Ulrika Gillespie

A comprehensive pharmacist intervention to reduce morbidity in patients 80 years or older: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Patients 80 years or older are underrepresented in scientific studies. The objective of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of interventions performed by ward-based pharmacists in reducing morbidity and use of hospital care among older patients. METHODS A randomized controlled study of patients 80 years or older was conducted at the University Hospital of Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden. Four hundred patients were recruited consecutively between October 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006, and were randomized to control (n = 201) and intervention (n = 199) groups. The interventions were performed by ward-based pharmacists. The control group received standard care without direct involvement of pharmacists at the ward level. The primary outcome measure was the frequency of hospital visits (emergency department and readmissions [total and drug-related]) during the 12-month follow-up period. RESULTS Three hundred sixty-eight patients (182 in the intervention group and 186 in the control group) were analyzed. For the intervention group, there was a 16% reduction in all visits to the hospital (quotient, 1.88 vs 2.24; estimate, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.99) and a 47% reduction in visits to the emergency department (quotient, 0.35 vs 0.66; estimate, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.37-0.75). Drug-related readmissions were reduced by 80% (quotient, 0.06 vs 0.32; estimate, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.10-0.41). After inclusion of the intervention costs, the total cost per patient in the intervention group was

Perceived value of ward-based pharmacists from the perspective of physicians and nurses

230 lower than that in the control group. CONCLUSION If implemented on a population basis, the addition of pharmacists to health care teams would lead to major reductions in morbidity and health care costs.

The Effects of Pharmacist Intervention on Emergency Department Visits in Patients 80 Years and Older: Subgroup Analyses by Number of Prescribed Drugs and Appropriate Prescribing

Background Clinical pharmacy in a hospital setting is relatively new in Sweden. Its recent introduction at the University Hospital in Uppsala has provided an opportunity for evaluation by other relevant professionals of the integration of clinical pharmacists into the health-care team. Objectives The objectives of this descriptive study were to evaluate the perceived value of wardbased clinical pharmacists from the perspective of hospital based physicians and nurses and to identify potential advantages and disadvantages related to the new inter professional collaboration. Another objective was to evaluate the experiences of general practitioners on receiving medication reports from ward-based clinical pharmacists. Setting Two acute internal medicine wards at the University Hospital in Uppsala, where a previously reported randomized controlled trial investigating the effects of ward based clinical pharmacists on re-visits to hospital was undertaken. Methods Data were collected by questionnaires containing closed- and open-ended questions. The questionnaires were distributed during the nine-month study period of the randomized controlled trial by an independent researcher to 29 hospital-based physicians and 44 nurses on the study wards and to 21 general practitioners who had received two or more medication reports. Answers were analysed descriptively for the closed-ended questions and by content analysis for the open-ended questions. Main outcome measure The main outcome measure was the physicians’ and nurses’ level of satisfaction with the new collaboration with clinical pharmacists, from a hospital and primary care perspective. Results Seventy-six percent of the hospital-based physicians and 81% of the nurses completed the questionnaire. Ninety-five percent of the physicians and 93% of the nurses were very satisfied with the collaboration. Out of the 17 general practitioners (81%) that completed the questionnaire 71% wanted to continue to receive medication reports in a similar way in the future. Increased patient safety and improvements in patients’ drug therapy were the main advantages stated by all three groups of respondents. Eighteen percent of the hospital-based physicians and 21% of the nurses thought that the collaboration had been time-consuming to certain or to a high extent. Conclusions The majority of the respondents, both GPs and hospital based physicians and nurses, were satisfied with the new collaboration with the ward based pharmacists and perceived that the quality of the patients’ drug therapy and drug-related patient safety had increased.

A tool for prediction of risk of rehospitalisation and mortality in the hospitalised elderly: secondary analysis of clinical trial data

Background Clinical pharmacist interventions have been shown to have positive effect on occurrence of drug-related issues as well as on clinical outcomes. However, evidence about which patients benefiting most from the interventions is limited. We aimed to explore whether pharmacist intervention is equally effective in preventing emergency department (ED) visits in patients with few or many prescribed drugs and in those with different levels of inappropriate prescribing. Methods Patient and outcome data from a randomized controlled trial exploring the clinical effects of a ward-based pharmacist intervention in patients, 80 years and older, were used. The patients were divided into subgroups according to the number of prescribed drugs (<5 or ≥5 drugs) and the level of inappropriate prescribing [using the Screening Tool Of Older Peoples potentially inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP) and the Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (START) with a score of ≥2 (STOPP) and ≥1 (START) as cutoff points]. The effect of the intervention on the number of times the different subgroups visited the ED was analyzed. Results The pharmacist intervention was more effective with respect to the number of subsequent ED visits in patients taking <5 drugs on admission than in those taking ≥5 drugs. The rate ratio (RR) for a subsequent ED visit was 0.22 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09–0.52] for <5 drugs and 0.70 (95% CI 0.47–1.04) for ≥5 drugs (p = 0.02 for the interaction). The effect of intervention did not differ between patients with high or low STOPP or START scores. Conclusion In this exploratory study, the pharmacist intervention appeared to be more effective in preventing visits to the ED for patients who were taking fewer drugs before the intervention. Our analysis of STOPP and START scores indicated that the level of inappropriate prescribing on admission had no effect on the outcomes of intervention with respect to ED visits.

