P.M.L.A. van den Bemt

Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients A comparison of doctors, nurses and patients as sources of reports

AbstractObjective: This study investigated the relative value of adverse drug events reported by doctors, nurses and patients. Methods: The study was conducted on a total of four wards: the paediatric and internal medicine wards (including geriatric patients) of two peripheral hospitals in the Netherlands. Adverse drug events were collected by spontaneous reporting (doctor and nurse reports) and by daily ward visits, during which the patients were interviewed by a hospital pharmacist (patient reports). Criteria for relative value of the reported adverse drug events were the number of potentially serious reactions, the number of reactions not mentioned in the patient information leaflet and the number of reactions reported to new drugs (5 years or less on the Dutch market). No formal causality assessment was applied. Results: Over a period of 2 months in 1996 (Hospital I) and 2 months in 1997 (Hospital II) a total of 620 patients were included in the study and adverse drug events were reported in 179 (29%) of these cases. Doctors reported a statistically significant larger number of serious (26% of all doctor reports; odds ratio (OR) 3.2; confidence interval (CI) 1.2–8.7) and unknown (39%; OR 2.5; CI 1.0–6.0) adverse drug events than patients themselves during the daily ward visit. Doctors also reported more serious and unknown adverse drug events than nurses. Adverse reactions to new drugs were reported during the daily ward visit only (8% of all daily ward visit reports). Conclusion: This study reconfirms that doctors are the main source for reports of serious and unknown adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. However, patients themselves seem to report more adverse reactions to new drugs (during the daily ward visit). By focusing on patients using new drugs, the daily ward visit might become cost-effective. This needs to be explored in future studies.

Risk factors for the development of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients

Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients lead to increased morbidity, mortality and costs. Early detection of adverse drug events could aid in the prevention of these adverse outcomes. A cost‐effective system for the early detection of adverse drug events should focus on high risk patients. A study was set up with the primary aim to identify characteristics that are associated with the development of adverse drug events (ADEs) in hospitalized patients.ADE reports were gathered from physicians and nurses (spontaneous reports) and from patients after intensive ward interviews by hospital pharmacists. All patients admitted to the internal medicine wards of two Dutch hospitals, during a two month period, were included.The following characteristics were analyzed for their potential relationship to the occurence of ADEs: age (categorized), gender, number of drugs prescribed during hospital stay, types of drugs used and changes in drug use on admission.Age was found to be inversely associated with the development of ADEs (OR 0.36, CI 0.21‐0.61 for age category > 80 years; OR 0.56; CI 0.31‐1.02 for age category 75‐80 years and OR 0.69; CI 0.42‐1.11 for age category 60‐74 years). Furthermore, statistically significant associations were found for the number of drugs prescribed per hospitalized patient (for the class of 4‐6 drugs per patient OR 2.61, CI 1.32‐5.18), for newly prescribed drugs (OR 6.65, CI 2.63‐16.81) and for the cessation of drugs on hospital admission (OR 1.50, CI 1.02‐2.20). The use of gastrointestinal drugs (OR 2.13, CI 1.32‐3.45), central nervous system drugs (OR 1.66, CI 1.07‐2.57) and antibiotics (OR 2.44, CI 1.65‐3.60) were associated with the development of ADEs, when compared to all other drugs taken by the patients.In this study, the most important risk factors are the number of drugs used per patient and the starting of a new drug during hospitalization. As most hospitalized patients start new drug therapies while in hospital, this seems an inappropriate focus. However, careful monitoring of patients using more than 7 drugs at a time may be possible in a cost‐effective system for the early detection of ADEs.

Quality improvement of oral medication administration in patients with enteral feeding tubes

Background: The correct administration of oral drugs to patients on enteral tube feeding presents a special challenge. As patients are usually unable to swallow oral drugs and many drugs should not be crushed, ways have to be found to administer them through the feeding tube. Measures to improve the quality of oral drug administration in patients with enteral feeding tubes may consist of introducing guidelines, training nurses, or giving patient-tailored advice by the pharmacy. An integrated program comprising all these measures is likely to result in the greatest improvements. Methods: A study was undertaken in two Dutch hospitals to investigate the effect of such an integrated program. Results: The integrated program in hospital I resulted in a decrease in the number of tube obstructions (odds ratio (OR) 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.047 to 1.05). There was a significant decrease in the number of administration errors per nurse in hospital II (OR 0.003, 95% CI 0.0005 to 0.02). Conclusions: This multidisciplinary program comprising several interventions to promote the correct administration of drugs through an enteral feeding tube results in substantial improvements. As errors concerning administration of drugs to patients with enteral feeding tubes may lead to adverse drug events and loss of effect, these improvements are likely to contribute to a decrease in patient morbidity.

