Background Drug-related problems (DRPs) endanger geriatric patients' safety. Especially a follow-up treatment with increased number of care transitions is a critical time for patients. Objective This study aimed at optimising medication therapy and the transfer of medication-related information to ambulatory care in geriatric rehabilitation patients. Setting German geriatric rehabilitation centre (GRC). Method A prospective, controlled intervention study was performed. Patients in the control group (CG) received standard care, those in the intervention group (IG) an additional dual pharmaceutical intervention: (i) medication review to optimise in-hospital medication and (ii) improvement of discharge letters for optimising transfer of medication-related information. Main outcome measure (i) Number of patients with at least one DRP at discharge and (ii) predefined quality criteria for the discharge letters. Results 150 patients were enrolled in CG and 163 in IG. (i) At discharge, 126 (84%) patients in the CG were affected by at least one DRP. In the IG, the number of affected patients decreased to 64 (39%, P < 0.05). (ii) In comparison to discharge letters in the CG, predefined quality criteria were improved in the IG. Following differences were measured (CG vs. IG, each P < 0.05): active ingredient indicated (60 vs. 99%), brand name indicated (60 vs. 96%), explanation of medication changes (47 vs. 68%), visualisation of explanations next to the discharge medication (26 vs. 91%) and recommended therapy duration for short-term medications (49 vs. 84%). Conclusion DRPs and incomplete discharge letters affected many patients. The dual intervention improved in-hospital medication therapy and optimised the transfer of medication-related information.
Summary 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.
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).
Purpose Mobile health (mHealth) applications offer structured and timely communication between patients and general practitioners (GPs) about adverse drug reactions (ADR). Preconditions, functionalities and barriers should be studied to ensure safe implementation. Methods We performed a cross-sectional questionnaire survey addressing (i) preconditions, (ii) users’ assessment of functionalities and (iii) barriers to mHealth managing ADR communication. Results A total of 480 patients and 31 GPs completed the survey. (i) A total of 269 (56%) patients and 13 (42%) GPs were willing to use mHealth for ADR communication. Willingness was negatively correlated with age for both patients (r = −0.231; p < 0.001) and GPs (r = −0.558; p = 0.002). (ii) Most useful functionalities mentioned by patients (>60%) included “Rapid feedback on urgency of face-to-face consultations.” GPs valued information on “Patient’s difficulties in medication administration.” (iii) In free-text answers, the barrier reported most frequently by patients was “preferred personal GP contact” (6%), whereas GPs claimed, “uncomplicated use with low expenditure of time and personnel” (19%). Conclusion Older patients and GPs mainly show reservations about mHealth for ADR communication but recognize possible benefits. mHealth implementation should avoid a negative effect on GPs’ time budgets; the primary goal should not be to reduce the number of GP-patient contacts but to optimize them.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.