Assessing potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) and predicting patient outcomes in Ontario's older population: a population-based cohort study applying subsets of the STOPP/START and Beers' criteria in large health administrative databases

Objectives To construct and internally validate a risk score, the ‘80+ score’, for revisits to hospital and mortality for older patients, incorporating aspects of pharmacotherapy. Our secondary aim was to compare the discriminatory ability of the score with that of three validated tools for measuring inappropriate prescribing: Screening Tool of Older Persons Prescriptions (STOPP), Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (START) and Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI). Setting Two acute internal medicine wards at Uppsala University hospital. Patient data were used from a randomised controlled trial investigating the effects of a comprehensive clinical pharmacist intervention. Participants Data from 368 patients, aged 80 years and older, admitted to one of the study wards. Primary outcome measure Time to rehospitalisation or death during the year after discharge from hospital. Candidate variables were selected among a large number of clinical and drug-specific variables. After a selection process, a score for risk estimation was constructed. The 80+ score was internally validated, and the discriminatory ability of the score and of STOPP, START and MAI was assessed using C-statistics. Results Seven variables were selected. Impaired renal function, pulmonary disease, malignant disease, living in a nursing home, being prescribed an opioid or being prescribed a drug for peptic ulcer or gastroesophageal reflux disease were associated with an increased risk, while being prescribed an antidepressant drug (tricyclic antidepressants not included) was linked to a lower risk of the outcome. These variables made up the components of the 80+ score. The C-statistics were 0.71 (80+), 0.57 (STOPP), 0.54 (START) and 0.63 (MAI). Conclusions We developed and internally validated a score for prediction of risk of rehospitalisation and mortality in hospitalised older people. The score discriminated risk better than available tools for inappropriate prescribing. Pending external validation, this score can aid in clinical identification of high-risk patients and targeting of interventions.

Implementation of Pharmaceutical Care in Hospitals and Clinics

Introduction Adverse drug events (ADEs) are common in older people and contribute significantly to emergency department (ED) visits, unplanned hospitalisations, healthcare costs, morbidity and mortality. Many ADEs are avoidable if attention is directed towards identifying and preventing inappropriate drug use and undesirable drug combinations. Tools exist to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in clinical settings, but they are underused. Applying PIP assessment tools to population-wide health administrative data could provide an opportunity to assess the impact of PIP on individual patients as well as on the healthcare system. This would open new possibilities for interventions to monitor and optimise medication management on a broader, population-level scale. Methods and analysis The aim of this study is to describe the occurrence of PIP in Ontarios older population (aged 65 years and older), and to assess the health outcomes and health system costs associated with PIP—more specifically, the association between PIP and the occurrence of ED visits, hospitalisations and death, and their related costs. This will be done within the framework of a population-based retrospective cohort study using Ontarios large health administrative and population databases. Eligible patients aged 66 years and older who were issued at least 1 prescription between 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2014 (approximately 2 million patients) will be included. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was obtained from the Ottawa Health Services Network Ethical Review Board and from the Bruyère Research Institute Ethics Review Board. Dissemination will occur via publication, presentation at national and international conferences, and ongoing exchanges with regional, provincial and national stakeholders, including the Ontario Drug Policy Research Network and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Trial registration number Registered with clinicaltrials.gov (registration number: NCT02555891).

A case study of polypharmacy management in nine European countries: implications for change management and implementation.

Although there is plenty of evidence that pharmacists performing medication reviews in a hospital setting as well as other pharmaceutical care activities is beneficial in different ways, the evidence is quite heterogeneous, and effects on primary endpoints have not yet been satisfactorily shown. There are still a number of factors that need to be determined; what methods should be used? By which profession and with which education and training? Which patients should be targeted? With an aging population, increasingly complex medication treatments, a shortage of physicians and nurses, the need for pharmaceutical care provided by clinical pharmacists in hospitals seems immense, and the question for the future will probably rather be if there are enough trained pharmacists to fill this gap. This chapter will focus on medication reviews and the opportunities and challenges for pharmacists to provide patients with pharmaceutical care in a hospital setting.

