1
|
Cole JA, Gonçalves-Bradley DC, Alqahtani M, Barry HE, Cadogan C, Rankin A, Patterson SM, Kerse N, Cardwell CR, Ryan C, Hughes C. Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 10:CD008165. [PMID: 37818791 PMCID: PMC10565901 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd008165.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/13/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Judith A Cole
- Clinical Trial Service Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | | | | | - Cathal Cadogan
- School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Audrey Rankin
- School of Pharmacy, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | | | - Ngaire Kerse
- Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Chris R Cardwell
- Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - Cristin Ryan
- School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Carmel Hughes
- School of Pharmacy, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Weiss K, Pichierri G, Grischott T, Groth S, Neuner-Jehle S. Impact of a deprescribing tool on the use of sedative hypnotics among older patients: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial in Swiss primary care (the HYPE trial). BMJ Open 2023; 13:e075828. [PMID: 37730388 PMCID: PMC10510907 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-075828] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2023] [Accepted: 08/29/2023] [Indexed: 09/22/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Benzodiazepines and other sedative hypnotics (BSH) are potentially inappropriate and harmful medications in older people due to their higher susceptibility for adverse drug events. BSH prescription rates are constantly high among elderly patients and even increase with higher age and comorbidity. Deprescribing BSH can be challenging both for healthcare providers and for patients for various reasons. Thus, physicians and patients may benefit from a supportive tool to facilitate BSH deprescribing in primary care consultations. This study intends to explore effectiveness, safety, acceptance and feasibility of such a tool. METHODS AND ANALYSIS In this prospective, cluster randomised, controlled, two-arm, double-blinded trial in the ambulatory primary care setting, we will include general practitioners (GPs) from German-speaking Switzerland and their BSH consuming patients aged 65 years or older, living at home or in nursing homes. GPs will be randomly assigned to either intervention or control group. In the intervention group, GPs will participate in a 1-hour online training on how to use a patient support tool (decision-making guidance plus tapering schedule and non-pharmaceutical alternative treatment suggestions for insomnia). The control group GPs will participate in a 1-hour online instruction about BSH epidemiology and sleep hygiene counselling. This minimal intervention aims to prevent unblinding of control group GPs without jeopardising their 'usual care'.The primary outcome will be the percentage of patients who change their BSH use (ie, stop, reduce or switch to a non-BSH insomnia treatment) within 6 months from the initial consultation. EXPECTED BENEFIT Based on the results of the study, we will learn how GPs and their patients benefit from a supportive tool that facilitates BSH deprescribing in primary care consultations. The study will emphasise on exploring barriers and facilitators to BSH deprescribing among patients and providers. Positive results given, the study will improve medication safety and the quality of care for patients with sleeping disorders. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Canton of Zurich (KEK-ZH Ref no. 2023-00054, 4 April 2023). Informed consent will be sought from all participating GPs and patients. The results of the study will be publicly disseminated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ISRCTN34363838.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katja Weiss
- Institute of Primary Care, University of Zurich and University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Giuseppe Pichierri
- Institute of Primary Care, University of Zurich and University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Thomas Grischott
- Institute of Primary Care, University of Zurich and University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Susan Groth
- Institute of Primary Care, University of Zurich and University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Stefan Neuner-Jehle
- Institute of Primary Care, University of Zurich and University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Grischott T, Rachamin Y, Senn O, Hug P, Rosemann T, Neuner-Jehle S. Medication Review and Enhanced Information Transfer at Discharge of Older Patients with Polypharmacy: a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial in Swiss Hospitals. J Gen Intern Med 2023; 38:610-618. [PMID: 36045192 PMCID: PMC9432794 DOI: 10.1007/s11606-022-07728-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/11/2022] [Accepted: 06/26/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Medication safety in patients with polypharmacy at transitions of care is a focus of the current Third WHO Global Patient Safety Challenge. Medication review and communication between health care professionals are key targets to reduce medication-related harm. OBJECTIVE To study whether a hospital discharge intervention combining medication review with enhanced information transfer between hospital and primary care physicians can delay hospital readmission and impact health care utilization or other health-related outcomes of older inpatients with polypharmacy. DESIGN Cluster-randomized controlled trial in 21 Swiss hospitals between January 2019 and September 2020, with 6 months follow-up. PARTICIPANTS Sixty-eight senior physicians and their blinded junior physicians included 609 patients ≥ 60 years taking ≥ 5 drugs. INTERVENTIONS Participating hospitals were randomized to either integrate a checklist-guided medication review and