Medication errors: the impact of prescribing and transcribing errors on preventable harm in hospitalised patients

Background: Medication errors (MEs) affect patient safety to a significant extent. Because these errors can lead to preventable adverse drug events (pADEs), it is important to know what type of ME is the most prevalent cause of these pADEs. This study determined the impact of the various types of prescribing (administrative, dosing and therapeutic) and transcribing errors on pADEs in hospitalised patients. Methods: During a 5-month period, data for patients admitted to a total of five internal medicine wards of one university and one teaching hospital in The Netherlands were prospectively collected by chart review. In each hospital, MEs were detected and classified by the same pharmacist, using the classification scheme for MEs developed by The Netherlands Association of Hospital Pharmacists. The primary outcome measure was the prevalence of pADEs during hospital stay. In consensus meetings, five pharmacists assessed the causal relationship between MEs and pADEs. The association between type of ME and pADEs was determined by a multivariate regression analysis taking into account potential confounders. Results: The study included 592 hospital admissions with 7286 medication orders (MOs), of which 60% contained at least one prescribing or transcribing error. 1.4% of all MOs led to pADEs, concerning 14.8% of all admitted patients. The total number of pADEs was 103, and in 92 of these cases patients experienced temporary harm, in eight cases hospital admission was prolongued, two cases were life-threatening, and one was fatal. Therapeutic errors were most strongly associated with pADEs (OR 1.98; 95% CI 1.53 to 2.56). Conclusions: Although many prescribing and transcribing errors occur in the process of medication use of hospitalised patients, a minority lead to pADEs. In particular, therapeutic errors are the cause of these pADEs and are therefore clinically relevant. Intervention and prevention programmes should primarily focus on this type of medication error.

Preventing hospital admissions by reviewing medication (PHARM) in primary care: an open controlled study in an elderly population

Limited and conflicting evidence exists on the effect of a multicomponent pharmaceutical care intervention (i.e. medication review, involving collaboration between general practitioners (GPs), pharmacists and patients) on medication‐related hospitalizations, survival, adverse drug events (ADEs) and quality of life. We aimed to investigate the effect of a multicomponent pharmaceutical care intervention on these outcomes.

The potential interaction between oral anticoagulants and acetaminophen in everyday practice

Objective: The drug–drug interaction between oral anticoagulants (especially warfarin) and acetaminophen has been described, but evidence is conflicting and evidence for a similar interaction between acenocoumarol or phenprocoumon and acetaminophen is limited. Therefore, a study was performed to determine the influence of acetaminophen on oral anticoagulation with acenocoumarol or phenprocoumon in everyday practice.Method: Included were patients from two Dutch anticoagulant clinics who had used oral anticoagulants for at least three months and who started with acetaminophen (case group) or benzodiazepines (control group). Results: Fifty-four patients were included who had a first prescription of acetaminophen in their pharmacy record (during oral anticoagulant use) and twenty patients with a first prescription of a benzodiazepine (during oral anticoagulant use). The INR (International Normalized Ratio) difference before and after acetaminophen use was not statistically significant between the two groups and showed no dose dependency.Conclusion: These data do not demonstrate that acetaminophen, in the dosages used in everyday practice, has a clinically relevant influence on the INR in patients using acenocoumarol or phenprocoumon

PS-046 Evaluation of a systematic tool to reduce inappropriate prescribing (STRIP) in adults with intellectual disability: a pilot study

Background Polypharmacy, a risk factor for inappropriate prescribing, is common in adults with intellectual disability (ID). For older patients with polypharmacy in the general population a Systematic Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing (STRIP)* has been developed recently. This patient review requires the active involvement of the patient, which can be complicated in adults with ID. Purpose This pilot study was performed to evaluate whether STRIP can be used in adults with ID living in a centralised setting. Material and methods This observational pilot study was performed in three care organisations. In each organisation nine clients with polypharmacy, defined as concomitant use of five or more drugs, were selected by their pharmacists and ID resident physician for a review using STRIP. Clients, their legal representatives and mentors were invited to participate. The primary outcome was the proportion of clients, legal representatives and mentors who participated. Secondary outcomes were the number of potentially appropriate indicated drugs (according to the START criteria) and the number of potentially inappropriate or unnecessary drugs identified (according to STOPP criteria). Results 27 reviews were performed in this pilot study. During these 27 reviews, 24 clients (89%), 14 legal representatives (53%) and all 27 mentors (100%) participated. Thirteen potentially appropriate indicated drugs and 44 potentially inappropriate or unnecessary drugs were identified, resulting in suggestions for changes in pharmacotherapy for 21 (78%) clients. Besides, 9 (33%) reviews revealed in total 21 drugs, mainly as required prescriptions, that were never used by the client. Conclusion A Systematic Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing (STRIP) with the active involvement of adults with ID, their legal representatives and mentors can be used to identify drug-related problems in this population. The benefits in terms of reduction of patient harm as well as cost-effectiveness of this method should be assessed in this population in future studies. Reference The Dutch College of General Practitioners, Multidisciplinary Guideline Polypharmacy in the elderly, 2012 No conflict of interest.

Waarom moet bij NSAID-gebruik vooral bij diabetes, reuma of hartfalen maagbescherming worden overwogen?

Van non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID’s) worden jaarlijks ruim 6 miljoen voorschriften via de apotheek aan de Nederlandse bevolking afgeleverd (18,8% van de bevolking krijgt jaarlijks een NSAID afgeleverd) (1,2). Daarnaast zijn er nog tal van personen die NSAID’s bij de drogist aanschaffen. Naast de gunstige effecten (pijnstilling, ontstekingsremming) hebben NSAID’s ook ernstige bijwerkingen, waarvan de gastro-intestinale problemen en nierfunctiestoornissen de bekendste zijn.