A Stepwise Pharmacist-Led Medication Review Service in Interdisciplinary Teams in Rural Nursing Homes

Intervention description of pharmacist-facilitated medication reviews in Nordic primary care settings: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Multicomponent interventions are increasingly utilized to tackle the complexity of aging and co-morbid patients. However, descriptions of interventions are generally poor, making it difficult for healthcare providers to implement successful programs.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore the completeness of intervention description of pharmacist-facilitated medication reviews (MRs) in Nordic primary care settings.

METHODS

We performed a scoping review of studies reporting on pharmacist-facilitated MRs in Nordic primary care settings. Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched on 24 January 2024. We used Arksey and O'Mally's framework for scoping studies and applied an adapted version of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist to evaluate intervention reporting. The Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe (PCNE) classification of MR levels was used to identify the components of different MRs.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included in this scoping review. The studies were conducted in Sweden (n = 7), Norway (n = 6), Finland (n = 2) and Denmark (n = 1). Information on the participating pharmacists' expertise, qualifications and training was fully reported in only two studies. Twelve studies did not provide any information related to intervention cost, dose or duration, making it challenging to estimate the economic impact of the intervention. Only one study made an evaluation of intervention fidelity. Conversely, 15 studies lacked information on this topic which can lead to inaccurate conclusions about the program's effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

The studies included in this scoping review do not provide sufficient MR information for intervention replication. We recommend that pharmacy trials use reporting checklists to increase the replicability and transferability of effective interventions.

Practice Guidelines for the Value Evaluation of Clinical Pharmacy Services (version 2)

Objective

To optimize the construction of pharmaceutical services in medical institutions, advance the development of clinical pharmacy as a discipline, enhance the level of clinical pharmacy services, systematically implement and evaluate clinical pharmacy practices, and improve patient therapeutic outcomes, we have developed the Practice Guidelines for the Value Evaluation of Clinical Pharmacy Services (Version 2).

Methods

This guideline was designed following the World Health Organization (WHO) Guideline Development Manual. The Delphi method was employed to identify clinical questions. A comprehensive systematic search was conducted to collect existing evidence on relevant issues, and the systematic reviews, evidence grading, and evidence summaries were subsequently compiled. The guideline employs the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) evidence level system from Australia and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system introduced by WHO in 2004 to classify the quality of evidence. Consensus on the recommendations and evidence levels was achieved through the Delphi method, resulting in the formation of the Practice Guidelines for the Value Evaluation of Clinical Pharmacy Services (Version 2).

Results

Through a questionnaire survey of over 100 experts and the Delphi method voting, 23 preliminary indicators for evaluating the value of clinical pharmacy services were identified. The content of these included indicators was searched according to the PICO principle, followed by systematic reviews, meta-analyses, network meta-analyses, and related original research. Each search strategy was reviewed and approved by the guidelines steering committee. Ultimately, three dimensions for evaluating the value of clinical pharmacy were identified, encompassing 15 indicators, resulting in 20 recommendations.

Conclusion

This guideline presents a set of metrics to assess the quality and effectiveness of clinical pharmacy services, which is crucial for enhancing and elevating clinical pharmacy services in healthcare institutions.

Systematic review registration

http://www.guidelines-registry.org/guide/28502a74-7038-439c-bdee-d355747e2a9d, identifier: PREPARE-2022CN756.