communication stimulus into their discharge processes, or follow usual discharge routines. MAIN MEASURES Primary outcome was time-to-first-readmission to any hospital within 6 months, analyzed using a shared frailty model. Secondary outcomes covered readmission rates, emergency department visits, other medical consultations, mortality, drug numbers, proportions of patients with potentially inappropriate medication, and the patients' quality of life. KEY RESULTS At admission, 609 patients (mean age 77.5 (SD 8.6) years, 49.4% female) took a mean of 9.6 (4.2) drugs per patient. Time-to-first-readmission did not differ significantly between study arms (adjusted hazard ratio 1.14 (intervention vs. control arm), 95% CI [0.75-1.71], p = 0.54), nor did the 30-day hospital readmission rates (6.7% [3.3-10.1%] vs. 7.0% [3.6-10.3%]). Overall, there were no clinically relevant differences between study arms at 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge. CONCLUSIONS The combination of a structured medication review with enhanced information transfer neither delayed hospital readmission nor improved other health-related outcomes of older inpatients with polypharmacy. Our results may help researchers in balancing practicality versus stringency of similar hospital discharge interventions. STUDY REGISTRATION ISRCTN18427377, https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN18427377.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas Grischott
- Institute of Primary Care, University of Zurich & University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
| | - Yael Rachamin
- Institute of Primary Care, University of Zurich & University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Oliver Senn
- Institute of Primary Care, University of Zurich & University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Petra Hug
- Institute of Primary Care, University of Zurich & University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Thomas Rosemann
- Institute of Primary Care, University of Zurich & University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Stefan Neuner-Jehle
- Institute of Primary Care, University of Zurich & University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Bülow C, Clausen SS, Lundh A, Christensen M. Medication review in hospitalised patients to reduce morbidity and mortality. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 1:CD008986. [PMID: 36688482 PMCID: PMC9869657 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd008986.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/24/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cille Bülow
- Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Copenhagen University Hospital - Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Stine Søndersted Clausen
- The Research Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Andreas Lundh
- Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Odense (CEBMO) and Cochrane Denmark, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
- Department of Respiratory Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Copenhagen University Hospital - Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Mikkel Christensen
- Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Copenhagen University Hospital - Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Copenhagen Center for Translational Research (CCTR), Copenhagen University Hospital - Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Bayliss EA, Albers K, Gleason K, Pieper LE, Boyd CM, Campbell NL, Ensrud KE, Gray SL, Linsky AM, Mangin D, Min L, Rich MW, Steinman MA, Turner J, Vasilevskis EE, Dublin S. Recommendations for outcome measurement for deprescribing intervention studies. J Am Geriatr Soc 2022; 70:2487-2497. [PMID: 35648465 PMCID: PMC9489620 DOI: 10.1111/jgs.17894] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/08/2021] [Revised: 04/21/2022] [Accepted: 05/03/2022] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Abstract
Interpreting results from deprescribing interventions to generate actionable evidence is challenging owing to inconsistent and heterogeneous outcome definitions between studies. We sought to characterize deprescribing intervention outcomes and recommend approaches to measure outcomes for future studies. A scoping literature review focused on deprescribing interventions for polypharmacy and informed a series of expert panel discussions and recommendations. Twelve experts in deprescribing research, policy, and clinical practice interventions participating in the Measures Workgroup of the US Deprescribing Research Network sought to characterize deprescribing outcomes and recommend approaches to measure outcomes for future studies. The scoping review identified 125 papers reflecting 107 deprescribing studies. Common outcomes included medication discontinuation, medication appropriateness, and a broad range of clinical outcomes potentially resulting from medication reduction. Panel recommendations included clearly defining clinically meaningful medication outcomes (e.g., number of chronic medications, dose reductions), ensuring adequate sample size and follow-up time to capture clinical outcomes resulting from medication discontinuation (e.g., quality of life [QOL]), and selecting appropriate and feasible data sources. A new conceptual model illustrates how downstream clinical outcomes (e.g., reduction in falls) should be interpreted in the context of initial changes in medication measures (e.g., reduction in mean total medications). Areas needing further development include implementation outcomes specific to deprescribing interventions and measures of adverse drug withdrawal events. Generating evidence to guide deprescribing is essential to address patient, caregiver, and clinician concerns about the benefits and harms of medication discontinuation. This article provides recommendations and an initial conceptual framework for selecting and applying appropriate intervention outcomes to support deprescribing research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth A Bayliss
- Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, USA
- Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA
| | - Kathleen Albers
- Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, USA
| | - Kathy Gleason
- Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, USA
| | - Lisa E Pieper
- Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, USA
| | - Cynthia M Boyd
- Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Noll L Campbell
- Department of Pharmacy Practice, Purdue University College of Pharmacy, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA
- Center for Aging Research, Regenstrief Institute, Inc, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| | - Kristine E Ensrud
- Department of Medicine and Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
- Center for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Shelly L Gray
- School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Amy M Linsky
- Section of General Internal Medicine and Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
- Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Derelie Mangin
- Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
- Department of General Practice, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand
| | - Lillian Min
- Division of Geriatric and Palliative Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
- Ann Arbor VA Medical Center, Geriatric Education Research and Clinical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Michael W Rich
- Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
| | - Michael A Steinman
- Division of Geriatrics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
- Division of Geriatraics, San Francisco VA Medical Center, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Justin Turner
- Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Eduard E Vasilevskis
- Section of Hospital Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine and Public Health, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
- Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center (GRECC), VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
| | - Sascha Dublin
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
- Epidemiology Department, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Thevelin S, Pétein C, Metry B, Adam L, van Herksen A, Murphy K, Knol W, O'Mahony D, Rodondi N, Spinewine A, Dalleur O. Experience of hospital-initiated medication changes in older people with multimorbidity: a multicentre mixed-methods study embedded in the OPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in Multimorbid older people (OPERAM) trial. BMJ Qual Saf 2022; 31:888-898. [PMID: 35351779 DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014372] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/31/2021] [Accepted: 02/24/2022] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A patient-centred approach to medicines optimisation is considered essential. The OPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in Multimorbid older people (OPERAM) trial evaluated the effectiveness of medication review with shared decision-making (SDM) in older people with multimorbidity. Beyond evaluating the clinical effectiveness, exploring the patient experience facilitates a better understanding of contextual factors and mechanisms affecting medication review effectiveness. OBJECTIVE To explore experiences of hospital-initiated medication changes in older people with multimorbidity. METHODS We conducted a multicentre mixed-methods study, embedded in the OPERAM trial, combining semi-structured interviews and the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) with a purposive sample of 48 patients (70-94 years) from four European countries. Interviews were analysed using the Framework approach. Trial implementation data on SDM were collected and the 9-item SDM questionnaire was conducted with 17 clinicians. RESULTS Patients generally displayed positive attitudes towards medication review, yet emphasised the importance of long-term, trusting relationships such as with their general practitioners for medication review. Many patients reported a lack of information and communication about medication changes and predominantly experienced paternalistic decision-making. Patients' beliefs that 'doctors know best', 'blind trust', having limited opportunities for questions, use of jargon terms by clinicians, 'feeling too ill', dismissive clinicians, etc highlight the powerlessness some patients felt during hospitalisation, all representing barriers to SDM. Conversely, involvement of companions, health literacy, empathetic and trusting patient-doctor relationships, facilitated SDM. Paradoxical to patients' experiential accounts, clinicians reported high levels of SDM. The BMQ showed that most patients had high necessity and low concern beliefs about medicines. Beliefs about medicines, experiencing benefits or harms from medication changes, illness perception, trust and balancing advice between different healthcare professionals all affected acceptance of medication changes. CONCLUSION To meet patients' needs, future medicines optimisation interventions should enhance information exchange, better prepare patients and clinicians for partnership in care and foster collaborative medication reviews across care settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stefanie Thevelin
- Clinical Pharmacy Research Group, Louvain Drug Research Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Catherine Pétein
- Clinical Pharmacy Research Group, Louvain Drug Research Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Beatrice Metry
- Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Luise Adam
- Department of General Internal Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Anniek van Herksen
- Department of Geriatric Medicine, Martini Ziekenhuis, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Kevin Murphy
