H F Kwint1, A Faber, J Gussekloo, M L Bouvy. 1. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht, The Netherlands. h.f.kwint@uu.nl
Abstract
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: To determine to what extent patient interviews contribute to the identification of drug-related problems (DRPs) in home medication reviews, in terms of number, type and clinical relevance. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study within the intervention arm of a randomized controlled trial. Patients were recruited from 10 Dutch community pharmacies. Patients were eligible if they were home-dwelling, aged 65 years and over and used five or more different drugs, including at least one cardiovascular or antidiabetic drug. The community pharmacist interviewed the patient at home about the medicines and identified potential DRPs in combination with medication and clinical records. This medication review was assessed and modified by an independent pharmacist reviewers' panel. Outcomes were the number and type of DRPs and recommendations and percentage of clinical relevant DRPs. Clinical relevance of DRPs was assessed by DRPs assigned a high priority, DRPs followed by recommendations for drug change and DRPs followed by implemented recommendations for drug change. RESULTS: A total of 1565 potential DRPs and recommendations (10 per patient).were identified for 155 patients (median age, 76 years; 54% women). Fifty-eight per cent of all recommendations involved a drug change; 27% of all DRPs were identified during patient interviews and 74% from medication and clinical records. Compared to DRPs identified from patient medication and clinical records, DRPs identified during patient interviews were more frequently assigned a high priority (OR = 1.8 [1.4-2.2]), were more frequently associated with recommendations for drug change (OR = 2.4 [1.9-3.1]) and were implemented recommendations for drug change (OR = 2.8 [2.1-3.7]). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: This study shows that more than a quarter of all DRPs were identified during patient interviews. DRPs identified during patient interviews were more frequently assigned a higher clinical relevance.
RCT Entities:
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: To determine to what extent patient interviews contribute to the identification of drug-related problems (DRPs) in home medication reviews, in terms of number, type and clinical relevance. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study within the intervention arm of a randomized controlled trial. Patients were recruited from 10 Dutch community pharmacies. Patients were eligible if they were home-dwelling, aged 65 years and over and used five or more different drugs, including at least one cardiovascular or antidiabetic drug. The community pharmacist interviewed the patient at home about the medicines and identified potential DRPs in combination with medication and clinical records. This medication review was assessed and modified by an independent pharmacist reviewers' panel. Outcomes were the number and type of DRPs and recommendations and percentage of clinical relevant DRPs. Clinical relevance of DRPs was assessed by DRPs assigned a high priority, DRPs followed by recommendations for drug change and DRPs followed by implemented recommendations for drug change. RESULTS: A total of 1565 potential DRPs and recommendations (10 per patient).were identified for 155 patients (median age, 76 years; 54% women). Fifty-eight per cent of all recommendations involved a drug change; 27% of all DRPs were identified during patient interviews and 74% from medication and clinical records. Compared to DRPs identified from patient medication and clinical records, DRPs identified during patient interviews were more frequently assigned a high priority (OR = 1.8 [1.4-2.2]), were more frequently associated with recommendations for drug change (OR = 2.4 [1.9-3.1]) and were implemented recommendations for drug change (OR = 2.8 [2.1-3.7]). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: This study shows that more than a quarter of all DRPs were identified during patient interviews. DRPs identified during patient interviews were more frequently assigned a higher clinical relevance.
Authors: Kacie L McPherson; Omolola A Adeoye-Olatunde; Jayna M Osborne; William R Doucette; Stephanie A Gernant; Heather Jaynes; Shobha Phansalkar; Alissa L Russ-Jara; Margie E Snyder Journal: J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) Date: 2020-01-25
Authors: Thomas G H Kempen; Caroline H P A van de Steeg-van Gompel; Petra Hoogland; Yuqian Liu; Marcel L Bouvy Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2014-04-16
Authors: Dominik Stämpfli; Fabienne Boeni; Andy Gerber; Victor A D Bättig; Kurt E Hersberger; Markus L Lampert Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Floor Willeboordse; Jacqueline G Hugtenburg; François G Schellevis; Petra J M Elders Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Victor Johan Bernard Huiskes; Cornelia Helena Maria van den Ende; Martine Kruijtbosch; Hendrik Tinus Ensing; Marieke Meijs; Veronique Maria Mathea Meijs; David Marinus Burger; Bartholomeus Johannes Fredericus van den Bemt Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2019-12-03 Impact factor: 4.335