Are Lists of Potentially Inappropriate Medications Associated with Hospital Readmissions? A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Suboptimal prescribing, including the prescription of potentially inappropriate medications (PIM), is frequent in patients aged 65 years and older. PIMs are associated with adverse drug events, which may lead to hospital admissions and readmissions for the most serious cases. Several tools, known as lists of PIMs, can detect suboptimal prescription. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to identify which lists of PIMs are associated with hospital readmission of older patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for the period from 1 January 1991 up to 12 May 2022 to identify original studies assessing the association between PIMs and hospital readmissions or emergency department (ED) revisits within 30 days of discharge in older patients. This study is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 Checklist, and the risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cohort Studies (NOS) and the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). RESULTS: A total of six studies presenting four different lists of PIMs were included. Readmission rates varied from 4.3 to 25.5% and the odds ratio (OR) between PIMs and hospital readmission varied from 0.92 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59; 1.42] to 6.48 [95% CI 3.00; 14.00]. Only two studies found a statistically significant association between a list of PIMs and hospital readmission. These two studies used different tools: the Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions (STOPP) and the Screening Tool to Alert Doctors to Right Treatment (START) and a combination of Beers Criteria® and STOPP and START. CONCLUSION: This systematic review shows that the association between list of PIMs and 30-day unplanned readmissions remains unclear and seems dependent on the PIM detection tool. Further studies are needed to clarify this association. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021252107.

Safety of Elderly Fallers: Identifying Associated Risk Factors for 30-Day Unplanned Readmissions Using a Clinical Data Warehouse.

BACKGROUND: Hospital readmissions are a major problem in the older people as they are frequent, costly, and life-threatening. Falls among older adults are the leading cause of injury, deaths, and emergency department visits for trauma. OBJECTIVE: The main objective was to determine risk factors associated with a 30-day readmission after index hospital admission for fall-related injuries. METHODS: A retrospective nested case-control study was conducted. Data from elderly patients initially hospitalized for fall-related injuries in 2019, in 11 of the Greater Paris University Hospitals and discharged home, were retrieved from the clinical data warehouse. Cases were admission of elderly patients who subsequently experienced a readmission within 30 days after discharge from the index admission. Controls were admission of elderly patients who were not readmitted to hospital. RESULTS: Among 670 eligible index admissions, 127 (18.9%) were followed by readmission within 30 days after discharge. After multivariate analysis, men sex (odds ratio [OR] = 2.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.45-3.61), abnormal concentration of C-reactive protein, and anemia (OR = 2.22, 95% CI = 1.28-3.85; OR = 1.85, 95% CI = 1.11-3.11, respectively) were associated with a higher risk of readmission. Oppositely, having a traumatic injury at index admission decreased this risk (OR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.28-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Reducing early unplanned readmission is crucial, especially in elderly patients susceptible to falls. Our results indicate that the probability of unplanned readmission is higher for patients with specific characteristics that should be taken into consideration in interventions designed to reduce this burden.

Which Potentially Inappropriate Medications List Can Detect Patients At Risk of Readmissions in the Older Adult Population Admitted for Falls? An Observational Multicentre Study Using a Clinical Data Warehouse.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Hospital readmissions are common in the older adult population and potentially inappropriate medications are known to be involved in these readmissions. Several lists of potentially inappropriate medications have been published in diverse countries in order to adapt the lists to local specificities. Among them, the Beers Criteria® were first published in 1991 in the USA, followed by the French Laroche list, the Norwegian NORGEP criteria, the German PRISCUS list, the Austrian consensus panel list and the European list, EU-7. The main objective was to detect which potentially inappropriate medications list can better detect hospital readmissions within 30 days in the older adult population hospitalised for fall-related injuries. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, observational, retrospective cohort study. Data from older patients initially hospitalised for falls in 2019 and discharged home were retrieved from the Clinical Data Warehouse. Exposure to potentially inappropriate medications was classified according to the six lists mentioned above. The local ethics committee approved the study protocol (number CER-2020-79). RESULTS: After adjustments using propensity score matching, taking a potentially inappropriate medication as per the Laroche and PRISCUS lists was associated with a 30-day hospital readmission with an odds ratio of 1.58 (95% confidence interval 1.06-2.37) and 1.68 (95% confidence interval 1.13-2.50), respectively, while the other four studied lists showed no associations with readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: Our study evidenced that not all lists published allow the accurate prediction of hospital readmissions to the same extent. We found that the Laroche and PRISCUS lists were associated with increased 30-day all-cause hospital readmissions after an index admission with a fall-related injury.

Readmissions of Elder Patients Presenting to Hospital for a Fall (RELIEF): A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Falls are an important issue in older adults as they are frequent, deleterious, and often lead to repeated consultations at the emergency department (ED) and unplanned hospitalizations. Our principal objective was to provide an inventory of interventions designed to prevent unplanned readmissions or ED visits of older patients presenting to hospital with a fall. DESIGN: Systematic review performed on February 11, 2019 in MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science, without date or language restriction. We manually updated this search in August 1, 2019. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by 2 reviewers. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We included studies reporting interventions to prevent unplanned readmissions or ED visits of older patients (aged 65 years or over) presenting to hospital because of a fall. RESULTS: We identified 475 unique citations after removing duplicates and included 6 studies (2 observational and 4 interventional studies). The studies were published between 2012 and 2019; they evaluated heterogeneous interventions that were frequently multifaceted and multidisciplinary. The interventions were shown effective in reducing readmissions or ED revisits compared with control groups in 3 studies (relative risk reductions between 30% and 65%), all of which were multifaceted and 2/3 multidisciplinary. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: With 6 articles showing inconsistent results, our study highlights the need to adequately design and evaluate interventions to reduce the burden of hospital readmissions among older fallers. Retrieved studies are recent, which underlines that hospital readmissions are a current concern for researchers and public health authorities [PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019131965].

