The role of medication advisory committees in residential aged care services.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing international interest in initiatives to reduce medication-related harm and preventable hospitalizations in residential aged care services (RACS). The Australian Government recommends that RACS establish multidisciplinary Medication Advisory Committees (MACs). No previous research has specifically investigated the structures and functioning of MACs. OBJECTIVES: To explore the current structures and functioning of MACs, and identify opportunities for MACs to better promote safe and effective medication use. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with a maximum variation sample of health professionals (n = 44) across four health services operating across 27 RACS in rural and regional Victoria, Australia. Qualitative data were analyzed using deductive and inductive content analyses. Results were presented to a multidisciplinary expert panel (n = 13) to identify opportunities for improvement. RESULTS: Deductively coded themes included composition and functioning of the MAC, education and information needs and support to better manage polypharmacy. Emergent inductively coded themes included general medical practitioner (GP) and pharmacist engagement, collaboration and effectiveness. Participation by GPs and pharmacists was variable, while no MACs involved residents or family carers. Aged care specific and multidisciplinary MACs were generally more proactive in addressing potential medication-related harm. Education to identify and report adverse drug events with high risk medications was identified as a priority. The multidisciplinary panel made 12 recommendations to promote safe and effective medication use. CONCLUSION: Despite all MACs having a strong commitment to medication safety, opportunities exist to improve the composition and structure, proactive identification and response to emerging issues, and systems for staff, resident and family carer training.

Prevalence, Safety, and Effectiveness of Oral Anticoagulant Use in People with and without Dementia or Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Differences in management and outcomes of oral anticoagulant (OAC) use may exist for people with and without dementia or cognitive impairment (CI). OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the prevalence and safety and effectiveness outcomes of OAC use in people with and without dementia or CI. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched for studies reporting prevalence or safety and effectiveness outcomes of OAC use for people with and without dementia, published between 2000 to September 2017. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed by two reviewers. RESULTS: studies met pre-specified inclusion criteria (21 prevalence studies, 6 outcomes studies). People with dementia had 52% lower odds of receiving OAC compared to people without dementia. Mean OAC prevalence was 32% for people with dementia, compared to 48% without dementia. There was no difference in the composite outcome of embolic events, myocardial infarction, and all-cause death between dementia and non-dementia groups (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.72, 95% CI, 0.45-1.14, p = 0.155). Bleeding rate was lower for people without dementia (HR 0.56, 95% CI, 0.37-0.85). Adverse warfarin events were more common for residents of long-term care with dementia (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.48, 95% CI, 1.20-1.82). Community-dwelling people with dementia treated with warfarin had poorer anticoagulation control than those without dementia (mean time in therapeutic range (TTR) % ±SD, 38±26 (dementia), 61±27 (no dementia), p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: A lower proportion of people with dementia received oral anticoagulation compared with people without dementia. People with dementia had higher bleeding risk and poorer anticoagulation control when treated with warfarin.

Demographic, clinical and lifestyle factors associated with high-intensity statin therapy in Australia: the AusDiab study.

PURPOSE: Clinical guidelines specify who should receive high-intensity statins; however, it is unclear how high-intensity statins are used in Australia. Our objective was to determine the demographic, clinical, and lifestyle factors associated with high-intensity statin therapy in Australia. METHODS: Data from the Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle study collected in 2011-2012 were analyzed. High-, moderate-, and low-intensity statins were defined as use of statins at doses demonstrated to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels by > 50, 30-50, and < 30%, respectively. Logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odd ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for factors associated with high- versus low-to-moderate-intensity statin therapy. RESULTS: Overall, 1108 (24%) study participants used a statin. Data on statin intensity were available for 1072 participants. The proportions of high-, moderate-, and low-intensity statin therapy were 32 (n = 341), 65 (n = 696), and 3% (n = 35), respectively. Overall, 51% of people with prior cardiovascular disease (CVD) used a high-intensity statin. In addition to prior CVD (OR = 3.34, 95% CI = 1.95-5.73), no (OR = 1.84, 95%CI 1.02-3.31) or insufficient physical activity (OR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.01-2.25), obesity (OR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.13-3.10), and consuming > 2 alcoholic drinks daily (OR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.08-2.55) were associated with high versus low-to-moderate-intensity statin therapy. Conversely, age 65-74 vs. < 65 years was inversely associated with high-intensity statin therapy (OR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.41-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Prior CVD was the strongest factor associated with high-intensity statin therapy. Although the prevalence of CVD increases with age, older people were less likely to be treated with high-intensity statins.

