Frequency and predictors of inappropriate medication dosages for cardiovascular disease prevention in chronic kidney disease patients: A retrospective cross-sectional study in a Malaysian primary care clinic

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at increased risk of cardiovascular events. This study aimed to assess the frequency of inappropriate medication dosages (IMD) for cardiovascular disease prevention among patients with CKD and its predictors in an urban academic primary care clinic in Selangor, Malaysia. All patients who attended the clinic from April to June 2019 and fulfilled the inclusion criteria were included in this cross-sectional study, except for those with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of more than 90 ml/min, diagnosed with urinary tract infection, pregnant or were on dialysis for end stage renal disease. Their prescriptions on the electronic medical record (EMR) system were evaluated for appropriateness using the dose adjustment recommendations based on the 2018 Malaysian Clinical Practice Guidelines on management of CKD. A total of 362 medical records were included in this study. 16.6% (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 12.9-20.8) or 60 out of 362 of the patient records analysed contained medications prescribed with inappropriate dosages. Patients with higher stages of CKD were associated with higher odds of IMD, namely CKD stage G3b (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] 10.41; 95% CI: 2.31-46.88) and CKD stage 4-5 (aOR 15.76; 95% CI: 3.22-77.28). Other predictors of IMD were diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (aOR 6.40; 95% CI: 2.15-19.01), number of prescribed medications of 5 or more (aOR 4.69; 95% CI: 1.55-14.20), and eGFR reduction of more than 25% over one year (aOR 2.82; 95% CI: 1.41-5.65). Within the limitations of this study, we conclude that the occurrence of IMD for CVD prevention was low in CKD patients in this primary care clinic. Medications with inappropriate dosages identified in this study include simvastatin, fenofibrate, hydrochlorothiazide, spironolactone, metformin, gliclazide, sitagliptin, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin. Clinicians should consider the predictors of inappropriate medication dosages listed above when prescribing to patients with CKD to reduce the risk of medications-related toxicities and adverse effects. Limitations of this study should be considered when interpreting the findings presented.

Systematic review of the safety of medication use in inpatient, outpatient and primary care settings in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries

BACKGROUND

Errors in medication use are a patient safety concern globally, with different regions reporting differing error rates, causes of errors and proposed solutions. The objectives of this review were to identify, summarise, review and evaluate published studies on medication errors, drug related problems and adverse drug events in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries.

METHODS

A systematic review was carried out using six databases, searching for literature published between January 1990 and August 2016. Research articles focussing on medication errors, drug related problems or adverse drug events within different healthcare settings in the GCC were included.

RESULTS

Of 2094 records screened, 54 studies met our inclusion criteria. Kuwait was the only GCC country with no studies included. Prescribing errors were reported to be as high as 91% of a sample of primary care prescriptions analysed in one study. Of drug-related admissions evaluated in the emergency department the most common reason was patient non-compliance. In the inpatient care setting, a study of review of patient charts and medication orders identified prescribing errors in 7% of medication orders, another reported prescribing errors present in 56% of medication orders. The majority of drug related problems identified in inpatient paediatric wards were judged to be preventable. Adverse drug events were reported to occur in 8.5-16.9 per 100 admissions with up to 30% judged preventable, with occurrence being highest in the intensive care unit. Dosing errors were common in inpatient, outpatient and primary care settings. Omission of the administered dose as well as omission of prescribed medication at medication reconciliation were common. Studies of pharmacists' interventions in clinical practice reported a varying level of acceptance, ranging from 53% to 98% of pharmacists' recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies of medication errors, drug related problems and adverse drug events are increasing in the GCC. However, variation in methods, definitions and denominators preclude calculation of an overall error rate. Research with more robust methodologies and longer follow up periods is now required.

How safe is primary care? A systematic review

IMPORTANCE

Improving patient safety is at the forefront of policy and practice. While considerable progress has been made in understanding the frequency, causes and consequences of error in hospitals, less is known about the safety of primary care.

OBJECTIVE

We investigated how often patient safety incidents occur in primary care and how often these were associated with patient harm.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

We searched 18 databases and contacted international experts to identify published and unpublished studies available between 1 January 1980 and 31 July 2014. Patient safety incidents of any type were eligible. Eligible studies were critically appraised using validated instruments and data were descriptively and narratively synthesised.

FINDINGS

Nine systematic reviews and 100 primary studies were included. Studies reported between <1 and 24 patient safety incidents per 100 consultations. The median from population-based record review studies was 2-3 incidents for every 100 consultations/records reviewed. It was estimated that around 4% of these incidents may be associated with severe harm, defined as significantly impacting on a patient's well-being, including long-term physical or psychological issues or death (range <1% to 44% of incidents). Incidents relating to diagnosis and prescribing were most likely to result in severe harm.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Millions of people throughout the world use primary care services on any given day. This review suggests that safety incidents are relatively common, but most do not result in serious harm that reaches the patient. Diagnostic and prescribing incidents are the most likely to result in avoidable harm.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This systematic review is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42012002304).

Quality of care in primary health care settings in the Eastern Mediterranean region: a systematic review of the literature

PURPOSE

This systematic review aims at offering a comprehensive synthesis of studies addressing quality of care in the primary healthcare (PHC) sector of the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR).

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search was conducted using Medline, Embase and Global Health Library (IMEMR) electronic databases to identify studies related to quality in PHC between years 2000 and 2012.

STUDY SELECTION/DATA EXTRACTION

One hundred and fifty-nine (159) studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Each paper was independently reviewed by two reviewers, and the following information was extracted/calculated: dimension of care investigated (structure, processes and outcomes), focus, disease groups, study design, sample size, unit of analysis, response rate, country, setting (public or private) and level of rigor (LOR) score.

RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS

Most of the studies were descriptive/cross-sectional in nature with a relatively modest LOR score. Assessment of quality of care revealed that the process dimension of quality, specifically clinical practice and patient-provider relationship, is an area of major concern. However, interventions targeting enhanced quality in PHC in the EMR countries had favorable and effective outcomes in terms of clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

These findings highlight gaps in evidence on quality in PHC in the EMR; such evidence is key for decision-making. Researchers and policy-makers should address these gaps to generate contextualized information and knowledge that ensures relevance and targeted high-impact interventions.