OBJECTIVE: To assess whether home-based medication review by a pharmacist for at-risk older patients in a primary care setting can reduce hospital admissions. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial comparing home-based medication review with standard care. SETTING: Home-based medication review of 136 patients registered with one general practice. METHOD:Study participants were over 80 years of age, living at home, taking four or more medicines, and had at least one additional medicines-related risk factor. The intervention comprised two home visits by a community pharmacist who educated the patient/carer about their medicines, noted any pharmaceutical care issues, assessed need for an adherence aid, and subsequently met with the lead GP to agree on actions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Total non-elective hospital admissions within 6 months. Secondary outcomes included number of deaths, care home admissions and quality of life (EQ-5d). Impact on number of medicines prescribed was also assessed. RESULTS: At 6 months, no difference in hospital admissions (21 intervention versus 20 control P = 0.80), and no difference in care home admissions or deaths were detected between groups. There was a small (non-significant) decrease in quality of life in the intervention group. There was a statistically significant reduction in the mean number of medicines prescribed ( -0.87 items in favour of the intervention group, 95% confidence interval -1.66 to -0.08, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: No positive impact on clinical outcomes or quality of life was demonstrated, however, this intervention did appear to reduce prescribing. This is in line with other evidence and suggests that this form of intervention may not have a clear health gain, but may lead to modest savings in terms of reduced prescribing. Future research should focus on whether such a prescribing effect would make this type of intervention cost effective.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether home-based medication review by a pharmacist for at-risk older patients in a primary care setting can reduce hospital admissions. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial comparing home-based medication review with standard care. SETTING: Home-based medication review of 136 patients registered with one general practice. METHOD: Study participants were over 80 years of age, living at home, taking four or more medicines, and had at least one additional medicines-related risk factor. The intervention comprised two home visits by a community pharmacist who educated the patient/carer about their medicines, noted any pharmaceutical care issues, assessed need for an adherence aid, and subsequently met with the lead GP to agree on actions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Total non-elective hospital admissions within 6 months. Secondary outcomes included number of deaths, care home admissions and quality of life (EQ-5d). Impact on number of medicines prescribed was also assessed. RESULTS: At 6 months, no difference in hospital admissions (21 intervention versus 20 control P = 0.80), and no difference in care home admissions or deaths were detected between groups. There was a small (non-significant) decrease in quality of life in the intervention group. There was a statistically significant reduction in the mean number of medicines prescribed ( -0.87 items in favour of the intervention group, 95% confidence interval -1.66 to -0.08, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: No positive impact on clinical outcomes or quality of life was demonstrated, however, this intervention did appear to reduce prescribing. This is in line with other evidence and suggests that this form of intervention may not have a clear health gain, but may lead to modest savings in terms of reduced prescribing. Future research should focus on whether such a prescribing effect would make this type of intervention cost effective.
Authors: Tim Johansson; Muna E Abuzahra; Sophie Keller; Eva Mann; Barbara Faller; Christina Sommerauer; Jennifer Höck; Christin Löffler; Anna Köchling; Jochen Schuler; Maria Flamm; Andreas Sönnichsen Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2016-05-07 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Dalia M Dawoud; Alexander Haines; David Wonderling; Joanna Ashe; Jennifer Hill; Mihir Varia; Philip Dyer; Julian Bion Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 4.981