Prescription of potentially inappropriate drugs for geriatric patients in long-term care: improvement through pharmacist's intervention

Effects of pharmacist interventions on reducing prescribing errors of investigational drugs in oncology clinical trials

Objectives

This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of pharmacist intervention in reducing and preventing prescribing errors of investigational drugs for cancer patients.

Materials and methods

A retrospective study was conducted during two periods: a baseline period from December 2015 to June 2016 and an intervention period from July 2016 to February 2017. The investigational drug service (IDS) pharmacists performed active interventions during the intervention period.

Results

Among 12,387 investigational drug orders, 395 (6.1%) prescribing errors were detected in 6477 orders at the baseline period, and 278 errors (4.7%) were detected in 5,910 orders at the intervention period. To identify factors that affect prescribing errors, three models were constructed for the multivariate analysis. Among factors affecting prescribing errors, sponsor initiated trial (SIT) was the strongest factor (AOR: 4.16, 95% CI: 3.31–5.23). Pharmacist intervention reduced prescribing errors by at least 25% in all constructed models after adjusting for confounding variables. Prescribing errors were 1.3 times higher when dealing with intravenous medications than when dealing with oral medications. There were 60% fewer prescribing errors in the blinded study than in the open study. SIT and multi-center/multi-nation studies had 4.2 and 2.4 times more frequent prescribing errors than in investigator-initiated trials (IIT) and single-center/single-nation studies, respectively. Fewer errors occurred in phase 2 and trials covering both phase 1 and phase 2 (phase 1/2) than in phase 3 trials.

Conclusions

The IDS pharmacist intervention in cancer clinical trials was associated with significant reductions in prescribing errors and may lead to increased medication safety.

Development of a pharmaceutical care program in progressive stages in geriatric institutions

BACKGROUND

To introduce and manage a Pharmaceutical care programs in geriatric care institutions presents difficulties such as reduced pharmacy service staff, complexity of the patients or lack of integration of the pharmacist in the health care team. This work describes the evolution of the implementations of a program of pharmaceutical care centered in drug related problems (DRP) in a group of geriatric institutions of different levels of complexity.

METHODS

Setting: Long-term and subacute care hospitals (HSS) and Health care teams attending nursing homes (EARs).

PARTICIPANTS

Patients attended in HSS and EARs during different periods between 2010 and 2016.

INTERVENTIONS

The program was developed in different stages, in which pharmacists made interventions of increasing complexity.

RESULTS

Between 2010 and 2013, the approach was only to improve the prescription of non-appropriate drugs for the elderly, which was reduced from 19 to 14.5%. Subsequent steps included detection of drug-related problems (DRP), systematization of treatment revisions, recording of pharmacist interventions, improvements in the classification of interventions and the creation of a web-based database for recording in a more efficient way. During these years, there was an increase in the number of patients included in pharmaceutical care activities and thus the number of pharmacist interventions (3872 in 2014 vs 5903 in 2016). In 2016, mean age in 2016: 83.2 years old. Mean number of medicines/patient: 8.4 ± 3.3, and mean interventions/patient: 1.62. Degree of acceptance of the interventions by physicians improved (68.6% in 2016 vs 45.5% in 2012), even though there is still much work to do. The Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) showed that when the interventions were accepted, there was an important improvement. HSS mean MAI values pre-intervention: 2.52, post-intervention 0.80. In EARs: 5 pre and 1.39 post. In both cases p < 0.0001.

CONCLUSIONS

Approaching the deployment of activities in a progressive way has made us more efficient and able to confront and solve the problems that have arisen. Even though there has been a very restricted increase in the staff and budget, we are able to implement a DRP detection programme with guaranties of quality.

