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

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 Person's 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.

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 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 People's 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.

Prescription and transcription errors in multidose-dispensed medications on discharge from hospital: an observational and interventional study.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors frequently occur when patients are transferred between health care settings. The main objective of this study was to investigate the frequency, type and severity of prescribing and transcribing errors for drugs dispensed in multidose plastic packs when patients are discharged from the hospital. The secondary objective was to correct identified errors and suggest measures to promote safe prescribing. METHODS: The drugs on the patients' multidose drug dispensing (MDD) order sheets and the medication administration records were reconciled prior to the MDD orders being sent to the pharmacy for dispensing. Discrepancies were recorded and the prescribing physician was notified and given the opportunity to change the order. Discrepancies categorized as unintentional and related to the discharge process were subject to further analysis. RESULTS: Seventy-two (25%) of the 290 reviewed MDD orders had at least one discharge error. In total, 120 discharge errors were identified, of which 49 (41%) were assessed as being of moderate and three (3%) of major severity. Orders with a higher number of medications and orders from the orthopaedic wards had a significantly higher error rate. CONCLUSION: The main purpose of the MDD system is to increase patient safety by reducing medication errors. However, this study shows that prescribing and transcribing errors frequently occur when patients are hospitalized. Because the population enrolled in the MDD system is an elderly, physically vulnerable group with a high number of prescribed drugs, preventive measures to ensure safe prescribing of MDD drugs are warranted.

Effects of pharmacists' interventions on appropriateness of prescribing and evaluation of the instruments' (MAI, STOPP and STARTs') ability to predict hospitalization--analyses from a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Appropriateness of prescribing can be assessed by various measures and screening instruments. The aims of this study were to investigate the effects of pharmacists' interventions on appropriateness of prescribing in elderly patients, and to explore the relationship between these results and hospital care utilization during a 12-month follow-up period. METHODS: The study population from a previous randomized controlled study, in which the effects of a comprehensive pharmacist intervention on re-hospitalization was investigated, was used. The criteria from the instruments MAI, STOPP and START were applied retrospectively to the 368 study patients (intervention group (I) n = 182, control group (C) n = 186). The assessments were done on admission and at discharge to detect differences over time and between the groups. Hospital care consumption was recorded and the association between scores for appropriateness, and hospitalization was analysed. RESULTS: The number of Potentially Inappropriate Medicines (PIMs) per patient as identified by STOPP was reduced for I but not for C (1.42 to 0.93 vs. 1.46 to 1.66 respectively, p<0.01). The number of Potential Prescription Omissions (PPOs) per patient as identified by START was reduced for I but not for C (0.36 to 0.09 vs. 0.42 to 0.45 respectively, p<0.001). The summated score for MAI was reduced for I but not for C (8.5 to 5.0 and 8.7 to 10.0 respectively, p<0.001). There was a positive association between scores for MAI and STOPP and drug-related readmissions (RR 8-9% and 30-34% respectively). No association was detected between the scores of the tools and total re-visits to hospital. CONCLUSION: The interventions significantly improved the appropriateness of prescribing for patients in the intervention group as evaluated by the instruments MAI, STOPP and START. High scores in MAI and STOPP were associated with a higher number of drug-related readmissions.

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 $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.