Adopting an electronic medication administration system in long-term care facilities: a key stakeholder interview study in Macao

To improve medication safety for residents in long-term care facilities (LTCFs), electronic medication administration records (eMARs) are widely adopted in Macao. This study aimed to (1) develop a logic model for adopting eMAR in LTCFs and (2) explore the contextual factors relevant to the implementation. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders (managers, doctors, nurses, pharmacy staff and other frontline workers) experienced with eMAR in LTCFs in Macao between February and March 2021. Purposive sampling was used for recruitment and thematic analysis followed the theoretical framework of the logic model. All 57 participants were positive about eMAR. Financial and nonfinancial resources were critical to adopting eMAR. eMAR was mostly used for its functions in documentation, e-prescribing and monitoring. Immediate output included simplified working process, reduced errors, closer monitoring of residents' conditions, and timely communication among staff. The outcomes mainly related to efficiency, safety and quality of care, workload redundancy, and data unification. Key influencing factors included eMAR flexibility, stability, and technical support. Adopting eMARs is highly consuming and the benefits in improving quality of care can only be realized with appropriate implementation, precise execution, regular evaluation and responsive adjustment. The proposed logic model framework serves as a roadmap for LTCFs, both current and future users of eMAR.

Potentially Inappropriate Medication and Polypharmacy in Nursing Home Residents: A Cross-Sectional Study

Inappropriate prescribing in the elderly is a risk factor for higher adverse drugs reactions, hospitalisation, and mortality rates. Therefore, it is necessary to identify irrational prescriptions and implement interventions to improve geriatric clinical practices in nursing homes. This study aimed to examine and compare the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medications in nursing home residents using three different updated criteria: 2019 Beers criteria, PRISCUS list, and v2 STOPP criteria, and to determine the prevalence of potential prescribing omissions according to v2 START criteria. A descriptive, observational, and cross-sectional study design was used. A total of 218 residents were involved in this study. Data on drug use were collected from medical charts. Information was screened with the software CheckTheMeds. Potentially inappropriate medications were present in 96.3%, 90.8%, and 35.3% of residents, according to the STOPP, Beers, and PRISCUS criteria or list, respectively. Inappropriate medication was found to be significantly associated with polypharmacy and severe or moderate drug–drug interactions with the three tools and with pathologies and unnecessary drugs only for STOPP criteria. The most frequent inappropriate medications were benzodiazepines and proton pump inhibitors. A regular use of software to review medications in nursing home residents would help to reduce the risk of these drug-related problems.

Determine the impact of a structured pharmacist-led medication review - a controlled intervention study to optimise medication safety for residents in long-term care facilities

Background

Medication reviews contribute to protecting long-term care (LTC) residents from drug related problems (DRPs). However, few controlled studies have examined the impact on patient-relevant outcomes so far.

Objective

We examined the impact of a one-time, pharmacist-led medication review on medication changes (primary endpoint) including discontinued medication, the number of chronic medications, hospital admissions, falls, and deaths (secondary endpoints).

Methods

A prospective, controlled intervention study was performed in three LTC facilities. In the intervention group (IG), after performing a medication review, a pharmacist gave recommendations for resolving DRPs to physicians, nurses and community pharmacists. The control group (CG) received usual care without a medication review. (i) We assessed the number of medication changes and the secondary endpoints in both groups before (t0) and after (t1, t2) the intervention. (ii) Additionally, the medication review was evaluated in the IG with regard to identified DRPs, the healthcare professional’s feedback on the forwarded pharmacist recommendations and whether DRPs were finally resolved.

Results

107 (IG) and 104 (CG) residents were enrolled. (i) More medication changes were identified in the IG than in the CG at t1 (p = 0.001). However, no significant difference was identified at t2 (p = 0.680). Mainly, medication was discontinued in those medication changes. Chronic medications increased in the CG (p = 0.005) at t2 while hospital admissions, falls, and deaths showed no differences. (ii) Overall, 1252 DRPs (median: 10; minimum-maximum: 2–39) were identified. Recommendations for 82% of relevant DRPs were forwarded to healthcare professionals, of which 61% were accepted or clarified. 22% were not accepted, 12% required further review and 6% remained without feedback. 51% of forwarded DRPs were finally resolved.

Conclusions

We found more medication changes in the IG compared to controls. Mostly, medication was discontinued. This suggests that our intervention was successful in discontinuing unnecessary medication. Other clinical outcomes such as falls, hospitalisations, and deaths were not improved due to the one-time intervention. The medication review further identified a high prevalence of DRPs in the IG, half of which were finally resolved.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00026120 (www.drks.de, retrospectively registered 07/09/2021).