- Pharmaceutical Care Research Group, School of Pharmacy, Cavanagh Pharmacy Building, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
| | - Wilma Knol
- Department of Geriatric Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Denis O'Mahony
- Department of Geriatric Medicine, Cork University Hospital and Department of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
| | - Nicolas Rodondi
- Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.,Department of General Internal Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Anne Spinewine
- Clinical Pharmacy Research Group, Louvain Drug Research Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.,Pharmacy Department, CHU UCL Namur, Université catholique de Louvain, Yvoir, Belgium
| | - Olivia Dalleur
- Clinical Pharmacy Research Group, Louvain Drug Research Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.,Pharmacy Department, Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Discharge planning is a routine feature of health systems in many countries that aims to reduce delayed discharge from hospital, and improve the co-ordination of services following discharge from hospital and reduce the risk of hospital readmission. This is the fifth update of the original review. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of planning the discharge of individual patients moving from hospital. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two trials registers on 20 April 2021. We searched two other databases up to 31 March 2020. We also conducted reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised trials that compared an individualised discharge plan with routine discharge that was not tailored to individual participants. Participants were hospital inpatients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently undertook data analysis and quality assessment using a pre-designed data extraction sheet. We grouped studies by older people with a medical condition, people recovering from surgery, and studies that recruited participants with a mix of conditions. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data using fixed-effect meta-analysis. When combining outcome data it was not possible because of differences in the reporting of outcomes, we summarised the reported results for each trial in the text. MAIN RESULTS We included 33 trials (12,242 participants), four new trials included in this update. The majority of trials (N = 30) recruited participants with a medical diagnosis, average age range 60 to 84 years; four of these trials also recruited participants who were in hospital for a surgical procedure. Participants allocated to discharge planning and who were in hospital for a medical condition had a small reduction in the initial hospital length of stay (MD - 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 1.33 to - 0.12; 11 trials, 2113 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and a relative reduction in readmission to hospital over an average of three months follow-up (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97; 17 trials, 5126 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little or no difference in participant's health status (mortality at three- to nine-month follow-up: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.29; 8 trials, 2721 participants; moderate certainty) functional status and psychological health measured by a range of measures, 12 studies, 2927 participants; low certainty evidence). There was some evidence that satisfaction might be increased for patients (7 trials), caregivers (1 trial) or healthcare professionals (2 trials) (very low certainty evidence). The cost of a structured discharge plan compared with routine discharge is uncertain (7 trials recruiting 7873 participants with a medical condition; very low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS A structured discharge plan that is tailored to the individual patient probably brings about a small reduction in the initial hospital length of stay and readmissions to hospital for older people with a medical condition, may slightly increase patient satisfaction with healthcare received. The impact on patient health status and healthcare resource use or cost to the health service is uncertain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniela C Gonçalves-Bradley
- Center for Health Technology and Services Research (CINTESIS), Porto, Portugal
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Natasha A Lannin
- Brain Recovery and Rehabilitation Group, Department of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Lindy Clemson
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Ian D Cameron
- John Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, Sydney Medical School, Northern Clinical School, The University of Sydney, St Leonards, Australia
| | - Sasha Shepperd
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Rachamin Y, Grischott T, Neuner-Jehle S. Implementation of a complex intervention to improve hospital discharge: process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2021; 11:e049872. [PMID: 34045217 PMCID: PMC8162085 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049872] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To study the implementation of a cluster randomised controlled effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial testing the effectiveness of a medication review at hospital discharge combined with a communication stimulus between hospital physicians (HPs) and general practitioners (GPs) on rehospitalisation of multimorbid older patients. DESIGN Extension of Grant's mixed method process evaluation framework to trials with multilevel clustering. SETTING General internal medicine wards in Swiss hospitals. PARTICIPANTS Convenience samples of 15 chief physicians (of 21 hospitals participating in the effectiveness trial), 60 (74) senior HPs, 65 (164) junior HPs and 187 (411) GPs. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY Two-hour teaching sessions for senior HPs on a patient-centred, checklist-guided discharge routine. PROCESS EVALUATION COMPONENTS Data collection on recruitment, delivery and response from chief physicians (semistructured interviews), senior HPs, junior HPs, GPs (surveys) and patients (via HPs). Quantitative data were summarised using descriptive statistics, and interviews analysed using thematic analysis. OUTCOME MEASURES Intervention dose (quantitative), implementation fidelity (qualitative), feasibility and acceptability, facilitators and barriers, implementation support strategies. RESULTS Recruitment of hospitals was laborious but successful, with 21 hospitals recruited. Minimal workload and a perceived benefit for the clinic were crucial factors for participation. Intervention dose was high (95% of checklist activities carried out), but intervention fidelity was limited (discharge letters) or unknown (medication review). Recruitment and retention of patients was challenging, partly due to patient characteristics (old, frail) and the COVID-19 pandemic: Only 612 of the anticipated 2100 patients were recruited, and 31% were lost to follow-up within the first month after discharge. The intervention was deemed feasible and helpful by HPs, and the relevance of the topic appreciated by both HPs and GPs. CONCLUSIONS The results from this evaluation will support interpretation of the findings of the effectiveness study and may inform researchers and policy makers who aim at improving hospital discharge. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ISRCTN18427377.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yael Rachamin
- Institute of Primary Care, University of Zurich and University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Thomas Grischott
- Institute of Primary Care, University of Zurich and University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Stefan Neuner-Jehle
- Institute of Primary Care, University of Zurich and University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Leon N, Balakrishna Y, Hohlfeld A, Odendaal WA, Schmidt BM, Zweigenthal V, Anstey Watkins J, Daniels K. Routine Health Information System (RHIS) improvements for strengthened health system management. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 8:CD012012. [PMID: 32803893 PMCID: PMC8094584 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012012.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A well-functioning routine health information system (RHIS) can provide the information needed for health system management, for governance, accountability, planning, policy making, surveillance and quality improvement, but poor information support has been identified as a major obstacle for improving health system management. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of interventions to improve routine health information systems in terms of RHIS performance, and also, in terms of improved health system management performance, and improved patient and population health outcomes. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid and Embase Ovid in May 2019. We searched Global Health, Ovid and PsycInfo in April 2016. In January 2020 we searched for grey literature in the Grey Literature Report and in OpenGrey, and for ongoing trials using the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov. In October 2019 we also did a cited reference search using Web of Science, and a 'similar articles' search in PubMed. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised and non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies and time-series studies comparing routine health information system interventions, with controls, in primary, hospital or community health care settings. Participants included clinical staff and management, district management and community health workers using routine information systems. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently reviewed records to identify studies for inclusion, extracted data from the included studies and assessed the risk of bias. Interventions and outcomes were too varied across studies to allow for pooled risk analysis. We present a 'Summary of findings' table for each intervention comparisons broadly categorised into Technical and Organisational (or a combination), and report outcomes on data quality and service quality. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS We included six studies: four cluster randomised trials and two controlled before-after studies, from Africa and South America. Three studies evaluated technical interventions, one study evaluated an organisational intervention, and two studies evaluated a combination of technical and organisational interventions. Four studies reported on data quality and six studies reported on service quality. In terms of data quality, a web-based electronic TB laboratory information system probably reduces the length of time to reporting of TB test results, and probably reduces the overall rate of recording errors of TB test results, compared to a paper-based system (moderate certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of the electronic laboratory information system on the recording rate of serious (misidentification) errors for TB test results compared to a paper-based system (very low certainty evidence). Misidentification errors are inaccuracies in transferring test results between an electronic register and patients' clinical charts. We are also uncertain about the effect of the intervention on service quality (timeliness of starting or changing a patient's TB treatment) (very low certainty evidence). A hand-held electronic device probably improves the length of time to report TB test results, and probably reduces the total frequency of recording errors in TB test results between the laboratory notebook and the electronic information record system, compared to a paper-based system (moderate-certainty evidence). We are, however, uncertain about the effect of the intervention on the frequency of serious (misidentification) errors in recording between the laboratory notebook and the electronic information record, compared to a paper-based system (very low certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of a hospital electronic health information system on service quality (length of time outpatients spend at hospital, length of hospital stay, and hospital revenue collection), compared to a paper-based system (very low certainty evidence). High-intensity brief text messaging (SMS) may make little or no difference to data quality (in terms of completeness of documentation of pregnancy outcomes), compared to low-intensity brief text messaging (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of electronic drug stock notification (with either data management support or product transfer support) on service quality (in terms of transporting stock and stock levels), compared to paper-based stock notification (very low certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of health information strengthening (where it is part of comprehensive service quality improvement intervention) on service quality (health worker motivation, receipt of training by health workers, health information index scores, quality of clinical observation of children and adults) (very low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The review indicates mixed effects of mainly technical interventions to improve data quality, with gaps in evidence on interventions aimed at enhancing data-informed health system management. There is a gap in interventions studying information support beyond clinical management, such as for human resources, finances, drug supply and governance. We need to have a better understanding of the causal mechanisms by which information support may affect change in management decision-making, to inform robust intervention design and evaluation methods.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natalie Leon
- Health Systems Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa
- School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA
| | - Yusentha Balakrishna
- Biostatistics Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Durban, South Africa
| | - Ameer Hohlfeld
- Cochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Willem A Odendaal
- Health Systems Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa
- Department of Psychiatry, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Bey-Marrié Schmidt
- Cochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Virginia Zweigenthal
- Health Impact Assessment Directorate, Department of Health: Western Cape Province, Cape Town, South Africa
- School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
| | | | - Karen Daniels
- Health Systems Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa
- School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Krause O, Glaubitz S, Hager K, Schleef T, Wiese B, Junius-Walker U. Post-discharge adjustment of medication in geriatric patients : A prospective cohort study. Z Gerontol Geriatr 2019; 53:663-670. [PMID: 31440831 DOI: 10.1007/s00391-019-01601-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/21/2019] [Accepted: 08/05/2019] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Little is known to what extent general practitioners (GP) change hospital discharge medications in older patients. OBJECTIVE This prospective cohort study aimed to analyze medication changes at the interface between hospital and community in terms of quality, quantity and type of drugs. METHODS A total of 121 out of 248 consecutively enrolled patients admitted to an acute geriatric hospital unit participated in the study. Medication regimens were recorded at admission and discharge and 4 weeks after hospital discharge the general practitioners in charge were contacted to provide the current medication charts. Changes in the extent of polypharmacy, in the type of drugs using anatomical therapeutic chemical classification (ATC) codes and potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) were analyzed. RESULTS Medication charts could be obtained for 98 participants in primary care. Only 21% of these patients remained on the original discharge medication. Overall, the average number of medications rose from hospital admission (6.58 SD ± 3.45) to discharge (6.96 SD ± 3.49) and again post-discharge in general practice (7.22 SD ± 3.68). The rates of patients on excessive polypharmacy (≥10 drugs) and on PIM were only temporarily reduced during hospital stay. The GPs stopped anti-infective drugs (ATC-J) and prescribed more antirheumatic drugs (ATC-M). Although no significant net changes occurred in other ATC groups, a substantial number of drugs were interchanged regarding the subgroups. CONCLUSION The study found that GPs extensively adjusted geriatric discharge medications. Whereas some changes may be necessary due to alterations in patients' state of health, a thorough communication between hospital doctors and GPs may level off different prescribing cultures and contribute to consistency in medication across sectors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Olaf Krause
- Center for Medicine of the Elderly, DIAKOVERE Henriettenstift, Schwemannstr. 19, 30559, Hannover, Germany. .,Institute for General Practice, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
| | - Stefanie Glaubitz
- Institute for General Practice, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.,Department of Neurology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Göttingen, Germany
| | - Klaus Hager
- Center for Medicine of the Elderly, DIAKOVERE Henriettenstift, Schwemannstr. 19, 30559, Hannover, Germany
| | - Tanja Schleef
- Institute for General Practice, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany
| | - Birgitt Wiese
- Institute for General Practice, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany
| | - Ulrike Junius-Walker
- Institute for General Practice, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany
| |
Collapse
|