Contribution of Different Patient Information Sources to Create the Best Possible Medication History

[Medication Reconciliation During Admission to an Internal Medicine Department: A Pilot Study]

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of medication reconciliation is to promote patient safety by reducing medication errors and adverse events due to medication discrepancies in transition of care. The aim of this pilot study of medication reconciliation at the time of hospital admission was to identify the necessary resources for its implementation in clinical practice.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Pilot study with 100 patients admitted to an Internal Medicine department between October and December 2019, aged 18 and over, and chronically taking at least one medicine. The best possible medication history was obtained systematically, with subsequent identification, classification and resolution of the discrepancies.

RESULTS

The study sample, in general characterized by polypharmacy and by having multiple long-term conditions, presented a mean age of 77.04 ± 13.74 years, being 67.0% male. Overall, 791 discrepancies were identified. Intentional discrepancies were 95.7% and 50.9% of them were documented. The difficulties encountered were mainly related with the access and quality of therapeutic information and communication problems between different healthcare professionals. The key priority resources that were identified were related with the process, tools, and personnel categories.

CONCLUSION

The data revealed weaknesses in the clinical records available at the primary/hospital care interface. Optimization of data sources, standardization and informatization of the process, multidisciplinary approach and definition of priority groups were identified as opportunities for optimization.

Size of the associations between anticholinergic burden tool scores and adverse outcomes in older patients

Background Several anticholinergic scales and equations to evaluate the anticholinergic burden have been previously created. Association of these instruments with the anticholinergic outcomes are usually estimated by means of hypothesis contrast tests, which ignore the size of the association effect. Objective To evaluate the effect size of the associations between the scores on cumulative anticholinergic burden instruments with peripheral or central anticholinergic adverse outcomes in older patients. Setting Internal medicine ward of a Tertiary University Hospital. Methods A case-control study was conducted in patients over 65 years who were admitted to two internal medicine wards of a Portuguese university hospital. The Anticholinergic Drug Scale, Anticholinergic Risk Scale, Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden scale and Drug Burden Index were used to calculate the patients' anticholinergic burden. Peripheral (dry mouth-swab technique; dry eye-Schirmer test) and central (falls and cognitive impairment-Mini-Mental State Examination) anticholinergic adverse outcomes were investigated. The Barthel Index was used to assess overall physical functionality. The Mann-Whitney test was used to evaluate probabilistic differences in the anticholinergic scores between case and control individuals. To establish the effect size of the associations, the area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristics curve was calculated. Main outcome measure Anticholinergic adverse effects. Results A total of 250 patients (mean age 81.67 years, standard deviation 7.768; 50% females) were included. In total, 148 patients (59.2%) presented with dry mouth, 85 (34%) with dry eye, 141 (56.4%) with impaired functionality, 44 (17.6%) with a history of falls and 219 (87.6%) with cognitive impairment. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were obtained for the majority of the associations between Anticholinergic Drug Scale, Anticholinergic Risk Scale, Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden and Drug Burden Index and adverse effects. Conversely, the effect sizes of these associations ranged from "fail" (area under the curve 0.5 to 0.6) to "fair" (area under the curve 0.7 to 0.8). Conclusion Although significant differences in the scores of anticholinergic burden instruments and adverse outcomes may exist, the effect sizes of these associations ranged from 'fail' to 'fair', which limits their utility in preventing anticholinergic adverse outcomes with medication review interventions.

Identification of a Set of Patient-Related Features to Foster Safe Prescribing of Specific Antipsychotics in the Elderly With Dementia

Background: Antipsychotics (APs) are widely used to manage behavioral and psychiatric symptoms in dementia, although with a variety of adverse drug reactions. Therefore, it is important to know which patient-related features should be considered to foster a safe prescribing of these medications. Objectives: To compile and validate a set of patient-related features (PRFs) to foster safe prescribing of specific APs in the elderly with dementia; and to evaluate the feasibility of using them in clinical practice by analyzing the exhaustiveness of medical records. Method: A rapid literature review was the starting point, where PRFs were identified through a search in PubMed combined with information from the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPCs). In the next step, a two-round e-Delphi survey was undertaken, where a total of 450 participants were invited by e-mail, including prescribers and specialists in benefit-risk assessment. Finally, a cross-sectional study was undertaken, where 100 patients were randomly extracted from the psychiatric hospital database. Outcomes were defined as the assessment of the clinical relevance and feasibility of the PRFs, and the level of exhaustiveness of these features in medical records. Data analysis was performed using univariate statistics (IBM SPSS v.23.0). Results: A total of 92 experts participated in the e-Delphi. Forty-seven PRFs obtained consensus, where 12 were applicable to haloperidol, 14 to olanzapine/risperidone, 13 to quetiapine, and 8 to aripiprazole. Age, comorbidities, and co-medications were rated as important features regardless of the prescribed drug. All PRFs were rated as always or frequently available and, if not, they were easy or partially easy to obtain. Age, comorbidities, and co-medications were always available in the medical records, whereas cognitive status (between 41.4 and 78.8%) or hepatic function (between 17.2 and 30.4%) presented a low-level of exhaustiveness. Conclusions: Even though a high number of PRFs were rated as clinically relevant, some of them were identified as frequently missing from medical records. This may suggest that medical records should be complemented with other sources (e.g., nursing and pharmacy records) to ensure a safe prescribing of APs.