Dataset Information

Effectiveness of a multicomponent pharmacist intervention at hospital discharge for drug-related problems: A cluster randomised cross-over trial.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

The aim of this study was to assess whether a pharmacist intervention associating medication reconciliation at discharge with a link to the community pharmacist reduces drug-related problems (DRP) in adult patients during the 7 days after hospital discharge in 22 university or general hospitals in France.

Methods

We conducted a cluster randomised cross-over superiority trial with hospital units as the cluster unit. The primary outcome was a composite of any kind of DRP (prescription/dispensation, patient error or gap due to no medication available) during the 7 days after discharge, assessed by phone with the patient and community pharmacist. Among secondary outcomes, we studied self-reported unplanned hospitalisations at day 35 after discharge and severe iatrogenic problems.

Results

A total of 1092 patients were enrolled in 48 units (538 in the experimental periods and 554 in the control periods). Three patients refused to have their data analysed and were excluded from the analyses. As compared with usual care, the pharmacist intervention led to a lower proportion of patients with at least one DRP (44.0% vs 50.6%; odds ratio [OR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.98) and severe iatrogenic problems (5.2% vs 8.7%; OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35-0.93) but no significant difference in unplanned hospitalisations at day 35 (5.8% vs 4.5%; OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.91-2.35).

Conclusion

Medication reconciliation associated with communication between the hospital and community pharmacist may decrease patient exposure to DRP and severe iatrogenic problems but not unplanned hospitalisation. However, this intervention could be recommended in health policies to improve drug management.

SUBMITTER: Pourrat X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7688527 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo study the implementation of a cluster randomised controlled effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial testing the effectiveness of a medication review at hospital discharge combined with a communication stimulus between hospital physicians (HPs) and general practitioners (GPs) on rehospitalisation of multimorbid older patients.DesignExtension of Grant's mixed method process evaluation framework to trials with multilevel clustering.SettingGeneral internal medicine wards in Swiss hospitals.ParticipantsConvenience samples of 15 chief physicians (of 21 hospitals participating in the effectiveness trial), 60 (74) senior HPs, 65 (164) junior HPs and 187 (411) GPs.Implementation strategyTwo-hour teaching sessions for senior HPs on a patient-centred, checklist-guided discharge routine.Process evaluation componentsData collection on recruitment, delivery and response from chief physicians (semistructured interviews), senior HPs, junior HPs, GPs (surveys) and patients (via HPs). Quantitative data were summarised using descriptive statistics, and interviews analysed using thematic analysis.Outcome measuresIntervention dose (quantitative), implementation fidelity (qualitative), feasibility and acceptability, facilitators and barriers, implementation support strategies.ResultsRecruitment of hospitals was laborious but successful, with 21 hospitals recruited. Minimal workload and a perceived benefit for the clinic were crucial factors for participation. Intervention dose was high (95% of checklist activities carried out), but intervention fidelity was limited (discharge letters) or unknown (medication review). Recruitment and retention of patients was challenging, partly due to patient characteristics (old, frail) and the COVID-19 pandemic: Only 612 of the anticipated 2100 patients were recruited, and 31% were lost to follow-up within the first month after discharge. The intervention was deemed feasible and helpful by HPs, and the relevance of the topic appreciated by both HPs and GPs.ConclusionsThe results from this evaluation will support interpretation of the findings of the effectiveness study and may inform researchers and policy makers who aim at improving hospital discharge.Trial registration numberISRCTN18427377.

