Akram Farhat1,2,3,4, Amal Al-Hajje5, Chantal Csajka1,2,3, Alice Panchaud4. 1. Center for Research and Innovation in Clinical Pharmaceutical Sciences, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. 2. Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences of Western Switzerland, University of Geneva and University of Lausanne, Geneva, Switzerland. 3. School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 4. Service of Pharmacy, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland. 5. Clinical and Epidemiological Research Laboratory, Faculty of Pharmacy, Lebanese University, Hadat, Lebanon.
Abstract
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Many explicit tools have been developed to reduce prescribing errors and ensure patients' safety. The impact of explicit tools is not well studied. The objective of this study was (a) to conduct a systematic review of systematic reviews listing explicit tools developed to detect prescribing errors and (b) to assess their impact on clinical and economic outcomes. METHODS: This project includes two related parts. First, a systematic review of systematic reviews listing explicit tools dedicated to geriatrics or internal medicine was performed to develop an exhaustive list of explicit tools. Then, using the list compiled in the first step, a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCT) assessing clinical or economic impacts of tools was performed to evaluate their usefulness. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The systematic review of systematic reviews identified 49 explicit tools. The systematic review of RCT, using one or more of the 49 explicit tools, identified 5 RCT using explicit tools as intervention (3 STOPP/START and 2 FORTA RCT). The 5 studies evaluated clinical impacts with 3 RCT identifying significant clinical impacts (falls, activities of daily living and/or adverse drug reactions) and 2 STOPP/START RCT identifying significant economic impacts. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The systematic review of RCT showed that explicit tools can have some effect in improving patients' safety. Further studies are warranted to better characterize their clinical and economic impact.
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Many explicit tools have been developed to reduce prescribing errors and ensure patients' safety. The impact of explicit tools is not well studied. The objective of this study was (a) to conduct a systematic review of systematic reviews listing explicit tools developed to detect prescribing errors and (b) to assess their impact on clinical and economic outcomes. METHODS: This project includes two related parts. First, a systematic review of systematic reviews listing explicit tools dedicated to geriatrics or internal medicine was performed to develop an exhaustive list of explicit tools. Then, using the list compiled in the first step, a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCT) assessing clinical or economic impacts of tools was performed to evaluate their usefulness. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The systematic review of systematic reviews identified 49 explicit tools. The systematic review of RCT, using one or more of the 49 explicit tools, identified 5 RCT using explicit tools as intervention (3 STOPP/START and 2 FORTA RCT). The 5 studies evaluated clinical impacts with 3 RCT identifying significant clinical impacts (falls, activities of daily living and/or adverse drug reactions) and 2 STOPP/START RCT identifying significant economic impacts. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The systematic review of RCT showed that explicit tools can have some effect in improving patients' safety. Further studies are warranted to better characterize their clinical and economic impact.