Frequency of and factors related to pro re nata (PRN) medication use in aged care services.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the contribution of 'pro re nata' (PRN) medications to overall medication burden in residential aged care services (RACS). OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency of, and factors associated with PRN medication administration in RACS. MEASUREMENTS: Details of all medications charted for regular or PRN use were extracted from medication charts for 383 residents of 6 Australian RACS. Records of medications administered over a 7 day period were also extracted. Factors associated with PRN medication administration among residents charted ≥1 PRN were determined using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 360 (94%) residents charted ≥1 PRN medication, 99 (28%) were administered PRN medication at least once. The most prevalent PRN medications were analgesics and laxatives. Residents with greater dependence with activities of daily living (ADL) (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) per additional point on Katz ADL scale: 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72-0.89; p < 0.001) and a greater number of regular medications (aOR per additional medication: 1.06; 95% CI 1.00-1.13; p = 0.042) were more likely to be administered PRN medication. CONCLUSIONS: Although most residents are charted PRN medications, rates of administration are relatively low, suggesting the contribution of PRNs to medication burden in RACS may be lower than previously thought.

Medication Use and Fall-Related Hospital Admissions from Long-Term Care Facilities: A Hospital-Based Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: Falls are a leading cause of preventable hospitalizations from long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Polypharmacy and falls-risk medications are potentially modifiable risk factors for falling. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated whether polypharmacy and falls-risk medications are associated with fall-related hospital admissions from LTCFs compared with hospital admissions for other causes. METHODS: This was a hospital-based, case-control study of patients aged ≥65 years hospitalized from LTCFs. Cases were patients with falls and fall-related injuries, and controls were patients admitted for infections. Conditional logistic regression was used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations between polypharmacy (defined as the use of nine or more regular pre-admission medications) and falls-risk medications (categorized as psychotropic medications and those that can cause orthostatic hypotension) with fall-related hospital admissions. RESULTS: There was no association between polypharmacy and fall-related hospital admissions (adjusted OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63-1.48); however, the adjusted odds of fall-related hospital admissions increased by 16% (95% CI 3-30%) for each additional falls-risk medication. Medications that can cause orthostatic hypotension (adjusted OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06-1.46), but not psychotropic falls-risk medications (adjusted OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88-1.18) were associated with fall-related hospital admissions. The association between medications that can cause orthostatic hypotension and fall-related hospital admissions was strongest among residents with polypharmacy (adjusted OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.08-1.92). CONCLUSION: Polypharmacy was not an independent risk factor for fall-related hospital admissions; however, medications that can cause orthostatic hypotension were associated with fall-related hospital admissions, particularly among residents with polypharmacy. Falls-risk should be considered when prescribing medications that can cause orthostatic hypotension.

Do statin users adhere to a healthy diet and lifestyle? The Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study.

Background Lifestyle and dietary advice typically precedes or accompanies the prescription of statin medications. However, evidence for adherence to this advice is sparse. The objective was to compare saturated fat intake, exercise, alcohol consumption and smoking between statin users and non-users in Australia. Methods Data were analysed for 4614 participants aged ≥37 years in the Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle study in 2011-2012. Statin use, smoking status and physical activity were self-reported. Saturated fat and alcohol intake were measured via a food frequency questionnaire. Multinomial logistic regression was used to compute adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations between statin use and the four lifestyle factors. All models were adjusted for age, sex, education, number of general practitioner visits, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes and prior cardiovascular diseases. Results In total 1108 (24%) participants used a statin. Statin users were 29% less likely to be within the highest quartile versus the lowest quartile of daily saturated fat intake compared to non-users (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54-0.94). There were no statistically significant associations between statin use and smoking, physical activity or alcohol consumption. Conclusions Smoking status, alcohol consumption and exercise level did not differ between users and non-users of statins. However, statin users were less likely to consume high levels of saturated fat than non-users. We found no evidence that people took statins to compensate for a poor diet or lifestyle.

Pharmacist-led medication review in community settings: An overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacist-led medication review is a collaborative service which aims to identify and resolve medication-related problems. OBJECTIVE: To critically evaluate published systematic reviews relevant to pharmacist-led medication reviews in community settings. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) were searched from 1995 to December 2015. Systematic reviews of all study designs and outcomes were considered. Methodological quality was assessed using the 11-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Systematic reviews of moderate or high quality (AMSTAR ≥ 4) were included in the data synthesis. Data extraction and quality assessment was performed independently by two investigators. RESULTS: Of the 35 relevant systematic reviews identified, 24 were of moderate and seven of high quality and were included in the data synthesis. The largest overall numbers of unique primary research studies with favorable outcomes were for diabetes control (78% of studies reporting the outcome), blood pressure control (74%), cholesterol (63%), medication adherence (56%) and medication management (47%). Significant reductions in medication and/or healthcare costs were reported in 35% of primary research studies. Meta-analysis was performed in 12 systematic reviews. Results from the meta-analyses suggested positive impacts on glycosylated hemoglobin, blood pressure, cholesterol, and number and appropriateness of medications. Conflicting findings were reported in relation to hospitalization. No meta-analyses reported reduced mortality. CONCLUSION: Moderate and high quality systematic reviews support the value of pharmacist-led medication review for a range of clinical outcomes. Further research including more rigorous cost analyses are required to determine the impact of pharmacist-led medication reviews on humanistic and economic outcomes. Future systematic reviews should consider the inclusion of both qualitative and quantitative studies to comprehensively evaluate medication review.