Detectability of Medication Errors With a STOPP/START-Based Medication Review in Older People Prior to a Potentially Preventable Drug-Related Hospital Admission.

INTRODUCTION Multimorbidity and polypharmacy are risk factors for drug-related hospital admissions (DRAs) in the ageing population. DRAs caused by medication errors (MEs) are considered potentially preventable. The STOPP/START criteria were developed to detect potential MEs in older people. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to assess the detectability of MEs with a STOPP/START-based in-hospital medication review in older people with polypharmacy and multimorbidity prior to a potentially preventable DRA. METHODS Hospitalised older patients (n = 963) with polypharmacy and multimorbidity from the intervention arm of the OPERAM trial received a STOPP/START-based in-hospital medication review by a pharmacotherapy team. Readmissions within 1 year after the in-hospital medication review were adjudicated for drug-relatedness. A retrospective assessment was performed to determine whether MEs identified at the first DRA were detectable during the in-hospital medication review. RESULTS In total, 84 of 963 OPERAM intervention patients (8.7%) were readmitted with a potentially preventable DRA, of which 72 patients (n = 77 MEs) were eligible for analysis. About half (48%, n = 37/77) of the MEs were not present during the in-hospital medication review and therefore were not detectable at that time. The pharmacotherapy team recommended a change in medication regimen in 50% (n = 20/40) of present MEs, which corresponds to 26% (n = 20/77) of the total identified MEs at readmission. However, these recommendations were not implemented. CONCLUSION MEs identified at readmission were not addressed by a prior single in-hospital medication review because either these MEs occurred after the medication review (~50%), or no recommendation was given during the medication review (~25%), or the recommendation was not implemented (~25%). Future research should focus on optimisation of the timing and frequency of medication review and the implementation of proposed medication recommendations. REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02986425. December 8, 2016. FUNDING European Union HORIZON 2020, Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI), Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF)

Detectability of Medication Errors With a STOPP/START-Based Medication Review in Older People Prior to a Potentially Preventable Drug-Related Hospital Admission

Introduction Multimorbidity and polypharmacy are risk factors for drug-related hospital admissions (DRAs) in the ageing population. DRAs caused by medication errors (MEs) are considered potentially preventable. The STOPP/START criteria were developed to detect potential MEs in older people.Objective The aim of this study was to assess the detectability of MEs with a STOPP/START-based in-hospital medication review in older people with polypharmacy and multimorbidity prior to a potentially preventable DRA.Methods Hospitalised older patients (n = 963) with polypharmacy and multimorbidity from the intervention arm of the OPERAM trial received a STOPP/START-based in-hospital medication review by a pharmacotherapy team. Readmissions within 1 year after the in- hospital medication review were adjudicated for drug-relatedness. A retrospective assessment was performed to determine whether MEs identified at the first DRA were detectable during the in-hospital medication review.Results In total, 84 of 963 OPERAM intervention patients ( 8.7%) were readmitted with a potentially preventable DRA, of which 72 patients (n = 77 MEs) were eligible for analysis. About half (48%, n = 37/77) of the MEs were not present during the in-hospital medication review and therefore were not detectable at that time. The pharmacotherapy team recommended a change in medication regimen in 50% ( n = 20/40) of present MEs, which corresponds to 26% (n = 20/77) of the total identified MEs at readmission. However, these recommendations were not implemented.Conclusion MEs identified at readmission were not addressed by a prior single in-hospital medication review because either these MEs occurred after the medication review (similar to 50%), or no recommendation was given during the medication review (similar to 25%), or the recommendation was not implemented (similar to 25%). Future research should focus on optimisation of the timing and frequency of medication review and the implementation of proposed medication recommendations

Optimizing Therapy to Prevent Avoidable Hospital Admissions in Multimorbid Older Adults (OPERAM): cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE To examine the effect of optimising drug treatment on drug related hospital admissions in older adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy admitted to hospital. DESIGN Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING 110 clusters of inpatient wards within university based hospitals in four European countries (Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium, and Republic of Ireland) defined by attending hospital doctors. PARTICIPANTS 2008 older adults (≥70 years) with multimorbidity (≥3 chronic conditions) and polypharmacy (≥5 drugs used long term). INTERVENTION Clinical staff clusters were randomised to usual care or a structured pharmacotherapy optimisation intervention performed at the individual level jointly by a doctor and a pharmacist, with the support of a clinical decision software system deploying the screening tool of older person's prescriptions and screening tool to alert to the right treatment (STOPP/START) criteria to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Primary outcome was first drug related hospital admission within 12 months. RESULTS 2008 older adults (median nine drugs) were randomised and enrolled in 54 intervention clusters (963 participants) and 56 control clusters (1045 participants) receiving usual care. In the intervention arm, 86.1% of participants (n=789) had inappropriate prescribing, with a mean of 2.75 (SD 2.24) STOPP/START recommendations for each participant. 62.2% (n=491) had ≥1 recommendation successfully implemented at two months, predominantly discontinuation of potentially inappropriate drugs. In the intervention group, 211 participants (21.9%) experienced a first drug related hospital admission compared with 234 (22.4%) in the control group. In the intention-to-treat analysis censored for death as competing event (n=375, 18.7%), the hazard ratio for first drug related hospital admission was 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.77 to 1.17). In the per protocol analysis, the hazard ratio for a drug related hospital admission was 0.91 (0.69 to 1.19). The hazard ratio for first fall was 0.96 (0.79 to 1.15; 237 v 263 first falls) and for death was 0.90 (0.71 to 1.13; 172 v 203 deaths). CONCLUSIONS Inappropriate prescribing was common in older adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy admitted to hospital and was reduced through an intervention to optimise pharmacotherapy, but without effect on drug related hospital admissions. Additional efforts are needed to identify pharmacotherapy optimisation interventions that reduce inappropriate prescribing and improve patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02986425

