Application of the GheOP3S-tool in nursing home residents: acceptance and implementation of pharmacist recommendations.

Background and objective: The prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) among nursing home (NH) residents is high. This study aimed to investigate the acceptance and implementation of pharmacist recommendations based on a screening tool for PIP, the Ghent Older People's Prescriptions community Pharmacy Screening (GheOP3S)-tool. Setting and method: Prospective observational study in NH residents (≥ 70 years, using ≥ 5 medications) with a 3-month follow-up period. A pharmacist screened the medication lists using the GheOP3S-tool and formulated recommendations to reduce PIP. The acceptance of recommendations discussed during face-to-face pharmacist-general practitioner (GP) meetings was recorded. Implementation was examined by comparing baseline and follow-up medication lists. A pre-post comparison of the number of chronic medications and GheOP3S-criteria; the anticholinergic and sedative burden quantified by the Drug Burden Index (DBI); and medication costs was performed. Results: Screening with the GheOP3S-tool resulted in 168 pharmacist recommendations for 50 NH residents, mainly to stop (78.0%) and to substitute (14.3%) medications. Ninety-three % (156/168) of recommendations were considered relevant. GPs acceptance rate was 44.9%. Fifty-four % of all accepted recommendations were implemented. At follow-up, the number of chronic medications (p = 0.007), and DBI scores (p = 0.004) significantly differed from baseline. There was no significant decrease in the number of GheOP3S-criteria (p = 0.075) and medication costs (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The acceptance and implementation of pharmacist recommendations were relatively low. Future studies should increase the involvement of patients and all health-care providers. Interdisciplinary collaboration with sufficient education for all disciplines and patients is essential.

A shared medication scheme for community dwelling older patients with polypharmacy receiving home health care: role of the community pharmacist.

Background and objective: An accurate medication scheme may be a useful tool to improve medication safety in primary care. This study aimed to identify (1) pharmacists' alterations to nurse medication schemes and (2) potential improvements to the contribution of the community pharmacist to a shared medication scheme within a multidisciplinary collaboration. Dosing frequency, potentially incorrect moments of intake, drug-drug interactions and medication complexity (quantified by the Medication Regimen Complexity Index, MRCI) were investigated. Setting and method: Observational study in community dwelling older patients (≥70 years) with polypharmacy receiving home health care (i.e. medications being prepared and/or administered by home care nurses). Home care nurses provided the community pharmacist with the original medication scheme ('nurse medication scheme'), subsequently the community pharmacist generated a standardized 'pharmacist medication scheme' which was uploaded on an electronic health platform (Vitalink). The researcher recorded all pharmacists' alterations and looked for possible additional improvements ('researcher medication scheme'). Results: Pharmacists made 482 alterations to the nurse medication schemes of 31 patients. Most important alterations included adding indication (61%), generic or brand name (18%) and moment of intake (9%). Pharmacists did not reduce dosing frequency. MRCI scores (median [IQR]) significantly differed between pharmacist (38 [15]) and nurse medication schemes (32 [11]) (p < 0.001) and between nurse (32 [11]) and researcher medication schemes (40 [15]) (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Alterations made by the community pharmacists enable more complete and accurate medication schemes; however, there is room for improvement in optimizing the patient's medication scheme in a multidisciplinary collaboration.

The Introduction of a Full Medication Review Process in a Local Hospital: Successes and Barriers of a Pilot Project in the Geriatric Ward.

For the majority of Belgian hospitals, a pharmacist-led full medication review process is not standard care and, therefore, challenging to introduce. With this study, we aimed to evaluate the successes and barriers of the implementation of a pharmacist-led full medication review process in the geriatric ward at a local Belgian hospital. To this end, we carried out an interventional study, performing a full medication review on older patients (≥70 years) with polypharmacy (≥5 drugs) who had an unplanned admission to the geriatric ward. The process consisted of 3 steps: (1) medication reconciliation upon admission; (2) medication review using an explicit reviewing tool (STOPP/START criteria or GheOP³S tool), followed by a discussion between the pharmacist and the geriatrician; and (3) medication reconciliation upon discharge. Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethical Commission of the Ghent University Hospital. Outcomes included objective data on the interventions (e.g., number of drug discrepancies; number of potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIP)); as well as subjective experiences (e.g., satisfaction with service; opinion on inter-professional communication). There was a special focus on communication aspects within the introduction of this process. In total, 52 patients were included in the study, taking a median of 10 drugs (IQR 8-12). Upon admission, 122 drug discrepancies were detected. During medication review, 254 PIPs were detected and discussed, leading to an improvement in the appropriateness of medication use. The satisfaction of community pharmacists concerning additional communication and the satisfaction of the patients after counselling at discharge were positive. However, several barriers were encountered, such as the time-consuming process to gather necessary information from different sources, the non-continuity of the service due to the lack of trained personnel or the lack of safe, electronic platforms to share information. The communicative and non-communicative successes and hurdles encountered during this project need to be addressed in order to improve the full medication review process and to strengthen the role of the clinical pharmacist.