Project description:BackgroundMedication errors are common in primary care and are associated with considerable risk of patient harm. We tested whether a pharmacist-led, information technology-based intervention was more effective than simple feedback in reducing the number of patients at risk of measures related to hazardous prescribing and inadequate blood-test monitoring of medicines 6 months after the intervention.MethodsIn this pragmatic, cluster randomised trial general practices in the UK were stratified by research site and list size, and randomly assigned by a web-based randomisation service in block sizes of two or four to one of two groups. The practices were allocated to either computer-generated simple feedback for at-risk patients (control) or a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER), composed of feedback, educational outreach, and dedicated support. The allocation was masked to researchers and statisticians involved in processing and analysing the data. The allocation was not masked to general practices, pharmacists, patients, or researchers who visited practices to extract data. [corrected]. Primary outcomes were the proportions of patients at 6 months after the intervention who had had any of three clinically important errors: non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) prescribed to those with a history of peptic ulcer without co-prescription of a proton-pump inhibitor; β blockers prescribed to those with a history of asthma; long-term prescription of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or loop diuretics to those 75 years or older without assessment of urea and electrolytes in the preceding 15 months. The cost per error avoided was estimated by incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. This study is registered with Controlled-Trials.com, number ISRCTN21785299.Findings72 general practices with a combined list size of 480,942 patients were randomised. At 6 months' follow-up, patients in the PINCER group were significantly less likely to have been prescribed a non-selective NSAID if they had a history of peptic ulcer without gastroprotection (OR 0·58, 95% CI 0·38-0·89); a β blocker if they had asthma (0·73, 0·58-0·91); or an ACE inhibitor or loop diuretic without appropriate monitoring (0·51, 0·34-0·78). PINCER has a 95% probability of being cost effective if the decision-maker's ceiling willingness to pay reaches £75 per error avoided at 6 months.InterpretationThe PINCER intervention is an effective method for reducing a range of medication errors in general practices with computerised clinical records.FundingPatient Safety Research Portfolio, Department of Health, England.

Project description:BackgroundDuring transitions of care, including hospital discharge, patients are at risk of drug-related problems (DRPs).AimTo investigate the impact of pharmacist-led services, specifically medication reconciliation at admission and/or interprofessional ward rounds on the number of DRPs at discharge.MethodIn this retrospective, single-center cohort study, we analyzed routinely collected data of patients discharged from internal medicine wards of a regional Swiss hospital that filled their discharge prescriptions in the hospital's community pharmacy between June 2016 and May 2019. Patients receiving one of the two or both pharmacist-led services (Study groups: Best Care = both services; MedRec = medication reconciliation at admission; Ward Round = interprofessional ward round), were compared to patients receiving standard care (Standard Care group). Standard care included medication history taken by a physician and regular ward rounds (physicians and nurses). At discharge, pharmacists reviewed discharge prescriptions filled at the hospital's community pharmacy and documented all DRPs. Multivariable Poisson regression analyzed the independent effects of medication reconciliation and interprofessional ward rounds as single or combined service on the frequency of DRPs.ResultsOverall, 4545 patients with 6072 hospital stays were included in the analysis (Best Care n = 72 hospital stays, MedRec n = 232, Ward Round n = 1262, and Standard Care n = 4506). In 1352 stays (22.3%) one or more DRPs were detected at hospital discharge. The combination of the two pharmacist-led services was associated with statistically significantly less DRPs compared to standard care (relative risk: 0.33; 95% confidence interval: 0.16, 0.65). Pharmacist-led medication reconciliation alone showed a trend towards fewer DRPs (relative risk: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.54, 1.03).ConclusionOur results support the implementation of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation at admission in combination with interprofessional ward rounds to reduce the number of DRPs at hospital discharge.

Project description:Reduction in 30-day readmission rates following hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is a national goal.The aim of this study was to determine the effect of a tailored, pharmacist-delivered, health literacy intervention on unplanned health care utilization, including hospital readmission or emergency room (ER) visit, following discharge.Randomized, controlled trial with concealed allocation and blinded outcome assessorsTwo tertiary care academic medical centersAdults hospitalized with a diagnosis of ACS and/or ADHF.Pharmacist-assisted medication reconciliation, inpatient pharmacist counseling, low-literacy adherence aids, and individualized telephone follow-up after dischargeThe primary outcome was time to first unplanned health care event, defined as hospital readmission or an ER visit within 30 days of discharge. Pre-specified analyses were conducted to evaluate the effects of the intervention by academic site, health literacy status (inadequate versus adequate), and cognition (impaired versus not impaired). Adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are reported.A total of 851 participants enrolled in the study at Vanderbilt University Hospital (VUH) and Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH). The primary analysis showed no statistically significant effect on time to first unplanned hospital readmission or ER visit among patients who received interventions compared to controls (aHR?=?1.04, 95% CI 0.78-1.39). There was an interaction of treatment effect by site (p?=?0.04 for interaction); VUH aHR?=?0.77, 95% CI 0.51-1.15; BWH aHR?=?1.44 (95% CI 0.95-2.12). The intervention reduced early unplanned health care utilization among patients with inadequate health literacy (aHR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17-1.00). There was no difference in treatment effect by patient cognition.A tailored, pharmacist-delivered health literacy-sensitive intervention did not reduce post-discharge unplanned health care utilization overall. The intervention was effective among patients with inadequate health literacy, suggesting that targeted practice of pharmacist intervention in this population may be advantageous.