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, hence interest in appropriate polypharmacy, where many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients, is growing. This is the second update of this Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which interventions, alone or in combination, are effective in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers up until 7 February 2018, together with handsearching of reference lists to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in people aged 65 years and older, prescribed polypharmacy (four or more medicines), which used a validated tool to assess prescribing appropriateness. These tools can be classified as either implicit tools (judgement-based/based on expert professional judgement) or explicit tools (criterion-based, comprising lists of drugs to be avoided in older people).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We pooled study-specific estimates, and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 32 studies, 20 from this update. Included studies consisted of 18 randomised trials, 10 cluster randomised trials (one of which was a stepped-wedge design), two non-randomised trials and two controlled before-after studies. One intervention consisted of computerised decision support (CDS); and 31 were complex, multi-faceted pharmaceutical-care based approaches (i.e. the responsible provision of medicines to improve patient's outcomes), one of which incorporated a CDS component as part of their multi-faceted intervention. Interventions were provided in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals such as general physicians, pharmacists and geriatricians, and all were conducted in high-income countries. Assessments using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, found that there was a high and/or unclear risk of bias across a number of domains. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome ranged from low to very low.It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care improves medication appropriateness (as measured by an implicit tool), mean difference (MD) -4.76, 95% CI -9.20 to -0.33; 5 studies, N = 517; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.05; 7 studies; N = 1832; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs, (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.02; 11 studies; N = 3079; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may slightly reduce the number of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) (SMD -0.81, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.64; 2 studies; N = 569; low-certainty evidence), however it must be noted that this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias. Likewise, it is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PPOs (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 5 studies; N = 1310; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in hospital admissions (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 4052; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in quality of life (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 3211; low-certainty evidence). Medication-related problems were reported in eight studies (N = 10,087) using different terms (e.g. adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions). No consistent intervention effect on medication-related problems was noted across studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as reviews of patients' prescriptions, resulted in clinically significant improvement; however, they may be slightly beneficial in terms of reducing potential prescribing omissions (PPOs); but this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias.

A cooperation project between hospital pharmacists and general practitioners about drug interactions in clinical practice

Objectives

(1) To evaluate drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in general practitioners' (GPs) prescriptions; (2) to implement a cooperation project between pharmacists and GPs to improve DDI management and patient care.

Methods

In 2013, pharmacists from the Community Drug Assistance ASL TO1 launched a cooperation project involving 48 GPs. As a first step, GPs were asked to select, from a list, drug associations for which they recommended analysis of occurrence in their prescriptions. The pharmacists (1) analysed GPs' prescriptions dated 2012-2014, according to the list of DDIs selected (n= 9); (2) evaluated solutions for DDI management, using the Micromedex DDI checker database and literature analysis; they then (3) disseminated DDI-related information to GPs through training meetings and (4) assessed the efficacy of these actions through a questionnaire submitted to the GPs in 2013.

Results

(1) Prescriptions analysis: a reduction in the number of DDIs was observed (-14% in 2013 vs 2012, -9% in 2014 vs 2012); in some cases these reductions were statistically significant (calcium carbonate + proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) -50%, p<0.0041, amoxicillin+lansoprazole -42%, p<0.0088). (2) Questionnaire: this was completed by 75% of GPs. The literature analysis was considered interesting by 94% of GPs; solutions were adopted by 89% of GPs and 34% of GPs affirmed that clinical improvements after application of the measures were observed in their patients, even if they could not provide quantitative data for this outcome.

Conclusion

The cooperation project between pharmacists and GPs was effective because it established a professional exchange between the two health professionals. The pharmacist gave support to GPs, which benefited the patients, who gained clinical improvements and improved satisfaction with their medical care, as declared by the GPs in answers to the questionnaire.

