Cargando…
Frequency and impact of medication reviews for people aged 65 years or above in UK primary care: an observational study using electronic health records
BACKGROUND: Medication reviews in primary care provide an opportunity to review and discuss the safety and appropriateness of a person’s medicines. However, there is limited evidence about access to and the impact of routine medication reviews for older adults in the general population, particularly...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10347807/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37442984 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-023-04143-2 |
_version_ | 1785073603075637248 |
---|---|
author | Joseph, Rebecca M. Knaggs, Roger D. Coupland, Carol A. C. Taylor, Amelia Vinogradova, Yana Butler, Debbie Gerrard, Louisa Waldram, David Iyen, Barbara Akyea, Ralph K. Ashcroft, Darren M. Avery, Anthony J. Jack, Ruth H. |
author_facet | Joseph, Rebecca M. Knaggs, Roger D. Coupland, Carol A. C. Taylor, Amelia Vinogradova, Yana Butler, Debbie Gerrard, Louisa Waldram, David Iyen, Barbara Akyea, Ralph K. Ashcroft, Darren M. Avery, Anthony J. Jack, Ruth H. |
author_sort | Joseph, Rebecca M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Medication reviews in primary care provide an opportunity to review and discuss the safety and appropriateness of a person’s medicines. However, there is limited evidence about access to and the impact of routine medication reviews for older adults in the general population, particularly in the UK. We aimed to quantify the proportion of people aged 65 years and over with a medication review recorded in 2019 and describe changes in the numbers and types of medicines prescribed following a review. METHODS: We used anonymised primary care electronic health records from the UK’s Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD GOLD) to define a population of people aged 65 years or over in 2019. We counted people with a medication review record in 2019 and used Cox regression to estimate associations between demographic characteristics, diagnoses, and prescribed medicines and having a medication review. We used linear regression to compare the number of medicines prescribed as repeat prescriptions in the three months before and after a medication review. Specifically, we compared the ‘prescription count’ - the maximum number of different medicines with overlapping prescriptions people had in each period. RESULTS: Of 591,726 people prescribed one or more medicines at baseline, 305,526 (51.6%) had a recorded medication review in 2019. Living in a care home (hazard ratio 1.51, 95% confidence interval 1.40-1.62), medication review in the previous year (1.83, 1.69-1.98), and baseline prescription count (e.g. 5-9 vs 1 medicine 1.41, 1.37-1.46) were strongly associated with having a medication review in 2019. Overall, the prescription count tended to increase after a review (mean change 0.13 medicines, 95% CI 0.12-0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Although medication reviews were commonly recorded for people aged 65 years or over, there was little change overall in the numbers and types of medicines prescribed following a review. This study did not examine whether the prescriptions were appropriate or other metrics, such as dose or medicine changes within the same class. However, by examining the impact of medication reviews before the introduction of structured medication review requirements in England in 2020, it provides a useful benchmark which these new reviews can be compared with. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-023-04143-2. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10347807 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-103478072023-07-15 Frequency and impact of medication reviews for people aged 65 years or above in UK primary care: an observational study using electronic health records Joseph, Rebecca M. Knaggs, Roger D. Coupland, Carol A. C. Taylor, Amelia Vinogradova, Yana Butler, Debbie Gerrard, Louisa Waldram, David Iyen, Barbara Akyea, Ralph K. Ashcroft, Darren M. Avery, Anthony J. Jack, Ruth H. BMC Geriatr Research BACKGROUND: Medication reviews in primary care provide an opportunity to review and discuss the safety and appropriateness of a person’s medicines. However, there is limited evidence about access to and the impact of routine medication reviews for older adults in the general population, particularly in the UK. We aimed to quantify the proportion of people aged 65 years and over with a medication review recorded in 2019 and describe changes in the numbers and types of medicines prescribed following a review. METHODS: We used anonymised primary care electronic health records from the UK’s Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD GOLD) to define a population of people aged 65 years or over in 2019. We counted people with a medication review record in 2019 and used Cox regression to estimate associations between demographic characteristics, diagnoses, and prescribed medicines and having a medication review. We used linear regression to compare