Project description:Clinically important medication errors are common after hospital discharge. They include preventable or ameliorable adverse drug events (ADEs), as well as medication discrepancies or nonadherence with high potential for future harm (potential ADEs).To determine the effect of a tailored intervention on the occurrence of clinically important medication errors after hospital discharge.Randomized, controlled trial with concealed allocation and blinded outcome assessors. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00632021)Two tertiary care academic hospitals.Adults hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes or acute decompensated heart failure.Pharmacist-assisted medication reconciliation, inpatient pharmacist counseling, low-literacy adherence aids, and individualized telephone follow-up after discharge.The primary outcome was the number of clinically important medication errors per patient during the first 30 days after hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included preventable or ameliorable ADEs, as well as potential ADEs.Among 851 participants, 432 (50.8%) had 1 or more clinically important medication errors; 22.9% of such errors were judged to be serious and 1.8% life-threatening. Adverse drug events occurred in 258 patients (30.3%) and potential ADEs in 253 patients (29.7%). The intervention did not significantly alter the per-patient number of clinically important medication errors (unadjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.10]) or ADEs (unadjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.09 [CI, 0.86 to 1.39]). Patients in the intervention group tended to have fewer potential ADEs (unadjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.80 [CI, 0.61 to 1.04]).The characteristics of the study hospitals and participants may limit generalizability.Clinically important medication errors were present among one half of patients after hospital discharge and were not significantly reduced by a health-literacy-sensitive, pharmacist-delivered intervention.National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate the effectiveness, cost effectiveness (to be reported elsewhere), and safety of pharmacy independent prescribers in care homes.DesignCluster randomised controlled trial, with clusters based on triads of a pharmacist independent prescriber, a general practice, and one to three associated care homes.SettingCare homes across England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, their associated general practices, and pharmacy independent prescribers, formed into triads.Participants49 triads and 882 residents were randomised. Participants were care home residents, aged ≥65 years, taking at least one prescribed drug, recruited to 20 residents/triad.InterventionEach pharmacy independent prescriber provided pharmaceutical care to approximately 20 residents across one to three care homes, with weekly visits over six months. Pharmacy independent prescribers developed a pharmaceutical care plan for each resident, did medicines reviews/reconciliation, trained staff, and supported with medicines related procedures, deprescribing, and authorisation of prescriptions. Participants in the control group received usual care.Main outcomes measuresThe primary outcome was fall rate/person at six months analysed by intention to treat, adjusted for prognostic variables. Secondary outcomes included quality of life (EQ-5D by proxy), Barthel score, Drug Burden Index, hospital admissions, and mortality. Assuming a 21% reduction in falls, 880 residents were needed, allowing for 20% attrition.ResultsThe average age of participants at study entry was 85 years; 70% were female. 697 falls (1.55 per resident) were recorded in the intervention group and 538 falls (1.26 per resident) in the control group at six months. The fall rate risk ratio for the intervention group compared with the control group was not significant (0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.26) after adjustment for all model covariates. Secondary outcomes were not significantly different between groups, with exception of the Drug Burden Index, which significantly favoured the intervention. A third (185/566; 32.7%) of pharmacy independent prescriber interventions involved medicines associated with falls. No adverse events or safety concerns were identified.ConclusionsChange in the primary outcome of falls was not significant. Limiting follow-up to six months combined with a small proportion of interventions predicted to affect falls may explain this. A significant reduction in the Drug Burden Index was realised and would be predicted to yield future clinical benefits for patients. This large trial of an intensive weekly pharmacist intervention with care home residents was also found to be safe and well received.Trial registrationISRCTN 17847169.