Pharmacist Intervention Program at Different Rent Levels of Geriatric Healthcare

As a pharmacy service giving pharmaceutical care at different levels of health care for elderly people, we needed a standardization procedure for recording and evaluating pharmacists' interventions. Our objective was to homogenize pharmacist interventions; to know physicians' acceptance of our recommendations, as well as the most prevalent drug related problems (DRP); and the impact of the pharmacists' interventions. To achieve this goal we conducted a one year prospective study at two levels of health care: 176 nursing homes (EAR) (8828 patients) and 2 long-term and subacute care hospitals (HSS) (268 beds). Pharmacists' interventions were recorded using the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists classification as the basis. Frequency of the different DRP and the level of response and acceptance on the part of physicians was determined. The Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) was used to evaluate the impact of the interventions on the prescription quality. Patients' mean age was 84.2 (EAR) and 80.7 (HSS), and in both cases, polypharmacy ≥ 9 drugs was around 63-69%. There were 4073 interventions done in EAR and 2560 in HSS. Level of response: 44% (EAR), 79% (HSS); degree of acceptance of the recommendations: 84% (EAR), 72% (HSS). Most frequent DRP: inappropriate dose, length of therapy, omissions, and financial impact. Drugs for the nervous system are those with the most DRP. MAI values/medication improved from 4.4 to 2.7 (EAR) and 3.8 to 1.7 (HSS). A normalized way of managing pharmacists' interventions for different health care levels has been established. We are on the way to increasing collaborative work with physicians and we know which DRPs are most prevalent.

Potentially inappropriate prescribing in nursing home residents detected with the community pharmacist specific GheOP(3)S-tool

Background The Ghent Older People's Prescriptions community Pharmacy Screening (GheOP³S-)tool was recently developed to screen for potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP). Objective We aimed (1) to determine PIP prevalence in older nursing home (NH) residents with polypharmacy using the GheOP³S-tool and (2) to identify those PIPs that are most frequently detected. Method A cross-sectional study was carried out between February and June 2014 in 10 NHs in Belgium, supplied by a community pharmacy chain. For each NH, 40 residents (≥70 years, using ≥5 chronic drugs) were included. PIP prevalence was determined using the GheOP³S-tool. Results 400 NH residents were included [mean age (±SD) 86.2 (±6.3) years; median number of drugs (±IQR) 10 (7-12)]. A total of 1728 PIPs were detected in 387 (97 %) participants (Median 4; IQR 2-6). The most prevalent items can be assigned to three categories: long-term use of central nervous system drugs (i.e. benzodiazepines, antidepressants and antipsychotics), use of anticholinergic drugs (mutual combinations and with underlying constipation/dementia) and underuse of osteoporosis prophylaxis. Conclusion Screening for PIP by means of the GheOP³S-tool revealed a high prevalence of PIP among older NH residents with polypharmacy. This finding urges for initiatives on the patient-level, but also on a broader, institutional level.

The support of medication reviews in hospitalised patients using a clinical decision support system

Objectives

First, to estimate the added value of a clinical decision support system (CDSS) in the performance of medication reviews in hospitalised elderly. Second, to identify the limitations of the current CDSS by analysing generated drug-related problems (DRPs).

Methods

Medication reviews were performed in patients admitted to the geriatric ward of the Zuyderland medical centre. Additionally, electronically available patient information was introduced into a CDSS. The DRP notifications generated by the CDSS were compared with those found in the medication review. The DRP notifications were analysed to learn how to improve the CDSS.

Results

A total of 223 DRP strategies were identified during the medication reviews. The CDSS generated 70 clinically relevant DRP notifications. Of these DRP notifications, 63 % (44) were also found during the medication reviews. The CDSS generated 10 % (26) new DRP notifications and conveyed 28 % (70) of all 249 clinically relevant DRPs that were found. Classification of the CDSS generated DRP notifications related to ‘medication error type’ revealed that ‘contraindications/interactions/side effects’ and ‘indication without medication’ were the main categories not identified during the manual medication review. The error types ‘medication without indication’, ‘double medication’, and ‘wrong medication’ were mostly not identified by the CDSS.

Conclusions

The CDSS used in this study is not yet sufficiently advanced to replace the manual medication review, though it does add value to the manual medication review. The strengths and weaknesses of the current CDSS can be determined according to the medication error types.