the number of medicines prescribed as repeat prescriptions in the three months before and after a medication review. Specifically, we compared the ‘prescription count’ - the maximum number of different medicines with overlapping prescriptions people had in each period. RESULTS: Of 591,726 people prescribed one or more medicines at baseline, 305,526 (51.6%) had a recorded medication review in 2019. Living in a care home (hazard ratio 1.51, 95% confidence interval 1.40-1.62), medication review in the previous year (1.83, 1.69-1.98), and baseline prescription count (e.g. 5-9 vs 1 medicine 1.41, 1.37-1.46) were strongly associated with having a medication review in 2019. Overall, the prescription count tended to increase after a review (mean change 0.13 medicines, 95% CI 0.12-0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Although medication reviews were commonly recorded for people aged 65 years or over, there was little change overall in the numbers and types of medicines prescribed following a review. This study did not examine whether the prescriptions were appropriate or other metrics, such as dose or medicine changes within the same class. However, by examining the impact of medication reviews before the introduction of structured medication review requirements in England in 2020, it provides a useful benchmark which these new reviews can be compared with. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-023-04143-2. BioMed Central 2023-07-14 /pmc/articles/PMC10347807/ /pubmed/37442984 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-023-04143-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Joseph, Rebecca M. Knaggs, Roger D. Coupland, Carol A. C. Taylor, Amelia Vinogradova, Yana Butler, Debbie Gerrard, Louisa Waldram, David Iyen, Barbara Akyea, Ralph K. Ashcroft, Darren M. Avery, Anthony J. Jack, Ruth H. Frequency and impact of medication reviews for people aged 65 years or above in UK primary care: an observational study using electronic health records |
title | Frequency and impact of medication reviews for people aged 65 years or above in UK primary care: an observational study using electronic health records |
title_full | Frequency and impact of medication reviews for people aged 65 years or above in UK primary care: an observational study using electronic health records |
title_fullStr | Frequency and impact of medication reviews for people aged 65 years or above in UK primary care: an observational study using electronic health records |
title_full_unstemmed | Frequency and impact of medication reviews for people aged 65 years or above in UK primary care: an observational study using electronic health records |
title_short | Frequency and impact of medication reviews for people aged 65 years or above in UK primary care: an observational study using electronic health records |
title_sort | frequency and impact of medication reviews for people aged 65 years or above in uk primary care: an observational study using electronic health records |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10347807/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37442984 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-023-04143-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT josephrebeccam frequencyandimpactofmedicationreviewsforpeopleaged65yearsoraboveinukprimarycareanobservationalstudyusingelectronichealthrecords AT knaggsrogerd frequencyandimpactofmedicationreviewsforpeopleaged65yearsoraboveinukprimarycareanobservationalstudyusingelectronichealthrecords AT couplandcarolac frequencyandimpactofmedicationreviewsforpeopleaged65yearsoraboveinukprimarycareanobservationalstudyusingelectronichealthrecords AT tayloramelia frequencyandimpactofmedicationreviewsforpeopleaged65yearsoraboveinukprimarycareanobservationalstudyusingelectronichealthrecords AT vinogradovayana frequencyandimpactofmedicationreviewsforpeopleaged65yearsoraboveinukprimarycareanobservationalstudyusingelectronichealthrecords AT butlerdebbie frequencyandimpactofmedicationreviewsforpeopleaged65yearsoraboveinukprimarycareanobservationalstudyusingelectronichealthrecords AT gerrardlouisa frequencyandimpactofmedicationreviewsforpeopleaged65yearsoraboveinukprimarycareanobservationalstudyusingelectronichealthrecords AT waldramdavid frequencyandimpactofmedicationreviewsforpeopleaged65yearsoraboveinukprimarycareanobservationalstudyusingelectronichealthrecords AT iyenbarbara frequencyandimpactofmedicationreviewsforpeopleaged65yearsoraboveinukprimarycareanobservationalstudyusingelectronichealthrecords AT akyearalphk frequencyandimpactofmedicationreviewsforpeopleaged65yearsoraboveinukprimarycareanobservationalstudyusingelectronichealthrecords AT ashcroftdarrenm frequencyandimpactofmedicationreviewsforpeopleaged65yearsoraboveinukprimarycareanobservationalstudyusingelectronichealthrecords AT averyanthonyj frequencyandimpactofmedicationreviewsforpeopleaged65yearsoraboveinukprimarycareanobservationalstudyusingelectronichealthrecords AT jackruthh frequencyandimpactofmedicationreviewsforpeopleaged65yearsoraboveinukprimarycareanobservationalstudyusingelectronichealthrecords |