Trine Graabaek1,2, Ulla Hedegaard3, Mikkel B Christensen4, Marianne H Clemmensen5, Torben Knudsen1, Lise Aagaard2. 1. Institute of Regional Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Hospital of South West Jutland, Finsensgade 35, 6700, Esbjerg, Denmark. 2. Research Unit of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, J.B.Winsløvsvej 17, 5000, Odense C, Denmark. 3. Department of Clinical Biochemistry and Pharmacology, Odense University Hospital, J.B.Winsløvsvej 4, 5000, Odense C, Denmark. 4. Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg University Hospital, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, 2400, Copenhagen, NV, Denmark. 5. The Danish Research Unit for Hospital Pharmacy, Amgros I/S, Dampfaergevej 22, 2100, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: Medication-related problems are frequent and can lead to serious adverse events resulting in increased morbidity, mortality, and costs. Medication use in frail older patients is even more complex. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a pharmacist-led medicines management model among older patients at admission, during inpatient stay and at discharge on medication-related readmissions. METHOD: A randomized controlled trial conducted at the acute admission unit in a Danish hospital with acutely admitted medical patients, randomized to either a control group or one of two intervention groups. The intervention consisted of pharmacist-led medication review and patient interview upon admission (intervention ED) or pharmacist-led medication review and patient interview upon admission, medication review during inpatient stay, and medication report and patient counselling at discharge (intervention STAY). RESULTS: In total, 600 patients were included. The pharmacist identified 920 medication-related problems with 57% of the recommendations accepted by the physician. After 30 days, 25 patients had a medication-related readmission, with no statistical significant difference between the groups on either primary or secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that a clinical pharmacist can be used to identify and solve medication-related problems, but this study did not find any effect on the selected outcomes. The frequency of medication-related readmissions was low, leaving little room for improvement. Future research should consider other study designs or outcome measures.
RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: Medication-related problems are frequent and can lead to serious adverse events resulting in increased morbidity, mortality, and costs. Medication use in frail older patients is even more complex. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a pharmacist-led medicines management model among older patients at admission, during inpatient stay and at discharge on medication-related readmissions. METHOD: A randomized controlled trial conducted at the acute admission unit in a Danish hospital with acutely admitted medical patients, randomized to either a control group or one of two intervention groups. The intervention consisted of pharmacist-led medication review and patient interview upon admission (intervention ED) or pharmacist-led medication review and patient interview upon admission, medication review during inpatient stay, and medication report and patient counselling at discharge (intervention STAY). RESULTS: In total, 600 patients were included. The pharmacist identified 920 medication-related problems with 57% of the recommendations accepted by the physician. After 30 days, 25 patients had a medication-related readmission, with no statistical significant difference between the groups on either primary or secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that a clinical pharmacist can be used to identify and solve medication-related problems, but this study did not find any effect on the selected outcomes. The frequency of medication-related readmissions was low, leaving little room for improvement. Future research should consider other study designs or outcome measures.
Authors: E Delgado-Silveira; M Vélez-Díaz-Pallarés; M Muñoz-García; A Correa-Pérez; A M Álvarez-Díaz; A J Cruz-Jentoft Journal: Eur Geriatr Med Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 1.710
Authors: Christoph Becker; Samuel Zumbrunn; Katharina Beck; Alessia Vincent; Nina Loretz; Jonas Müller; Simon A Amacher; Rainer Schaefert; Sabina Hunziker Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-08-02
Authors: Alice Coffey; Patricia Leahy-Warren; Eileen Savage; Josephine Hegarty; Nicola Cornally; Mary Rose Day; Laura Sahm; Kieran O'Connor; Jane O'Doherty; Aaron Liew; Duygu Sezgin; Rónán O'Caoimh Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-07-10 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Morten Baltzer Houlind; Aino Leegaard Andersen; Charlotte Treldal; Lillian Mørch Jørgensen; Pia Nimann Kannegaard; Luana Sandoval Castillo; Line Due Christensen; Juliette Tavenier; Line Jee Hartmann Rasmussen; Mikkel Zöllner Ankarfeldt; Ove Andersen; Janne Petersen Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-01-27 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Aino L Andersen; Morten B Houlind; Rikke L Nielsen; Lillian M Jørgensen; Charlotte Treldal; Morten Damgaard; Anne Kathrine Bengaard; Helle Gybel Juul-Larsen; Louise Bolvig Laursen; Esben Iversen; Marie Kruse; Anne M L Pedersen; Mads Hornum; Anne M Beck; Mette M Pedersen; Mikkel Z Ankarfeldt; Janne Petersen; Ove Andersen Journal: Trials Date: 2021-09-14 Impact factor: 2.279