Cargando…

Medication in older patients reviewed multiple ways (MORE) study

Background Polypharmacy in older patients can lead to potentially inappropriate prescribing. The risk of the latter calls for effective medication review to ensure proper medication usage and safety. Objective Provide insight on the similarities and differences of medication review done in multiple...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zwietering, N. A., Westra, D., Winkens, B., Cremers, H., van der Kuy, P. H. M., Hurkens, K. P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6800858/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31302885
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-019-00879-3
_version_ 1783460482790719488
author Zwietering, N. A.
Westra, D.
Winkens, B.
Cremers, H.
van der Kuy, P. H. M.
Hurkens, K. P.
author_facet Zwietering, N. A.
Westra, D.
Winkens, B.
Cremers, H.
van der Kuy, P. H. M.
Hurkens, K. P.
author_sort Zwietering, N. A.
collection PubMed
description Background Polypharmacy in older patients can lead to potentially inappropriate prescribing. The risk of the latter calls for effective medication review to ensure proper medication usage and safety. Objective Provide insight on the similarities and differences of medication review done in multiple ways that may lead to future possibilities to optimize medication review. Setting This study was conducted in Zuyderland Medical Centre, the second largest teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Method This descriptive study compares the quantity and content of remarks identified by medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System. The content of remarks is categorized in seven categories of possible pharmacotherapeutic problems: ‘indication without medication’, ‘medication without indication’, ‘contra-indication/interaction/side-effect’, ‘dosage problem’, ‘double medication’, ‘incorrect medication’ and ‘therapeutic drug monitoring’. Main outcome measure Number and content of remarks on medication review. Results The Clinical Decision Support System (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p < 0.001) and outpatient pharmacist (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p = 0.045) both noted remarks in significantly more categories than the geriatricians. The Clinical Decision Support System provided more remarks on ‘double medication’, ‘dosage problem’ and ‘contraindication/interaction/side effects’ than the geriatrician (p < 0.050), while the geriatrician did on ‘medication without indication’ (p < 0.001). The Clinical Decision Support System noted significantly more remarks on ‘contraindication/interaction/side effects’ and ‘therapeutic drug monitoring’ than the outpatient pharmacist, whereas the outpatient pharmacist reported more on ‘indication without medication’ and ‘medication without indication’ than the Clinical Decision Support System (p ≤ 0.007). Conclusion Medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System provides different insights and should be combined to create a more comprehensive report on medication profiles.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6800858
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68008582019-11-01 Medication in older patients reviewed multiple ways (MORE) study Zwietering, N. A. Westra, D. Winkens, B. Cremers, H. van der Kuy, P. H. M. Hurkens, K. P. Int J Clin Pharm Research Article Background Polypharmacy in older patients can lead to potentially inappropriate prescribing. The risk of the latter calls for effective medication review to ensure proper medication usage and safety. Objective Provide insight on the similarities and differences of medication review done in multiple ways that may lead to future possibilities to optimize medication review. Setting This study was conducted in Zuyderland Medical Centre, the second largest teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Method This descriptive study compares the quantity and content of remarks identified by medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System. The content of remarks is categorized in seven categories of possible pharmacotherapeutic problems: ‘indication without medication’, ‘medication without indication’, ‘contra-indication/interaction/side-effect’, ‘dosage problem’, ‘double medication’, ‘incorrect medication’ and ‘therapeutic drug monitoring’. Main outcome measure Number and content of remarks on medication review. Results The Clinical Decision Support System (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p < 0.001) and outpatient pharmacist (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p = 0.045) both noted remarks in significantly more categories than the geriatricians. The Clinical Decision Support System provided more remarks on ‘double medication’, ‘dosage problem’ and ‘contraindication/interaction/side effects’ than the geriatrician (p < 0.050), while the geriatrician did on ‘medication without indication’ (p < 0.001). The Clinical Decision Support System noted significantly more remarks on ‘contraindication/interaction/side effects’ and ‘therapeutic drug monitoring’ than the outpatient pharmacist, whereas the outpatient pharmacist reported more on ‘indication without medication’ and ‘medication without indication’ than the Clinical Decision Support System (p ≤ 0.007). Conclusion Medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System provides different insights and should be combined to create a more comprehensive report on medication profiles. Springer International Publishing 2019-07-13 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6800858/ /pubmed/31302885 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-019-00879-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Research Article
Zwietering, N. A.
Westra, D.
Winkens, B.
Cremers, H.
van der Kuy, P. H. M.
Hurkens, K. P.
Medication in older patients reviewed multiple ways (MORE) study
title Medication in older patients reviewed multiple ways (MORE) study
title_full Medication in older patients reviewed multiple ways (MORE) study
title_fullStr Medication in older patients reviewed multiple ways (MORE) study
title_full_unstemmed Medication in older patients reviewed multiple ways (MORE) study
title_short Medication in older patients reviewed multiple ways (MORE) study
title_sort medication in older patients reviewed multiple ways (more) study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6800858/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31302885
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-019-00879-3
work_keys_str_mv AT zwieteringna medicationinolderpatientsreviewedmultiplewaysmorestudy
AT westrad medicationinolderpatientsreviewedmultiplewaysmorestudy
AT winkensb medicationinolderpatientsreviewedmultiplewaysmorestudy
AT cremersh medicationinolderpatientsreviewedmultiplewaysmorestudy
AT vanderkuyphm medicationinolderpatientsreviewedmultiplewaysmorestudy
AT hurkenskp medicationinolderpatientsreviewedmultiplewaysmorestudy