Prescribing Optimization Method for Improving Prescribing in Elderly Patients Receiving Polypharmacy Results of Application to Case Histories by General Practitioners

Background: Optimizing polypharmacy is often difficult, and critical appraisal of medication use often leads to one or more changes. We developed the Prescribing Optimization Method (POM) to assist physicians, especially general practitioners (GPs), in their attempts to optimize polypharmacy in elderly patients. The POM is based on six questions: (i) is undertreatment present and addition of medication indicated; (ii) does the patient adhere to his/her medication schedule; (iii) which drug(s) can be withdrawn or which drugs(s) is/are inappropriate for the patient; (iv) which adverse effects are present; (v) which clinically relevant interactions are to be expected; and (vi) should the dose, dose frequency and/or form of the drug be adjusted? Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of the POM as a tool for improving appropriate prescribing of complex polypharmacy in the elderly. Methods: Forty-five GPs were asked to optimize the medication of two case histories, randomly chosen from ten histories of geriatric patients admitted to a hospital geriatric outpatient clinic with a mean +/- SD of 7.9 +/- 1.2 problems treated with 8.7 +/- 3.1 drugs. The first case was optimized without knowledge of the POM. After a 2-hour lecture on the POM, the GPs used the POM to optimize the medication of the second case history. The GPs were allowed 20 minutes for case optimization. Medication recommendations were compared with those made by an expert panel of four geriatricians specialized in clinical pharmacology. Data were analysed using a linear mixed effects model. Results: Optimization was significantly better when GPs used the POM. The proportion of correct decisions increased from 34.7% without the POM to 48.1% with the POM (p = 0.0037), and the number of potentially harmful decisions decreased from a mean +/- SD of 3.3 +/- 1.8 without the POM to 2.4 +/- 1.4 with the POM (p = 0.0046). Conclusion: The POM improves appropriate prescribing of complex polypharmacy in case histories

Adherence with Dosing Guideline in Patients with Impaired Renal Function at Hospital Discharge

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence, determinants, and potential clinical relevance of adherence with the Dutch dosing guideline in patients with impaired renal function at hospital discharge. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study between January 2007 and July 2011. SETTING: Academic teaching hospital in the Netherlands. SUBJECTS: Patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between 10-50 ml/min/1.73 m(2) at discharge and prescribed one or more medicines of which the dose is renal function dependent. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The prevalence of adherence with the Dutch renal dosing guideline was investigated, and the influence of possible determinants, such as reporting the eGFR and severity of renal impairment (severe: eGFR<30 and moderate: eGFR 30-50 ml/min/1.73 m(2)). Furthermore, the potential clinical relevance of non-adherence was assessed. RESULTS: 1327 patients were included, mean age 67 years, mean eGFR 38 ml/min/1.73 m(2). Adherence with the guideline was present in 53.9% (n=715) of patients. Reporting the eGFR, which was incorporated since April 2009, resulted in more adherence with the guideline: 50.7% vs. 57.0%, RR 1.12 (95% CI 1.02-1.25). Adherence was less in patients with severe renal impairment (46.0%), compared to patients with moderate renal impairment (58.1%, RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.70-0.89). 71.4% of the cases of non-adherence had the potential to cause moderate to severe harm. CONCLUSION: Required dosage adjustments in case of impaired renal function are often not performed at hospital discharge, which may cause harm to the majority of patients. Reporting the eGFR can be a small and simple first step to improve adherence with dosing guidelines

Computerized Decision Support Improves Medication Review Effectiveness : An Experiment Evaluating the STRIP Assistant's Usability

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy poses threats to patients' health. The Systematic Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing (STRIP) is a drug optimization process for conducting medication reviews in primary care. To effectively and efficiently incorporate this method into daily practice, the STRIP Assistant--a decision support system that aims to assist physicians with the pharmacotherapeutic analysis of patients' medical records--has been developed. It generates context-specific advice based on clinical guidelines. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to validate the STRIP Assistant's usability as a tool for physicians to optimize medical records for polypharmacy patients. METHODS: In an online experiment, 42 physicians were asked to optimize medical records for two comparable polypharmacy patients, one in their usual manner and one using the STRIP Assistant. Changes in effectiveness were measured by comparing respondents' optimized medicine prescriptions with medication prepared by an expert panel of two geriatrician-pharmacologists. Efficiency was operationalized by recording the time the respondents took to optimize the two cases. User satisfaction was measured with the System Usability Scale (SUS). Independent and paired t tests were used for analysis. RESULTS: Medication optimization significantly improved with the STRIP Assistant. Appropriate decisions increased from 58% without the STRIP Assistant to 76% with it (p < 0.0001). Inappropriate decisions decreased from 42% without the STRIP Assistant to 24% with it (p < 0.0001). Participants spent significantly more time optimizing medication with the STRIP Assistant (24 min) than without it (13 min; p < 0.0001). They assigned it a below-average SUS score of 63.25. CONCLUSION: The STRIP Assistant improves the effectiveness of medication reviews for polypharmacy patients