MIMeRiC trial will assess the effectiveness of an intervention involving medication reviews and individualized support. The results will inform the continued development of support for this large group of patients who use preventive medicines for lifelong treatment. The design of this adherence intervention is based on a theoretical framework and is the first trial of an intervention that uses beliefs about medicines to individualize the intervention protocol.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02102503; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02102503 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6x7iUDohy).

Motivational Interviewing and Medication Review in Coronary Heart Disease (MIMeRiC): Intervention Development and Protocol for the Process Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Trials of complex interventions are often criticized for being difficult to interpret because the effects of apparently similar interventions vary across studies dependent on context, targeted groups, and the delivery of the intervention. The Motivational Interviewing and Medication Review in Coronary heart disease (MIMeRiC) trial is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of an intervention aimed at improving pharmacological secondary prevention. Guidelines for the development and evaluation of complex interventions have recently highlighted the need for better reporting of the development of interventions, including descriptions of how the intervention is assumed to work, how this theory informed the process evaluation, and how the process evaluation relates to the outcome evaluation.

OBJECTIVE

This paper aims to describe how the intervention was designed and developed. The aim of the process evaluation is to better understand how and why the intervention in the MIMeRiC trial was effective or not effective.

METHODS

The research questions for evaluating the process are based on the conceptual model of change processes assumed in the intervention and will be analyzed by qualitative and quantitative methods. Quantitative data are used to evaluate the medication review in terms of drug-related problems, to describe how patients' beliefs about medicines are affected by the intervention, and to evaluate the quality of motivational interviewing. Qualitative data will be used to analyze whether patients experienced the intervention as intended, how cardiologists experienced the collaboration and intervention, and how the intervention affected patients' overall experience of care after coronary heart disease.

RESULTS

The development and piloting of the intervention are described in relation to the theoretical framework. Data for the process evaluation will be collected until March 2018. Some process evaluation questions will be analyzed before, and others will be analyzed after the outcomes of the MIMeRiC RCT are known.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper describes the framework for the design of the intervention tested in the MIMeRiC trial, development of the intervention from the pilot stage to the complete trial intervention, and the framework and methods for the process evaluation. Providing the protocol of the process evaluation allows prespecification of the processes that will be evaluated, because we hypothesize that they will determine the outcomes of the MIMeRiC trial. This protocol also constitutes a contribution to the new field of process evaluations as made explicit in health services research and clinical trials of complex interventions.

Clinical Outcomes Used in Clinical Pharmacy Intervention Studies in Secondary Care

The objective was to investigate type, frequency and result of clinical outcomes used in studies to assess the effect of clinical pharmacy interventions in inpatient care. The literature search using Pubmed.gov was performed for the period up to 2013 using the search phrases: “Intervention(s)” and “pharmacist(s)” and “controlled” and “outcome(s)” or “effect(s)”. Primary research studies in English of controlled, clinical pharmacy intervention studies, including outcome evaluation, were selected. Titles, abstracts and full-text papers were assessed individually by two reviewers, and inclusion was determined by consensus. In total, 37 publications were included in the review. The publications presented similar intervention elements but differed in study design. A large variety of outcome measures (135) had been used to evaluate the effect of the interventions; most frequently clinical measures/assessments by physician and health care service use. No apparent pattern was established among primary outcome measures with significant effect in favour of the intervention, but positive effect was most frequently related to studies that included power calculations and sufficient inclusion of patients (73% vs. 25%). This review emphasizes the importance of considering the relevance of outcomes selected to assess clinical pharmacy interventions and the importance of conducting a proper power calculation.

Effectiveness of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation programmes on clinical outcomes at hospital transitions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Pharmacists play a role in providing medication reconciliation. However, data on effectiveness on patients' clinical outcomes appear inconclusive. Thus, the aim of this study was to systematically investigate the effect of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation programmes on clinical outcomes at hospital transitions.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, IPA, CINHAL and PsycINFO from inception to December 2014. Included studies were all published studies in English that compared the effectiveness of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation interventions to usual care, aimed at improving medication reconciliation programmes. Meta-analysis was carried out using a random effects model, and subgroup analysis was conducted to determine the sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

17 studies involving 21,342 adult patients were included. Eight studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Most studies targeted multiple transitions and compared comprehensive medication reconciliation programmes including telephone follow-up/home visit, patient counselling or both, during the first 30 days of follow-up. The pooled relative risks showed a more substantial reduction of 67%, 28% and 19% in adverse drug event-related hospital revisits (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.53), emergency department (ED) visits (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.92) and hospital readmissions (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95) in the intervention group than in the usual care group, respectively. The pooled data on mortality (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.16) and composite readmission and/or ED visit (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.00) did not differ among the groups. There was significant heterogeneity in the results related to readmissions and ED visits, however. Subgroup analyses based on study design and outcome timing did not show statistically significant results.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacist-led medication reconciliation programmes are effective at improving post-hospital healthcare utilisation. This review supports the implementation of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation programmes that include some component aimed at improving medication safety.

[Interventions to optimize pharmacologic treatment in hospitalized older adults: a systematic review]

OBJECTIVE

To summarise the evidence on interventions aimed at optimising the drug treatment of hospitalised elderly patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a search in the main medical literature databases, selecting prospective studies of hospitalised patients older than 65 years who underwent interventions aimed at optimising drug treatment, decreasing polypharmacy and improving the medication appropriateness, health outcomes and exploitation of the healthcare system.

RESULTS

We selected 18 studies whose interventions consisted of medication reviews, detection of predefined drugs as potentially inappropriate for the elderly, counselling from a specialised geriatric team, the use of a computer support system for prescriptions and specific training for the nursing team. Up to 14 studies assessed the medication appropriateness, 13 of which showed an improvement in one or more of the parameters. Seven studies measured the impact of the intervention on polypharmacy, but only one improved the outcomes compared with the control. Seven other studies analysed mortality, but none of them showed a reduction in that rate. Only 1 of 6 studies showed a reduction in the number of hospital readmissions, and 1 of 4 studies showed a reduction in the number of emergency department visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the heterogeneity of the analysed interventions and variables, we obtained better results in the process variables (especially in medication appropriateness) than in those that measured health outcomes, which had greater variability.

Impact of Medication Reconciliation and Review on Clinical Outcomes

Objective: To examine the evidence regarding the effectiveness of medication reconciliation and review and to improve clinical outcomes in hospitals, the community, and aged care facilities. Data Source: This systematic review was undertaken in concordance with the PRISMA statement. Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched for relevant articles published between January 2000 and March 2014. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Randomized and nonrandomized studies rating the severity of medication discrepancies and medication-related problems identified during medication reconciliation and/or review were considered for inclusion. Data were extracted independently by 2 authors using a data collection form. Data Synthesis: Of the 5292 articles identified, 83 articles met the inclusion criteria. Medication reconciliation identified unintentional medication discrepancies in 3.4% to 98.2% of patients. There is limited evidence of the potential of these discrepancies to cause harm. Medication reviews identified medication-related problems or possible adverse drug reactions in 17.2% to 94.0% of patients. The studies reported conflicting findings regarding the impact of medication review on length of stays, readmissions, and mortality. Conclusions: The evidence demonstrates that medication reconciliation has the potential to identify many medication discrepancies and reduce potential harm, but the impact on clinical outcomes is less clear. Similarly, medication review can detect medication-related problems in many patients, but evidence of clinical impact is scant. Overall, there is limited evidence that medication reconciliation and medication review processes, as currently performed, significantly improve clinical outcomes, such as reductions in hospital readmissions.