Project description:ObjectivesNormal saline (NS) and Ringer's lactate (RL) are the most common crystalloids used for fluid therapy. Despite evidence of possible harm associated with NS (eg, hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis, impaired kidney function and death), few large multi-centre randomised trials have evaluated the effect of these fluids on clinically important outcomes. We conducted a pilot trial to explore the feasibility of a large trial powered for clinically important outcomes.DesignFLUID was a pragmatic pilot cluster randomised cross-over trial.SettingFour hospitals in the province of Ontario, Canada PARTICIPANTS: All hospitalised adult and paediatric patients with an incident admission to the hospital over the course of each study period.InterventionsA hospital wide policy/strategy which stocked either NS or RL throughout the hospital for 12 weeks before crossing over to the alternate fluid for the subsequent 12 weeks.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary feasibility outcome was study fluid protocol adherence. Secondary feasibility outcomes included time to Research Ethics Board (REB) approval and trial initiation. Primary (composite of death or re-admission to hospital in first 90 days of index hospitalisation) and secondary clinical outcomes were analysed descriptively.ResultsAmong 24 905 included patients, mean age 59.1 (SD 20.5); 13 977 (56.1%) were female and 21 150 (85.0%) had medical or surgical admitting diagnoses. Overall, 96 821 L were administered in the NS arm, and 78 348 L in the RL arm. Study fluid adherence to NS and RL was 93.7% (site range: 91.6%-98.0%) and 79.8% (site range: 72.5%-83.9%), respectively. Time to REB approval ranged from 2 to 48 days and readiness for trial initiation from 51 to 331 days. 5544 (22.3%) patients died or required hospital re-admission in the first 90 days.ConclusionsThe future large trial is feasible. Anticipating and addressing logistical challenges during the planning stages will be imperative.Trial registration numberNCT02721485.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the impact of a multicomponent intervention (Stand More AT (SMArT) Work) designed to reduce sitting time on short (three months), medium (six months), and longer term (12 months) changes in occupational, daily, and prolonged sitting, standing, and physical activity, and physical, psychological, and work related health.DesignCluster two arm randomised controlled trial.SettingNational Health Service trust, England.Participants37 office clusters (146 participants) of desk based workers: 19 clusters (77 participants) were randomised to the intervention and 18 (69 participants) to control.InterventionsThe intervention group received a height adjustable workstation, a brief seminar with supporting leaflet, workstation instructions with sitting and standing targets, feedback on sitting and physical activity at three time points, posters, action planning and goal setting booklet, self monitoring and prompt tool, and coaching sessions (month 1 and every three months thereafter). The control group continued with usual practice.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was occupational sitting time (thigh worn accelerometer). Secondary outcomes were objectively measured daily sitting, prolonged sitting (?30 minutes), and standing time, physical activity, musculoskeletal problems, self reported work related health (job performance, job satisfaction, work engagement, occupational fatigue, sickness presenteeism, and sickness absenteeism), cognitive function, and self reported psychological measures (mood and affective states, quality of life) assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months. Data were analysed using generalised estimating equation models, accounting for clustering.ResultsA significant difference between groups (in favour of the intervention group) was found in occupational sitting time at 12 months (-83.28 min/workday, 95% confidence interval -116.57 to -49.98, P=0.001). Differences between groups (in favour of the intervention group compared with control) were observed for occupational sitting time at three months (-50.62 min/workday, -78.71 to -22.54, P<0.001) and six months (-64.40 min/workday, -97.31 to -31.50, P<0.001) and daily sitting time at six months (-59.32 min/day, -88.40 to -30.25, P<0.001) and 12 months (-82.39 min/day, -114.54 to -50.26, P=0.001). Group differences (in favour of the intervention group compared with control) were found for prolonged sitting time, standing time, job performance, work engagement, occupational fatigue, sickness presenteeism, daily anxiety, and quality of life. No differences were seen for sickness absenteeism.ConclusionsSMArT Work successfully reduced sitting time over the short, medium, and longer term, and positive changes were observed in work related and psychological health.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN10967042.