Drug-Related Problems and Polypharmacy in Nursing Home Residents: A Cross-Sectional Study

At present, 19.2% of the Spanish population is aged 65 or older. Polypharmacy is a frequent condition among the elderly, especially in those living in nursing homes, which is associated with adverse outcomes, such as adverse drug events or drug-drug interactions. This study aimed to assess the pattern of polypharmacy in a nursing home in Leon, one of Spain's most ageing regions, and its relationship with different drug-related problems. A descriptive, observational, and cross-sectional study design was used; 222 residents were involved in this study. Data on drug use were collected from medical charts. Information was screened with the software CheckTheMeds, BOT PLUS and Drug-Reax. Residents were on a median of 7 medicines. Polypharmacy and inappropriate medications were present in 78.8% and 96.8% of residents, respectively. Drug-related problems were present in almost all the populations evaluated. Drug-drug interactions were very common in participants (81.1%), being severe/moderate in 24.7%. A high prevalence of polypharmacy and drug-related problems in the nursing home population assessed has been observed. A significantly higher risk of suffering drug-drug interactions was revealed for increasing polypharmacy and anticholinergic risk. A regular evaluation of drug prescribing in nursing home residents is necessary to minimize drug-related problems risk.

Challenges Faced by Health Professionals in Obtaining Correct Medication Information in the Absence of a Shared Digital Medication List

Information about patient medication use is usually registered and stored in different digital systems, making it difficult to share information across health care organisations. The lack of digital systems able to share medication information poses a threat to patient safety and quality of care. We explored the experiences of health professionals with obtaining and exchanging information on patient medication lists in Norwegian primary health care within the context of current digital and non-digital solutions. We used a qualitative research design with semi-structured interviews, including general practitioners (n = 6), pharmacists (n = 3), nurses (n = 17) and medical doctors (n = 6) from six municipalities in Norway. Our findings revealed the following five challenges characterised by being cut off from information on patient medication lists in the current digital and non-digital solutions: ‘fragmentation of information systems’, ‘perceived risk of errors’, ‘excessive time use’, ‘dependency on others’ and ‘uncertainty’. The challenges were particularly related to patient transitions between levels of care. Our study shows an urgent need for digital solutions to ensure seamless, up-to-date information about patient medication lists in order to prevent medication-related problems. Future digital solutions for a shared medication list should address these challenges directly to ensure patient safety and quality of care.

A New Care Model Reduces Polypharmacy and Potentially Inappropriate Medications in Long-Term Care

OBJECTIVES

Assess the impact of a new pharmaceutical care model on (1) polypharmacy and (2) potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use in long-term care facilities (LTCFs).

DESIGN

Pragmatic quasi-experimental study with a control group. This multifaceted model enables pharmacists and nurses to increase their professional autonomy by enforcing laws designed to expand their scope of practice. It also involves a strategic reorganization of care, interdisciplinary training, and systematic medication reviews.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Two LTCFs exposed to the model (409 residents) were compared to 2 control LTCFs (282 residents) in Quebec, Canada. All individuals were aged 65 years or older and residing in included LTCFs.

MEASURES

Polypharmacy (≥10 medications) and PIM (2015 Beers criteria) were analyzed throughout 12 months between March 2017 and June 2018. Groups were compared before and after implementation using repeated measures mixed Poisson or logistic regression models, adjusting for potential confounding variables.

RESULTS

Over 12 months, for regular medications, polypharmacy decreased from 42% to 20% (exposed group) and from 50% to 41% (control group) [difference in differences (DID): 13%, P < .001]. Mean number of PIMs also decreased from 0.79 to 0.56 (exposed group) and from 1.08 to 0.90 (control group) (DID: 0.05, P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Compared with usual care, this multifaceted model reduced the probability of receiving ≥10 medications and the mean number of PIMs. Greater professional autonomy, reorganization of care, training, and medication review can optimize pharmaceutical care. As the role of pharmacists is expanding in many countries, this model shows what could be achieved with increased professional autonomy of pharmacists and nurses in LTCFs.

