Mohanad Odeh1,2, Claire Scullin3, Glenda Fleming3, Michael G Scott3, Robert Horne4, James C McElnay1. 1. Clinical and Practice Research Group, School of Pharmacy, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, BT9 7BL, UK. 2. Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Hashemite University, Jordan. 3. Medicines Optimisation Innovation Centre (MOIC), Antrim, UK. 4. School of Pharmacy, University College London, London, WC1N 1AX, UK.
Abstract
AIMS: To implement pharmacist-led, postdischarge telephone follow-up (TFU) intervention and to evaluate its impact on rehospitalization parameters in polypharmacy patients, via comparison with a well-matched control group. METHOD: Pragmatic, prospective, quasi-experimental study. Intervention patients were matched by propensity score techniques with a control group. Guided by results from a pilot study, clinical pharmacists implemented TFU intervention, added to routine integrated medicines management service. RESULTS: Using an intention to treat approach, reductions in 30- and 90-day readmission rates for intervention patients compared with controls were 9.9% [odds ratio = 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36-0.90; P < 0.001] and 15.2% (odds ratio = 0.53; 95% CI: 0.36-0.79; P = 0.021) respectively. Marginal mean time to readmission was 70.9 days (95% CI: 66.9-74.9) for intervention group compared with 60.1 days (95% CI: 55.4-64.7) for controls. Mean length of hospital stay compared with control was (8.3 days vs. 6.7 days; P < 0.001). Benefit: cost ratio for 30-day readmissions was 29.62, and 23.58 for 90-day interval. Per protocol analyses gave more marked improvements. In intervention patients, mean concern scale score, using Beliefs about Medicine Questionnaire, was reduced 3.2 (95% CI: -4.22 to -2.27; P < 0.001). Mean difference in Medication Adherence Report Scale was 1.4 (22.7 vs. 24.1; P < 0.001). Most patients (83.8%) reported having better control of their medicines after the intervention. CONCLUSIONS:Pharmacist-led postdischarge structured TFU intervention can reduce 30- and 90-day readmission rates. Positive impacts were noted on time to readmission, length of hospital stay upon readmission, healthcare costs, patient beliefs about medicines, patient self-reported adherence and satisfaction.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: To implement pharmacist-led, postdischarge telephone follow-up (TFU) intervention and to evaluate its impact on rehospitalization parameters in polypharmacy patients, via comparison with a well-matched control group. METHOD: Pragmatic, prospective, quasi-experimental study. Intervention patients were matched by propensity score techniques with a control group. Guided by results from a pilot study, clinical pharmacists implemented TFU intervention, added to routine integrated medicines management service. RESULTS: Using an intention to treat approach, reductions in 30- and 90-day readmission rates for intervention patients compared with controls were 9.9% [odds ratio = 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36-0.90; P < 0.001] and 15.2% (odds ratio = 0.53; 95% CI: 0.36-0.79; P = 0.021) respectively. Marginal mean time to readmission was 70.9 days (95% CI: 66.9-74.9) for intervention group compared with 60.1 days (95% CI: 55.4-64.7) for controls. Mean length of hospital stay compared with control was (8.3 days vs. 6.7 days; P < 0.001). Benefit: cost ratio for 30-day readmissions was 29.62, and 23.58 for 90-day interval. Per protocol analyses gave more marked improvements. In intervention patients, mean concern scale score, using Beliefs about Medicine Questionnaire, was reduced 3.2 (95% CI: -4.22 to -2.27; P < 0.001). Mean difference in Medication Adherence Report Scale was 1.4 (22.7 vs. 24.1; P < 0.001). Most patients (83.8%) reported having better control of their medicines after the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacist-led postdischarge structured TFU intervention can reduce 30- and 90-day readmission rates. Positive impacts were noted on time to readmission, length of hospital stay upon readmission, healthcare costs, patient beliefs about medicines, patient self-reported adherence and satisfaction.
Authors: Amaia Malet-Larrea; Estíbaliz Goyenechea; Miguel A Gastelurrutia; Begoña Calvo; Victoria García-Cárdenas; Juan M Cabases; Aránzazu Noain; Fernando Martínez-Martínez; Daniel Sabater-Hernández; Shalom I Benrimoj Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2016-12-02
Authors: Aaron L Leppin; Michael R Gionfriddo; Maya Kessler; Juan Pablo Brito; Frances S Mair; Katie Gallacher; Zhen Wang; Patricia J Erwin; Tanya Sylvester; Kasey Boehmer; Henry H Ting; M Hassan Murad; Nathan D Shippee; Victor M Montori Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Rob Horne; Sarah C E Chapman; Rhian Parham; Nick Freemantle; Alastair Forbes; Vanessa Cooper Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mohanad Odeh; Claire Scullin; Glenda Fleming; Michael G Scott; Robert Horne; James C McElnay Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Jonas Kindstedt; Sofia Svahn; Maria Sjölander; Eva-Lotta Glader; Hugo Lövheim; Maria Gustafsson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-04-27 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Nadia Farhanah Syafhan; Sayer Al Azzam; Steven D Williams; Wendy Wilson; Jayne Brady; Peter Lawrence; Mark McCrudden; Mustafa Ahmed; Michael G Scott; Glenda Fleming; Anita Hogg; Claire Scullin; Robert Horne; Harblas Ahir; James C McElnay Journal: J Pharm Policy Pract Date: 2021-01-04