OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the impact of educational intervention in decreasing ADEs in elderly patients in a hospital setting. DESIGN: Randomised prospective study. SETTING: The study was performed in France in the Paris area, in 16 rehabilitation geriatric centres of APHP (Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris). Patient capacity per centre varied from 15 to 57 with a total of 526. PARTICIPANTS: All the patients > or = 65 years hospitalized during the 4 week study period were included. MEASUREMENTS: During a first 2 week phase without intervention ADE's were recorded in all centres. Then units were then randomised for an educational intervention or not. The educational phase lasted 1 week, without ADE tracking. Then, both types of units (I+ and I-) recorded ADEs for 2 weeks. Possible drug-related incidents were detected using a standardized check list (nurses) and a weekly review of all charts by investigators. Possible drug-related incidents were analysed by a group of reviewers selected from the authors to classify them as ADE or not. RESULTS:576 patients (mean age: 83.6 +/- 7.9 years) were consecutively included. The mean number of drugs at inclusion was 9.4 +/- 4.24 drugs per patient. 223 out of 755 events were considered "probable" ADEs (29.5%). Among the 223 ADEs, 62 (28%) could have been prevented. The main outcome of this trial was the change in the proportion of ADEs in elderly patients in the intervention-units, compared to the control group. The main errors were: to high a dose (26%), double therapy (21%), under dose (13%), inappropriate drug (13%), drug-drug interaction (6%), previous same adverse drug reaction (3%) and miscellaneous (11.18%). After a specific educational intervention program, there were fewer ADEs in the intervention group (n = 38, 22%) than in the control group (n = 63, 36%; p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Educational programs could help reduce the prevalence of ADEs by 14% and encourage physicians to change outdated prescription habits.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the impact of educational intervention in decreasing ADEs in elderly patients in a hospital setting. DESIGN: Randomised prospective study. SETTING: The study was performed in France in the Paris area, in 16 rehabilitation geriatric centres of APHP (Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris). Patient capacity per centre varied from 15 to 57 with a total of 526. PARTICIPANTS: All the patients > or = 65 years hospitalized during the 4 week study period were included. MEASUREMENTS: During a first 2 week phase without intervention ADE's were recorded in all centres. Then units were then randomised for an educational intervention or not. The educational phase lasted 1 week, without ADE tracking. Then, both types of units (I+ and I-) recorded ADEs for 2 weeks. Possible drug-related incidents were detected using a standardized check list (nurses) and a weekly review of all charts by investigators. Possible drug-related incidents were analysed by a group of reviewers selected from the authors to classify them as ADE or not. RESULTS: 576 patients (mean age: 83.6 +/- 7.9 years) were consecutively included. The mean number of drugs at inclusion was 9.4 +/- 4.24 drugs per patient. 223 out of 755 events were considered "probable" ADEs (29.5%). Among the 223 ADEs, 62 (28%) could have been prevented. The main outcome of this trial was the change in the proportion of ADEs in elderly patients in the intervention-units, compared to the control group. The main errors were: to high a dose (26%), double therapy (21%), under dose (13%), inappropriate drug (13%), drug-drug interaction (6%), previous same adverse drug reaction (3%) and miscellaneous (11.18%). After a specific educational intervention program, there were fewer ADEs in the intervention group (n = 38, 22%) than in the control group (n = 63, 36%; p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Educational programs could help reduce the prevalence of ADEs by 14% and encourage physicians to change outdated prescription habits.
Authors: Jerry H Gurwitz; Terry S Field; Leslie R Harrold; Jeffrey Rothschild; Kristin Debellis; Andrew C Seger; Cynthia Cadoret; Leslie S Fish; Lawrence Garber; Michael Kelleher; David W Bates Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-03-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Irfan A Dhalla; Geoffrey M Anderson; Muhammad M Mamdani; Susan E Bronskill; Kathy Sykora; Paula A Rochon Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Jacqueline M Bos; Patricia M L A van den Bemt; Peter A G M de Smet; Cornelis Kramers Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2017-01-12 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Jacqueline M Bos; Patricia M L A van den Bemt; Wietske Kievit; Johan L W Pot; J Elsbeth Nagtegaal; André Wieringa; Monique M L van der Westerlaken; Gert Jan van der Wilt; Peter A G M de Smet; Cornelis Kramers Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2016-11-10 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Shelly L Gray; Laura A Hart; Subashan Perera; Todd P Semla; Kenneth E Schmader; Joseph T Hanlon Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Louise Forsetlund; Mary Ann O'Brien; Lisa Forsén; Liv Merete Reinar; Mbah P Okwen; Tanya Horsley; Christopher J Rose Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-09-15
Authors: Joanna E Klopotowska; Paul F M Kuks; Peter C Wierenga; Clementine C M Stuijt; Lambertus Arisz; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; Nicolette de Keizer; Susanne M Smorenburg; Sophia E de Rooij Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2022-06-17 Impact factor: 4.070
Authors: Gary L O'Brien; Denis O'Mahony; Paddy Gillespie; Mark Mulcahy; Valerie Walshe; Marie N O'Connor; David O'Sullivan; James Gallagher; Stephen Byrne Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Joanna E Klopotowska; Peter C Wierenga; Susanne M Smorenburg; Clementine C M Stuijt; Lambertus Arisz; Paul F M Kuks; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; Loraine Lie-A-Huen; Sophia E de Rooij Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 2.953