Impact of a multidisciplinary medication reconciliation program on clinical outcomes: A pre-post intervention study in surgical patients

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have evaluated the effects of medication reconciliation (MR) and suggest that it is effective in decreasing medication discrepancies. Nevertheless, a recent overview of systematic reviews concluded that there is no clear evidence in favor of MR in patient-related outcomes and healthcare utilization, and further research about it is needed.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of a multidisciplinary MR program on clinical outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer presenting other chronic diseases, undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

We performed a pre-post study. Adult patients scheduled for elective colorectal cancer surgery were included if they presented at least one "high-risk" criteria. The MR program was developed by internists, pharmacists and surgeons, and ended with the obtention of the patient's pre-admission medication list and follow-up care until discharge. The primary outcome was the length of stay (LOS). Secondly, we evaluated mortality, preventable surgery cancellations and risk factors for complications.

RESULTS

Three hundred and eight patients were enrolled. Only one patient in the pre-intervention group suffered a preventable surgery cancellation (p = 0.317). The mean LOS was 13 ± 12 vs. 11 ± 5 days in the pre-intervention and the intervention cohort, respectively (p = 0.435). A difference in favor of the intervention group in patients with cardiovascular disease (p = 0.038) and those >75 years old (p = 0.043) was observed. No difference was detected in the mortality rate (p = 0.999) neither most of the indicators of risk factors for complications. However, the management of preoperative systolic blood pressure of hypertensive patients (p = 0.004) and insulin reconciliation in patients with treated diabetes (p = 0.003) were statistically better in the intervention group.

CONCLUSIONS

No statistically significant change was observed in the mean global LOS. A statistically significant positive effect on LOS was observed in vulnerable populations: patients >75 years old and those with cardiovascular disease, who presented a 5-day reduction in the mean LOS.

Inappropriate prescribing in elderly people with diabetes admitted to hospital

AIMS

To assess inappropriate prescribing in older people with diabetes mellitus during the month prior to a hospitalization, using tools on potentially inappropriate medicines (PIMs) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) and comparing inappropriate prescribing in patients with without diabetes.

METHODS

In an observational, prospective multicentric study, we assessed inappropriate prescribing in 672 patients aged 75 years and older during hospital admission. The Beers, Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions (STOPP) and Screening Tool to Alert Doctors to Right Treatment (START) criteria and Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders (ACOVE-3) medicine quality indicators were used. We analysed demographic and clinical factors associated with inappropriate prescribing.

RESULTS

Of 672 patients, 249 (mean age 82.4 years, 62.9% female) had a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. The mean number of prescribing drugs per patient with diabetes was 12.6 (4.5) vs. 9.4 (4.3) in patients without diabetes (P < 0.001). Of those patients with diabetes, 74.2% used 10 or more medications; 54.5% of patients with diabetes had at least one Beers-listed PIM, 68.1% had at least one STOPP-listed PIM, 64.6% had at least one START-listed PPO and 62.8% had at least one ACOVE-3-listed PPO. Except for the Beers criteria, these prevalences were significantly higher in patients with diabetes than in those without. After excluding diabetes-related items from these tools, only STOPP-listed PIMs remained significantly higher among patients with diabetes (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Polypharmacy is common among older patients with diabetes mellitus. Inappropriate prescribing is higher in older patients with diabetes, even when diabetes-related treatment is excluded from the inappropriate prescribing evaluation.

[Evaluation of the satisfaction with a care coordination program between Primary Care and general internists]

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the level of knowledge, participation and satisfaction with a continuity of care program between Primary Care and a group of general internists, and to analyse the most frequent reasons for consulting.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Cross-sectional study including all primary care physicians from 10 Family Practice Care Centres using a questionnaire containing these objectives.

RESULTS

Eighty-three family physicians (92.2%) answered the survey. All physicians knew of the collaboration program and had also participated. The most common clinical problems seen were: patients with multiple health problems(26.5%), cardiovascular risk factors (16.8%) and diagnosis of the asthenia syndrome (141%), with these three problems obtaining the best evaluation in the satisfaction survey. Almost all (98.8%) of the family physicians were satisfied with the program.

CONCLUSIONS

Our continuity care program was very well evaluated in the satisfaction survey by family physicians. The participation index was very high and the clinical problems most frequently consulted and best evaluated were those that traditionally have been seen by the internists.