OBJECTIVES: To develop and evaluate an electronic tool to assist clinical pharmacists with reviewing potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in hospitalized elderly adults. DESIGN: Pilot intervention. SETTING: Academic tertiary care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized adults aged 65 and older admitted to the general medicine, orthopedics, and urology services during a 3-week period in 2011 who were administered at least one medication from a list of 240 PIMs. INTERVENTION: A computerized PIMS dashboard flagged individuals with at least one administered PIM or a high calculated anticholinergic score. The dashboard also displayed 48-hour cumulative narcotic and benzodiazepine administration. Participants were ranked to reflect the estimated risk of an adverse event using logical combinations of data (e.g., use of multiple sedatives in a nonmonitored location). In a pilot implementation, a clinical pharmacist reviewed the flagged records and delivered an immediate point-of-care intervention for the treating physician. MEASUREMENTS: Clinician response to pharmacist intervention. RESULTS: The PIMS dashboard flagged 179 of 797 individuals (22%) admitted over a 3-week period and 485 participant-medication pairs for review by the clinical pharmacist. Seventy-one participant records with 139 participant-medication pairs required additional manual review of the electronic medical record. Twenty-two participants receiving 40 inappropriate medication orders were judged to warrant an intervention, which was delivered by personal communication over the telephone or text message. Clinicians enacted 31 of 40 (78%) pharmacist recommendations. CONCLUSION: An electronic PIM dashboard provided an efficient mechanism for clinical pharmacists to rapidly screen the medication regimens of hospitalized elderly adults and deliver a timely point-of-care intervention when indicated.
OBJECTIVES: To develop and evaluate an electronic tool to assist clinical pharmacists with reviewing potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in hospitalized elderly adults. DESIGN: Pilot intervention. SETTING: Academic tertiary care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized adults aged 65 and older admitted to the general medicine, orthopedics, and urology services during a 3-week period in 2011 who were administered at least one medication from a list of 240 PIMs. INTERVENTION: A computerized PIMS dashboard flagged individuals with at least one administered PIM or a high calculated anticholinergic score. The dashboard also displayed 48-hour cumulative narcotic and benzodiazepine administration. Participants were ranked to reflect the estimated risk of an adverse event using logical combinations of data (e.g., use of multiple sedatives in a nonmonitored location). In a pilot implementation, a clinical pharmacist reviewed the flagged records and delivered an immediate point-of-care intervention for the treating physician. MEASUREMENTS: Clinician response to pharmacist intervention. RESULTS: The PIMS dashboard flagged 179 of 797 individuals (22%) admitted over a 3-week period and 485 participant-medication pairs for review by the clinical pharmacist. Seventy-one participant records with 139 participant-medication pairs required additional manual review of the electronic medical record. Twenty-two participants receiving 40 inappropriate medication orders were judged to warrant an intervention, which was delivered by personal communication over the telephone or text message. Clinicians enacted 31 of 40 (78%) pharmacist recommendations. CONCLUSION: An electronic PIM dashboard provided an efficient mechanism for clinical pharmacists to rapidly screen the medication regimens of hospitalized elderly adults and deliver a timely point-of-care intervention when indicated.
Authors: Marci L Chew; Benoit H Mulsant; Bruce G Pollock; Mark E Lehman; Andrew Greenspan; Ramy A Mahmoud; Margaret A Kirshner; Denise A Sorisio; Robert R Bies; Georges Gharabawi Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2008-05-26 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Allison B McCoy; Zachary L Cox; Erin B Neal; Lemuel R Waitman; Neeraja B Peterson; Gautam Bhave; Edward D Siew; Ioana Danciu; Julia B Lewis; Josh F Peterson Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2012-06-13 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Sunil Kripalani; Christianne L Roumie; Anuj K Dalal; Courtney Cawthon; Alexandra Businger; Svetlana K Eden; Ayumi Shintani; Kelly Cunningham Sponsler; L Jeff Harris; Cecelia Theobald; Robert L Huang; Danielle Scheurer; Susan Hunt; Terry A Jacobson; Kimberly J Rask; Viola Vaccarino; Tejal K Gandhi; David W Bates; Mark V Williams; Jeffrey L Schnipper Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Joseph T Hanlon; Margaret B Artz; Carl F Pieper; Catherine I Lindblad; Richard J Sloane; Christine M Ruby; Kenneth E Schmader Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 3.154
Authors: Amanda J Cross; Johnson George; Michael C Woodward; David Ames; Henry Brodaty; Jenni Ilomäki; Rohan A Elliott Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Audrey Rankin; Cathal A Cadogan; Susan M Patterson; Ngaire Kerse; Chris R Cardwell; Marie C Bradley; Cristin Ryan; Carmel Hughes Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-09-03
Authors: Fernando J Kim; Rodrigo Donalisio da Silva; Diedra Gustafson; Leticia Nogueira; Timothy Harlin; David L Paul Journal: Patient Saf Surg Date: 2015-06-05
Authors: Jeffrey C Munson; Julie P W Bynum; John-Erik Bell; Robert Cantu; Christine McDonough; Qianfei Wang; Tor D Tosteson; Anna N A Tosteson Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 21.873