Cargando…

Effects of stratified medication review in high-risk patients at admission to hospital: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Patients at high risk of medication errors will potentially benefit most from medication reviews. An algorithm, MERIS, can identify the patients who are at highest risk of medication errors. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of performing stratified medication reviews on p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bonnerup, Dorthe Krogsgaard, Lisby, Marianne, Sædder, Eva Aggerholm, Brock, Birgitte, Truelshøj, Tania, Sørensen, Charlotte Arp, Pedersen, Anita Gorm, Nielsen, Lars Peter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7509721/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33014330
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2042098620957142
_version_ 1783585655176036352
author Bonnerup, Dorthe Krogsgaard
Lisby, Marianne
Sædder, Eva Aggerholm
Brock, Birgitte
Truelshøj, Tania
Sørensen, Charlotte Arp
Pedersen, Anita Gorm
Nielsen, Lars Peter
author_facet Bonnerup, Dorthe Krogsgaard
Lisby, Marianne
Sædder, Eva Aggerholm
Brock, Birgitte
Truelshøj, Tania
Sørensen, Charlotte Arp
Pedersen, Anita Gorm
Nielsen, Lars Peter
author_sort Bonnerup, Dorthe Krogsgaard
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Patients at high risk of medication errors will potentially benefit most from medication reviews. An algorithm, MERIS, can identify the patients who are at highest risk of medication errors. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of performing stratified medication reviews on patients who according to MERIS were at highest risk of medication errors. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial was performed at the Acute Admissions Unit, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. Patients were included at admission to the hospital and were randomised to control or intervention. The intervention consisted of stratified medication review at admission on patients with a high MERIS score. Clinical pharmacists and clinical pharmacologists performed the medication reviews; the clinical pharmacologists performed the reviews on patients with the highest MERIS score. The primary outcome measure was the number of prescribing errors during the hospitalisation. Secondary outcomes included self-experienced quality of life, health-care utilisation and mortality measured at follow-up 90 days after discharge. RESULTS: A total of 375 patients were included, of which medication reviews were performed in 64 patients. The medication reviews addressed 63 prescribing errors in 37 patients and 60 other drug-related problems. No difference in the number of prescribing errors during hospitalisation between the intervention group (n = 165) and control group (n = 153) was found, corresponding to 0.11 prescribing errors per drug (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.08–0.14) versus 0.13 per drug (95% CI: 0.09–0.16), respectively. No differences in secondary outcomes were observed. CONCLUSION: A stratified medication review approach based on the individual patient’s risk of medication errors did not show impact on the chosen outcomes. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: How does a medication review at admission affect patients who are in high risk of medication errors? Patients are at risk of medication errors at admission to hospital. Medication reviews aim to detect and solve these. Yet, due to limited resources in healthcare, it would be beneficial to detect the patients who are most at risk of medication errors and perform medication reviews on those patients. In this study we investigated whether an algorithm, MERIS, could detect patients who are at highest risk of medication errors; we also studied whether performing medication reviews on patients at highest risk of medication errors would have an effect on, for example, the number of medication errors during hospitalisation, qualify of life and number of readmissions. We included 375 patients in a Danish acute admission unit and they were divided into control group and intervention group. Patients in the intervention group received a medication review at admission if they were considered at high risk of medication errors, assessed with the aid of MERIS. In summary, 64 patients in the intervention group were most at risk of medication errors and therefore received a medication review. We conclude in the study that MERIS was useful in identifying relevant patients for medication reviews. Yet, the medication reviews performed at admission did not impact on the chosen outcomes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7509721
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75097212020-10-01 Effects of stratified medication review in high-risk patients at admission to hospital: a randomised controlled trial Bonnerup, Dorthe Krogsgaard Lisby, Marianne Sædder, Eva Aggerholm Brock, Birgitte Truelshøj, Tania Sørensen, Charlotte Arp Pedersen, Anita Gorm Nielsen, Lars Peter Ther Adv Drug Saf Original Research BACKGROUND: Patients at high risk of medication errors will potentially benefit most from medication reviews. An algorithm, MERIS, can identify the patients who are at highest risk of medication errors. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of performing stratified medication reviews on patients who according to MERIS were at highest risk of medication errors. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial was performed at the Acute Admissions Unit, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. Patients were included at admission to the hospital and were randomised to control or intervention. The intervention consisted of stratified medication review at admission on patients with a high MERIS score. Clinical pharmacists and clinical pharmacologists performed the medication reviews; the clinical pharmacologists performed the reviews on patients with the highest MERIS score. The primary outcome measure was the number of prescribing errors during the hospitalisation. Secondary outcomes included self-experienced quality of life, health-care utilisation and mortality measured at follow-up 90 days after discharge. RESULTS: A total of 375 patients were included, of which medication reviews were performed in 64 patients. The medication reviews addressed 63 prescribing errors in 37 patients and 60 other drug-related problems. No difference in the number of prescribing errors during hospitalisation between the intervention group (n = 165) and control group (n = 153) was found, corresponding to 0.11 prescribing errors per drug (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.08–0.14) versus 0.13 per drug (95% CI: 0.09–0.16), respectively. No differences in secondary outcomes were observed. CONCLUSION: A stratified medication review approach based on the individual patient’s risk of medication errors did not show impact on the chosen outcomes. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: How does a medication review at admission affect patients who are in high risk of medication errors? Patients are at risk of medication errors at admission to hospital. Medication reviews aim to detect and solve these. Yet, due to limited resources in healthcare, it would be beneficial to detect the patients who are most at risk of medication errors and perform medication reviews on those patients. In this study we investigated whether an algorithm, MERIS, could detect patients who are at highest risk of medication errors; we also studied whether performing medication reviews on patients at highest risk of medication errors would have an effect on, for example, the number of medication errors during hospitalisation, qualify of life and number of readmissions. We included 375 patients in a Danish acute admission unit and they were divided into control group and intervention group. Patients in the intervention group received a medication review at admission if they were considered at high risk of medication errors, assessed with the aid of MERIS. In summary, 64 patients in the intervention group were most at risk of medication errors and therefore received a medication review. We conclude in the study that MERIS was useful in identifying relevant patients for medication reviews. Yet, the medication reviews performed at admission did not impact on the chosen outcomes. SAGE Publications 2020-09-20 /pmc/articles/PMC7509721/ /pubmed/33014330 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2042098620957142 Text en © The Author(s), 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Research
Bonnerup, Dorthe Krogsgaard
Lisby, Marianne
Sædder, Eva Aggerholm
Brock, Birgitte
Truelshøj, Tania
Sørensen, Charlotte Arp
Pedersen, Anita Gorm
Nielsen, Lars Peter
Effects of stratified medication review in high-risk patients at admission to hospital: a randomised controlled trial
title Effects of stratified medication review in high-risk patients at admission to hospital: a randomised controlled trial
title_full Effects of stratified medication review in high-risk patients at admission to hospital: a randomised controlled trial
title_fullStr Effects of stratified medication review in high-risk patients at admission to hospital: a randomised controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Effects of stratified medication review in high-risk patients at admission to hospital: a randomised controlled trial
title_short Effects of stratified medication review in high-risk patients at admission to hospital: a randomised controlled trial
title_sort effects of stratified medication review in high-risk patients at admission to hospital: a randomised controlled trial
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7509721/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33014330
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2042098620957142
work_keys_str_mv AT bonnerupdorthekrogsgaard effectsofstratifiedmedicationreviewinhighriskpatientsatadmissiontohospitalarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT lisbymarianne effectsofstratifiedmedicationreviewinhighriskpatientsatadmissiontohospitalarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT sædderevaaggerholm effectsofstratifiedmedicationreviewinhighriskpatientsatadmissiontohospitalarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT brockbirgitte effectsofstratifiedmedicationreviewinhighriskpatientsatadmissiontohospitalarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT truelshøjtania effectsofstratifiedmedicationreviewinhighriskpatientsatadmissiontohospitalarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT sørensencharlottearp effectsofstratifiedmedicationreviewinhighriskpatientsatadmissiontohospitalarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT pedersenanitagorm effectsofstratifiedmedicationreviewinhighriskpatientsatadmissiontohospitalarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT nielsenlarspeter effectsofstratifiedmedicationreviewinhighriskpatientsatadmissiontohospitalarandomisedcontrolledtrial