Considering additive effects of polypharmacy : Analysis of adverse events in geriatric patients in long-term care facilities

Background

Potential additive effects of polypharmacy are rarely considered in adverse events of geriatric patients living in long-term care facilities. Our aim, therefore, was to identify adverse events in this setting and to assess plausible concomitant drug causes.

Methods

A cross-sectional observational study was performed in three facilities as follows: (i) adverse event identification: we structurally identified adverse events using nurses’ interviews and chart review. (ii) Analysis of the concomitantly administered drugs per patient was performed in two ways: (ii.a) a review of summary of product characteristics for listed adverse drug reactions to identify possible causing drugs and (ii.b) a causality assessment according to Naranjo algorithm.

Results

(i) We found 424 adverse events with a median of 4 per patient (range 1–14) in 103 of the 104 enrolled patients (99%). (ii.a) We identified a median of 3 drugs (range 0–11) with actually occurring adverse events listed as an adverse drug reaction in the summary of product characteristics. (ii.b) Causality was classified in 198 (46.9%) of adverse events as “doubtful,” in 218 (51.2%) as “possible,” in 7 (1.7%) as “probable,” and in 1 (0.2%) adverse event as a “definitive” cause of the administered drugs. In 340 (80.2%) of all identified adverse events several drugs simultaneously reached the highest respective Naranjo score.

Conclusion

Patients in long-term facilities frequently suffer from many adverse events. Concomitantly administered drugs have to be frequently considered as plausible causes for adverse events. These additive effects of drugs should be more focused in patient care and research.

Variation between nursing homes in drug use and in drug-related problems

BACKGROUND

Residents at nursing homes (NHs) are at particular risk for drug related harm. Regular medication reviews using explicit criteria for pharmacological inappropriateness and classification of drug related problems (DRPs) have recently been introduced as measures to improve the quality of medication use and for making the treatment more uniform across different institutions. Knowledge about variation in DRPs between NHs is scarce. To explore if increased attention towards more appropriate drug treatment in NHs have led to more uniform treatment, we have analyzed variations between different nursing homes' drug use and DRPs.

METHODS

Cross-sectional medication review study including 2465 long-term care residents at 41 NHs in Oslo, Norway. Regular drug use was retrieved from the patients' medical records. DRPs were identified by using STOPP/START and NORGEP criteria and a drug-drug interactions database. NHs were grouped in quartiles based on average levels of drug use. The upper and lower quartiles were compared using independent samples t-test and associations between drug use and DRPs were tested by logistic regression.

RESULTS

Patients' mean age was 85.9 years, 74.2% were women. Mean numbers of regular drugs per patient was 6.8 and varied between NHs from 4.8 to 9.3. The proportion of patients within each NH using psychotropic and analgesic drugs varied largely: antipsychotics from three to 50%, benzodiazepines from 24 to 99%, antidepressants from nine to 75%, anti-dementia drugs from no use to 42%, opioids from no use to 65% and paracetamol from 16 to 74%. Mean DRPs per patient was 2.0 and varied between NHs from 0.5 to 3.4. The quartiles of NHs with highest and lowest mean drugs per patient (7.7 vs. 5.7, p < 0.001) had comparable mean number of DRPs per patient (2.2 vs. 1.8, p = 0.2). Using more drugs and the use of opioids, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines and antidepressants were associated with more DRPs.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of psychotropic and analgesic drugs was high and varied substantially between different NHs. Even if the use of more drugs, opioids and psychotropic drugs was associated with DRPs, no difference was found in DRPs between the NHs with highest vs. lowest drug use.