Unnecessary Medicines Stored in Homes of Patients at Risk of Medication Misadventure

Disposal Practices of Unused and Expired Medicines Among the General Public and Pharmacies: A Mixed-Method Study in the Odisha State of Eastern India

Introduction Unused and expired medicines are potentially toxic substances that should be managed effectively to avoid possible environmental hazards. The absence of well-defined protocols in India regarding the proper disposal of unused, unwanted, and expired medications raises concerns about the potential for accidental poisoning and environmental threats. Consequently, this research was conducted to evaluate the disposal practices of medications within both urban slum households and pharmacies. Methods This questionnaire-based, mixed-method study was conducted among 385 general public residing in urban slums and 10 registered pharmacies in Bhubaneswar city, India, from September 2020 to August 2021. A semi-structured questionnaire was framed to collect data from the households and the pharmacies; key informant interview was carried out among expert members regarding the disposal of expired medicines. Results Results found that 82.1% (316/385) of the study population threw unused drugs in dustbins, whereas only 2.6% (10/385) returned the medicines to the pharmacy. The most common reason for leftover medicine was the stoppage of drugs on symptomatic relief (53.2%, 205/385), followed by changes in prescription by doctors (18%, 69/385). Out of 10 pharmacies, seven pharmacies disposed of expired drugs in general dustbins. Conclusion Our findings indicate that a majority of the participants tend to dispose of medicines in an unsafe manner. Conversely, the responsible disposal of medications is significantly influenced by patient education. Hence, healthcare professionals are better positioned to impart knowledge to the public, fostering awareness about the proper storage and safe disposal of unused, unwanted, and expired medicines.

Home Medicines Review and frailty among community-dwelling older women

OBJECTIVES

Home Medicines Reviews (HMRs) can optimize medications for frail older adults. This study aimed to determine the use of HMRs according to frailty status and the association between frailty and use of HMRs.

METHODS

The study included 9139 female participants enrolled in the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health from 2003 (aged 77-82 years) to 2017 (aged 91-96 years). Generalized estimating equations (GEEs) using log-binomial regressions were used to determine associations using repeated measures on individuals over time.

KEY FINDINGS

The majority of participants in the study remained non-frail and did not receive HMRs from 2003 [7116 (77.86%)] to 2017 [1240 (71.31%)]. The use of HMRs was low in both groups with 33 (1.68%; 95% CI, 1.16 to 2.36) frail and 64 (0.89%; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.14) non-frail participants receiving HMRs in 2003; by 2017, 19 (4.19%; 95% CI, 2.54 to 6.46) frail and 45 (3.50%; 95% CI, 2.57 to 4.66) non-frail participants received HMRs. Frailty was not associated with receiving a HMR (RR 1.06; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.20), although for every 1-year increase, participants were 10% more likely to receive a HMR (RR 1.10; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.11). Participants with continuous polypharmacy, ≥4 chronic diseases, >4 general practitioner visits and Department of Veterans Affairs coverage were more likely to receive a HMR.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the proven value of HMRs for frail older people, HMRs were not used for most frail and non-frail community-dwelling women in this study. Reasons for low use of the service should be explored, with interventions to raise awareness of the benefits of the service.

Medicine storage, wastage, and associated determinants among urban households: a systematic review and meta-analysis of household surveys

Background

Irrational household storage of medicines is a world-wide problem, which triggers medicine wastage as well as its associated harms. This study aimed to include all available evidences from literature to perform a focused examination of the prevalence and factors associated with medicine storage and wastage among urban households. This systematic review and meta-analysis mapped the existing literature on the burden, outcomes, and affective socio-economic factors of medicine storage among urban households. In addition, this study estimated pooled effect sizes for storage and wastage rates.

Methods

Household surveys evaluating modality, size, costs, and affective factors of medicines storage at home were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, SCOPUS, ProQuest, and Google scholar databases in 2019. Random effect meta-analysis and subgroup analysis were used to pool effect sizes for medicine storage and wastage prevalence among different geographical regions.

Results

From the 2604 initial records, 20 studies were selected for systematic review and 16 articles were selected for meta-analysis. An overall pooled-prevalence of medicine storage and real wastage rate was 77 and 15%, respectively. In this regard, some significant differences were observed between geographical regions. Southwest Asia region had the highest storage and wastage rates. The most common classes of medicines found in households belonged to the Infective agents for systemic (17.4%) and the Nervous system (16.4%). Moreover, income, education, age, the presence of chronic illness, female gender, and insurance coverage were found to be associated with higher home storage. The most commonly used method of disposal was throwing them in the garbage.

Conclusions

Factors beyond medical needs were also found to be associated with medicine storage, which urges effective strategies in the supply and demand side of the medicine consumption chain. The first necessary step to mitigate home storage is establishing an adequate legislation and strict enforcement of regulations on dispensing, prescription, and marketing of medicines. Patient’s pressure on excessive prescription, irrational storage, and use of medicines deserve efficient community-centered programs, in order to increase awareness on these issues. So, hazardous consequences of inappropriate disposal should be mitigated by different take back programs, particularly in low and middle income countries.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-021-11100-4.