Development of the PHASE-Proxy scale for rating drug-related signs and symptoms in severe cognitive impairment

Background Multimorbidity and its associated polypharmacy contribute to an increase in adverse drug events, hospitalizations, and healthcare spending. This study aimed to address: what exists regarding polypharmacy management in the European Union (EU); why programs were, or were not, developed; and, how identified initiatives were developed, implemented, and sustained. Methods Change management principles (Kotter) and normalization process theory (NPT) informed data collection and analysis. Nine case studies were conducted in eight EU countries: Germany (Lower Saxony), Greece, Italy (Campania), Poland, Portugal, Spain (Catalonia), Sweden (Uppsala), and the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland and Scotland). The workflow included a review of country/region specific polypharmacy policies, key informant interviews with stakeholders involved in policy development and implementation and, focus groups of clinicians and managers. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis of individual cases and framework analysis across cases. Results Polypharmacy initiatives were identified in five regions (Catalonia, Lower Saxony, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Uppsala) and included all care settings. There was agreement, even in cases without initiatives, that polypharmacy is a significant issue to address. Common themes regarding the development and implementation of polypharmacy management initiatives were: locally adapted solutions, organizational culture supporting innovation and teamwork, adequate workforce training, multidisciplinary teams, changes in workflow, redefinition of roles and responsibilities of professionals, policies and legislation supporting the initiative, and data management and information and communication systems to assist development and implementation. Depending on the setting, these were considered either facilitators or barriers to implementation. Conclusion Within the studied EU countries, polypharmacy management was not widely addressed. These results highlight the importance of change management and theory-based implementation strategies, and provide examples of polypharmacy management initiatives that can assist managers and policymakers in developing new programs or scaling up existing ones, particularly in places currently lacking such initiatives.

4CPS-243 A nested qualitative study of medication reviews within a multicentre cluster-randomised crossover trial (medbridge)

ABSTRACT Objectives: The need for assessment of possible drug-related signs and symptoms in older people with severe cognitive impairment has increased. In 2009, the PHASE-20 rating scale for identifying symptoms possibly related to medication was the first such scale to be found valid and reliable for use with elderly people. In this project, the aim was to develop and examine the psychometric properties and clinical utility of PHASE-Proxy, a similar scale for proxy use in assessing elderly people with cognitive impairment. Methods: Three expert groups revised PHASE-20 into a preliminary proxy version, which was then tested for inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, and content validity. Its clinical usefulness was investigated by pharmacist-led medication reviews. Group interviews and a study-specific questionnaire with nursing home staff were used to investigate the feasibility of use. Results: The PHASE-Proxy scale had satisfactory levels of inter-rater reliability (Spearmans rank correlation coefficient; rs = 0.8), and acceptable internal consistency (Cronbachs alpha coefficient; α = 0.73). The factor analysis resulted in a logical solution with seven factors, grouped into two dimensions: signs of emotional distress and signs of physical discomfort. The medication reviews, interviews, and questionnaires also found the proxy scale to be clinically useful, and feasible to use. Conclusion: The PHASE-Proxy scale appears to be a valid instrument that enables proxies to reliably assess nursing home residents who cannot participate in the assessment, to identify possible drug-related signs and symptoms. It also appears to be clinically useful and feasible for use in this population.

Diabetes treatment and hypoglycaemic episodes in elderly patients at nursing homes in Uppsala County

Background The MedBridge study is a multicentre cluster-randomised crossover trial to study the effects of hospital-initiated medication reviews, including active follow-up, on elderly patients’ healthcare utilisation compared to the usual care. Pragmatic trials of complex interventions are often criticised, because of a lack of understanding of the context and the degree of implementation of the interventions in daily practice. As a first step in such an evaluation process, we present this nested qualitative study within the MedBridge study. Purpose The purpose of this study was to identify facilitating and impeding factors in the implementation of the interventions in the MedBridge study from the perspective of the participating physicians and pharmacists. Material and methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight physicians and four pharmacists involved in the MedBridge study at Uppsala University Hospital. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. Two researchers analysed and coded the transcripts independently using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and consensus was sought. Results Several facilitators were identified, such as the belief that medication reviews lead to positive health outcomes for the patients, a positive attitude towards collaboration and the participation of pharmacists in the medical rounds. Some barriers mentioned were time limitation and different perspectives on roles and responsibilities. Conclusion Both facilitating and impeding factors in the implementation of the medication reviews were identified, which provides valuable understanding of the effects of the interventions within the MedBridge study. Further steps in the evaluation process need to be taken in order to triangulate these findings and to evaluate the implementation of the study interventions at the other study sites as well. References and/or Acknowledgements We would like to thank all participating pharmacists and physicians for their valuable time and input. No conflict of interest