Development and Application of the GheOP3S-Tool Addendum on Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing (PIP) of Renally Excreted Active Drugs (READs) in Older Adults with Polypharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Renal function progressively worsens with age. Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) of renally excreted active drugs (READs) is common in older adults, leading to an increased rate of iatrogenic illness. The Ghent Older People's Prescription community Pharmacy Screening (GheOP3S-) tool is an effective, explicit instrument that was developed for community pharmacists (CPs) to detect PIP. So far, this tool does not assess PIP of the frequently used READs in older patients with renal impairment. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to expand the GheOP3S-tool with the first addendum to screen for PIP of frequently used READs, and to perform a cross-sectional analysis using the addendum and the medication history of a group of older adults with polypharmacy. METHODS: The addendum was developed in three steps: (1) collection of individual and combined READs, (2) collection of dose-adjustment recommendations, and (3) expert panel evaluation. Consequently, the addendum was applied retrospectively on the medication list of 60 older adults with polypharmacy and with four renal function-estimating equations. RESULTS: The addendum includes 61 READs recommendations for dose/drug-adjustment alternatives, laboratory test follow-ups, and patients' referral to specialists' care. In the cross-sectional analysis, 35-78% of patients were diagnosed with renal impairment, depending on the equations used for renal function estimation. Among patients with renal impairment, 21-46% of the prescribed READs were deemed potentially inappropriate by the GheOP3S-tool addendum. CONCLUSION: The GheOP3S-tool was expanded with an addendum on PIP of READs in renal impairment for older patients. The cross-sectional analysis using the addendum suggests that PIP of READs is common in older patients with polypharmacy and renal impairment. Using this addendum, CPs might contribute to diminishing PIP of READs.

Community pharmacists' evaluation of potentially inappropriate prescribing in older community-dwelling patients with polypharmacy: observational research based on the GheOP³S tool.

Background: In this study, we aimed to (i) determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in community-dwelling older polypharmacy patients using the Ghent Older People's Prescriptions community-Pharmacy Screening (GheOP³S) tool, (ii) identify the items that account for the highest proportion of PIP and (iii) identify the patient variables that may influence the occurrence of PIP. Additionally, pharmacist-physician contacts emerging from PIP screening with the GheOP³S tool and feasibility of the GheOP³S tool in daily practice were evaluated. Methods: A prospective observational study was carried out between December 2013 and July 2014 in 204 community pharmacies in Belgium. Patients were eligible if they were (i) ≥70 years, (ii) community-dwelling, (iii) using ≥5 chronic drugs, (iv) a regular visitor of the pharmacy and (v) understanding Dutch or French. Community pharmacists used a structured interview to obtain demographic data and medication use and subsequently screened for PIP using the GheOP³S tool. A Poisson regression was used to investigate the association between different covariates and the number of PIP. Results: In 987 (97%) of 1016 included patients, 3721 PIP items were detected (median of 3 per patient; inter quartile range: 2-5). Most frequently involved with PIP are drugs for the central nervous system such as hypnosedatives, antipsychotics and antidepressants. Risk factors for a higher PIP prevalence appeared to be a higher number of drugs (30% extra PIPs per 5 extra drugs), female gender (20% extra PIPs), higher body mass index (BMI, 20% extra PIPs per 10-unit increase in BMI) and poorer functional status (30% extra PIPs with 6-point increase). The feasibility of the GheOP³S tool was acceptable although digitalization of the tool would improve implementation. Despite detecting at least one PIP in 987 patients, only 39 physicians were contacted by the community pharmacists to discuss the items. Conclusion: A high prevalence of PIP in community-dwelling older polypharmacy patients in Belgium was detected which urges for interventions to reduce PIP.

Potentially inappropriate prescribing in nursing home residents detected with the community pharmacist specific GheOP(3)S-tool.

Background The Ghent Older People's Prescriptions community Pharmacy Screening (GheOP³S-)tool was recently developed to screen for potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP). Objective We aimed (1) to determine PIP prevalence in older nursing home (NH) residents with polypharmacy using the GheOP³S-tool and (2) to identify those PIPs that are most frequently detected. Method A cross-sectional study was carried out between February and June 2014 in 10 NHs in Belgium, supplied by a community pharmacy chain. For each NH, 40 residents (≥70 years, using ≥5 chronic drugs) were included. PIP prevalence was determined using the GheOP³S-tool. Results 400 NH residents were included [mean age (±SD) 86.2 (±6.3) years; median number of drugs (±IQR) 10 (7-12)]. A total of 1728 PIPs were detected in 387 (97 %) participants (Median 4; IQR 2-6). The most prevalent items can be assigned to three categories: long-term use of central nervous system drugs (i.e. benzodiazepines, antidepressants and antipsychotics), use of anticholinergic drugs (mutual combinations and with underlying constipation/dementia) and underuse of osteoporosis prophylaxis. Conclusion Screening for PIP by means of the GheOP³S-tool revealed a high prevalence of PIP among older NH residents with polypharmacy. This finding urges for initiatives on the patient-level, but also on a broader, institutional level.