Current Disposal Practices of Unused and Expired Medicines Among General Public in Delhi and National Capital Region, India

BACKGROUND

Stocking unused or expired medicines or donating these to others can lead to accidental or inappropriate ingestion, increasing the risk of adverse drug reaction(s) and even lead to antibiotic resistance. Further improper disposal of expired or unused medicines is associated with environmental pollution, health hazards and damage to ecosystem. Ecopharmacovigilance is an important area in this context.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the awareness and disposal practices of unused/expired in the general public.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The current study is an observational, cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study conducted in 956 medicine consumers in New Delhi and National Capital Region, India. The knowledge, attitude, and practice of consumers regarding the disposal of unused medicines were evaluated.

RESULTS

The majority (89.9%) of consumers opined that expiry of medicine(s) meant for completion of shelf life, production of toxic chemical and loss of or decreasing of beneficial effects of medicines. Majority (87%) of the consumers stored medicines at home. Almost all (92.6%) of the consumers threw away the expired medicines after storing for few days. Consumers discarded the expired medicines mainly in household trash (73%). The majority (93%) of consumers were in favour of a government program to collect unused or expired medicines from their home.

CONCLUSION

The knowledge and practices of consumers towards disposal of unused and expired medicines needs to be improved. Health care professionals, government and policy makers should offer training to educate and guide the general public on safe and proper disposal practices of expired or unused medicines.

'You don't throw these things out:' an exploration of medicines retention and disposal practices in Australian homes

BACKGROUND

Consumers most commonly discard unwanted medicines in household rubbish or drains, however, there are global concerns over the extent, environmental impact and health risks. When consumers procure or store medicines for future use, this can impact negatively on quality use of medicines and consumer safety. We sought greater insight into the extent of these practices by exploring the volume and types of medicines in Australian homes, and self-reported practices related to medicine accumulation, use and disposal. This qualitative study formed part of a larger project that included a general population survey on household medicine disposal practices.

METHODS

Semi-structured telephone interviews were undertaken with a subset of respondents (n = 166) from the survey. Participants were eligible if they were experienced medicine users, i.e. used five or more prescribed, over the counter, and/or complementary and alternative medicines. Participants were asked to collect and name all medicines in their household; further detail was obtained about medicines used only when required or no longer used, such as expiry dates and quantity remaining. The quantitative data on the number and type of medicines stored at home were analysed descriptively. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 2301 medicines were identified as 1424 medicines not in everyday use (unused, unwanted, expired or when required) in 166 households, and 877 regularly used medicines by 119 participants. Medicines were often stored in multiple locations, particularly kitchens. Although accidental ingestion in children and pets and decreased efficacy were recognised health risks, this did not always translate to appropriate storage, usage or disposal practices. Individual risk-benefit assessments were applied to decisions to retain, use or dispose of medicines, including expired medicines.

CONCLUSIONS

Inappropriate medicine storage, use, and/or disposal practices raises public health concerns, particularly as there is a free returned medicines scheme available, and that this particular participant group were considered experienced medicine users. Healthcare professionals must act to address consumer misconceptions around the quality use of medicines, including medicine retention, storage and disposal. Future research is warranted to explore consumer practices in this context and confirm these findings in a younger, or healthier population.

Implementation of a community liaison pharmacy service: a randomised controlled trial

Objective

The aim of this study was to provide a pharmacy service to improve continuity of patient care across the primary-secondary care interface.

Setting

The study involved patients discharged from two acute-care tertiary teaching hospitals in Melbourne, Australia, returning to independent living.

Methods

Consecutive patients admitted to both hospitals who met the study criteria and provided consent were recruited. Recruited patients were randomised to receive either standard care (discharge counselling, provision of compliance aids and communication with primary healthcare providers when necessary) or the intervention (standard care and a home visit from a community liaison pharmacist (CLP) within 5 days of discharge). Participant medication was reviewed during the visit according to set protocols and compliance and medication understanding was measured. All participants were telephoned 8–12weeks after discharge to assess the impact of the intervention on adherence and medication knowledge.

Key findings

The CLP visited 142 patients with a mean time of 4.2 days following hospital discharge (range = 1–14 days). Consultations lasted 15–105 min (mean, 49 min; SD, ± 21 min). The CLPs retrospectively coded 766 activities and interventions that occurred during home visits, subsequently categorised into three groups: counselling and education, therapeutic interventions and other interventions. No statistical difference was detected in the number of medications patients reported taking at follow-up: the mean value was 7.72 (SD, ± 3.27) for intervention patients and 7.55 (SD, ± 3.27) for standard-care patients (P = 0.662). At follow-up self-perceived medication understanding was found to have improved in intervention patients (P < 0.001) and significant improvements from baseline in medication adherence were found in both standard-care (P < 0.022) and intervention (P < 0.005) groups; however, adherence had improved more in intervention patients.

Conclusion

The community liaison pharmacy service provided critical and useful interventions and support to patients, minimising the risk of medication misadventure when patients were discharged from hospital to home.