Burden of Inappropriate Prescription of Direct Oral Anticoagulants at Hospital Admission and Discharge in the Elderly: A Prospective Observational Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were developed to overcome some of the limitations associated with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), such as interindividual variability or the need for therapeutic drug monitoring. However, the complexity of DOAC dose regimens can still lead to dosing errors and potential bleeding-related or thromboembolic adverse events, especially in the elderly. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the rate of inappropriate preadmission DOAC prescriptions at hospital and to evaluate the ability of hospitals to correct them. METHODS: An observational prospective study was conducted in elderly patients (aged ≥ 65 years) hospitalized in six acute units of three Parisian university hospitals between February and July 2018. DOAC prescriptions prior to admission and at discharge were analyzed according to the guidelines in the summaries of product characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 157 patients were included in the study, with a median age of 84 years (interquartile range [IQR] 77-89). The median glomerular filtration rate, determined with the Cockcroft-Gault equation, was 48 mL/min (IQR 35-61). Apixaban was the most frequently prescribed drug, mainly for atrial fibrillation. Overall, 48 (30.6%) and 34 (22.4%) prescriptions were inappropriate prior to admission and at discharge, respectively, showing a significant decrease (p < 0.001). Hospitals significantly corrected more inappropriate prescriptions (37.5%) than they generated (4.6%) (p < 0.05). The nature of the inappropriate prescribing was underdosing (68.8% and 76.5% prior to admission and at discharge, respectively), followed by overdosing (stable rate at almost 20%) and indication errors. No risk factors for inappropriate use were identified by our analysis. CONCLUSION: One-third of DOAC preadmission prescriptions for elderly patients were inappropriate, indicating that a need remains to strengthen DOAC prescribing guidelines in ambulatory clinical practice. However, the rate of inappropriate prescriptions decreased at patient discharge. Future studies are needed to test actions to promote the proper use of DOACs.

Risk scores identifying elderly inpatients at risk of 30-day unplanned readmission and accident and emergency department visit: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to describe and analyse the performance statistics of validated risk scores identifying elderly inpatients at risk of early unplanned readmission. DATA SOURCES: We identified potentially eligible studies by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE and Web of Science. Our search was restricted to original studies, between 1966 and 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Original studies, which internally or externally validated the clinical scores of hospital readmissions in elderly inpatients. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: A data extraction grid based on Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology and Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis statements was developed and completed by two reviewers to collect general data. The same process was used to extract metrological data of the selected scores. QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF THE INCLUDED STUDIES: Assessment of the quality and risk of bias in individual studies was performed by two reviewers, using the validated Effective Public Health Practice Project quality assessment tool. PARTICIPANTS: Elderly inpatients discharged to home from hospital or returning home after an accident and emergency department visit. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies and five different scores were included in the review. The five scores present area under the receiving operating characteristic curve between 0.445 and 0.69. Identification of Senior At Risk (ISAR) and Triage Risk Screening Tool (TRST) scores were the more frequently validated scores with ISAR being more sensitive and TRST more specific. CONCLUSIONS: The TRST and ISAR scores have been extensively studied and validated. The choice of the most suitable score relies on available patient data, patient characteristics and the foreseen clinical care intervention. In order to pair the intervention with the appropriate clinical score, further studies of external validation of clinical scores, identifying elderly patients at risk of early unplanned readmission, are needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017054516.

External validation of the 80+ score and comparison with three clinical scores identifying patients at least 75 years old at risk of unplanned readmission within 30 days after discharge.

AIM OF THE STUDY: A potentially avoidable readmission is an unplanned readmission occurring within 30 days of discharge. As 20% of hospitalised elderly patients are rehospitalised as an unplanned readmission, it is necessary to identify with a clinical score those patients who are at risk of readmission and need discharge interventions as a priority. The main objective of this study was to externally validate and compare the 80+ score with the three other scores predicting the risk of unplanned readmission. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective case-control study using a clinical data warehouse. The study included patients hospitalised between 1 September 2014 and 31 October 2015 in an 800-bed university hospital. We included patients aged 75 and over. Cases were readmitted at the emergency department within 30 days after the index discharge. Controls were not readmitted as an emergency within 30 days. Four clinical scores (80+ score, LACE index, HOSPITAL score, TRST) were externally validated. Discrimination of the scores was assessed by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC). Calibration was assessed with a Hosmer-Lemeshow χ2 test. RESULTS: We included 438 patients. For discrimination, the 80+ score, the LACE index, the HOSPITAL score and the TRST had AUCs of 0.506 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.413-0.546), 0.534 (95% CI 0.459-0.591, 0.517 (95% CI 0.466-0.598) and 0.589 (95% CI 0.524-0.654), respectively. The Hosmer-Lemeshow χ2 tests had p-values of 0.44, 0.43, 0.11 and 0.49, respectively. CONCLUSION: In our study, the 80+ score was externally validated and showed less favourable discrimination than the three other scores in this population.