Older patients' prescriptions screening in the community pharmacy: development of the Ghent Older People's Prescriptions community Pharmacy Screening (GheOP³S) tool.

BACKGROUND: Ageing of the population often leads to polypharmacy. Consequently, potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) becomes more frequent. Systematic screening for PIP in older patients in primary care could yield a large improvement in health outcomes, possibly an important task for community pharmacists. In this article, we develop an explicit screening tool to detect relevant PIP that can be used in the typical community pharmacy practice, adapted to the European market. METHODS: Eleven panellists participated in a two-round RAND/UCLA (Research and Development/University of California, Los Angeles) process, including a round zero meeting, a literature review, a first written evaluation round, a second face-to-face evaluation round and, finally, a selection of those items that are applicable in the contemporary community pharmacy. RESULTS: Eighteen published lists of PIP for older patients were retrieved from the literature, mentioning 398 different items. After the two-round RAND/UCLA process, 99 clinically relevant items were considered suitable to screen for in a community pharmacy practice. A panel of seven community pharmacists selected 83 items, feasible in the contemporary community pharmacy practice, defining the final GheOP³S tool. CONCLUSION: A novel explicit screening tool (GheOP³S) was developed to be used for PIP screening in the typical community pharmacy practice.

Potentially inappropriate prescribing in community-dwelling older people across Europe: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is one of the main risk factors for adverse drug events (ADEs) in older people. PURPOSE: This systematic literature review aims to determine prevalence and type of PIP in community-dwelling older people across Europe, as well as identifying risk factors for PIP. METHODS: The PubMed and Web of Science database were searched systematically for relevant manuscripts (January 1, 2000-December 31, 2014). Manuscripts were included if the study design was observational, the study participants were community-dwelling older patients in Europe, and if a published screening method for PIP was used. Studies that focused on specific pathologies or that focused on merely one inappropriate prescribing issue were excluded. Data analysis was performed using R statistics. RESULTS: Fifty-two manuscripts were included, describing 82 different sample screenings with an estimated overall PIP prevalence of 22.6 % (CI 19.2-26.7 %; range 0.0-98.0 %). Ten of the sample screenings were based on the Beers 1997 criteria, 19 on the Beers 2003 criteria, 14 on STOPP criteria (2008 version), 8 on START-criteria (2008 version), and 7 on the PRISCUS list. The 24 remaining sample screenings were carried out using compilations of screening methods or used country-specific lists such as the Laroche criteria. It appears that only PIP prevalence calculated from insurance data significantly differs from the other data collection method categories. Furthermore, risk factors most often positively associated with PIP prevalence were polypharmacy, poor functional status, and depression. Drug groups most often involved in PIP were anxiolytics (ATC-code: N05B), antidepressants (N06A), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory and anti-rheumatic products (M01A). CONCLUSION: PIP prevalence in European community-dwelling older adults is high and depends partially on the data collection method used. Polypharmacy, poor functional status, and depression were identified as the most common risk factors for PIP.

Strategies to reduce the risk of iatrogenic illness in complex older adults.

Older patients are particularly vulnerable to adverse drug reactions (ADRs) because age is associated with changes in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics that may alter drug metabolism. In addition, other conditions, commonly observed in older adults, may increase the risk of ADRs in the older population (including polypharmacy, comorbidity, cognitive and functional limitations). ADRs in older adults are frequently preventable, suggesting that screening and prevention programmes aimed at reducing the rate of iatrogenic illness are necessary in this population. The present study reviews available approaches that may be used to screen and prevent the occurrence of ADRs in older adults, including medication review, avoiding the use of potentially inappropriate medications, computer-based prescribing systems and comprehensive geriatric assessment. Available evidence on these approaches is mixed and controversial, and none of them showed a clear beneficial effect on patients' health outcomes. Limitation of these interventions is the lack of standardisation, and these differences may give reason for the variability of the results documented in randomised clinical studies. Interestingly, most of the available research is focused on a single intervention targeting either clinical or pharmacological factors causing ADRs. When these approaches are combined, positive effects on patients health outcomes can be shown, suggesting that integration of skills from different health care professionals is needed to address medical complexity of the older adults. The challenge for future research is to integrate valuable information obtained by existing instruments and methodologies in a complete and global approach targeting all potential factors involved in the onset of ADRs.