Implementation of a medicine management plan (MMP) to reduce medication-related harm (MRH) in older people post-hospital discharge: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Medication-related harm (MRH) is an escalating global challenge especially among older adults. The period following hospital discharge carries high-risk for MRH due to medication discrepancies, limited patient/carer education and support, and poor communication between hospital and community professionals. Discharge Medical Service (DMS), a newly introduced NHS scheme, aims to reduce post-discharge MRH through an electronic communication between hospital and community pharmacists. Our study team has previously developed a risk-prediction tool (RPT) for MRH in the 8-weeks period post discharge from a UK hospital cohort of 1280 patients. In this study, we aim to find out if a Medicines Management Plan (MMP) linked to the DMS is more effective than the DMS alone in reducing rates of MRH. METHOD: Using a randomized control trial design, 682 older adults ≥ 65 years due to be discharged from hospital will be recruited from 4 sites. Participants will be randomized to an intervention arm (individualised medicine management plan (MMP) plus DMS) or a control arm (DMS only) using a 1:1 ratio stratification. Baseline data will include patients' clinical and social demographics, and admission and discharge medications. At 8-weeks post-discharge, a telephone interview and review of GP records by the study pharmacist will verify MRH in both arms. An economic and process evaluation will assess the cost and acceptability of the study methods. DATA ANALYSIS: Univariate analysis will be done for baseline variables comparing the intervention and control arms. A multivariate logistic regression will be done incorporating these variables. Economic evaluation will compare the cost-of-service use among the study arms and modelled to provide national estimates. Qualitative data from focus-group interviews will explore practitioners' understanding, and acceptance of the MMP, DMS and the RPT. CONCLUSION: This study will inform the use of an objective, validated RPT for MRH among older adults after hospital discharge, and provide a clinical, economic, and service evaluation of a specific medicines management plan alongside the DMS in the National Health Service (UK).

Protocol for a Prospective (P) study to develop a model to stratify the risk (RI) of medication (M) related harm in hospitalized elderly (E) patients in the UK (The PRIME study).

BACKGROUND: Medication related harm (MRH) is a common cause of morbidity and hospital admission in the elderly, and has significant cost implications for both primary and secondary healthcare resources. The development of risk prediction models has become an increasingly common phenomenon in medicine and can be useful to guide objective clinical decision making, resource allocation and intervention. There are no risk prediction models that are widely used in clinical practice to identify elderly patients at high risk of MRH following hospital discharge. The aim of this study is to develop a risk prediction model (RPM) to identify elderly patients at high risk of MRH upon discharge from hospital, and to compare this with routine clinical judgment. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multi-centre, prospective observational study following a cohort of patients for 8 weeks after hospital discharge. Data collection including patient characteristics, medication use, social factors and frailty will take place prior to patient discharge and then the patient will be followed up in the community over the next 8 weeks to determine if they have experienced MRH. Research pharmacists will determine whether patients have experienced MRH by prospectively reviewing records for unplanned emergency department attendance, hospital readmission and GP consultation related to MRH. Research pharmacists will also telephone patients directly to determine self-reported MRH, which patients may not have sought further medical attention for. The data collected will inform the development of a RPM which will be externally validated in a follow-up study. DISCUSSION: There are no RPMs that are used in clinical practice to help stratify elderly patients at high risk of MRH in the community following hospital discharge, despite this being a significant public health problem. This study plans to develop a clinically useful RPM that is better than routine clinical judgment. As this is a multi-centre study involving clinical settings that serve elderly people of heterogeneous sociodemographic background, it is anticipated that this RPM will be generalizable.

An analysis of medicine costs of adult patients on a critical care unit.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the costs of medicines used to treat critically ill patients in an intensive care environment and to correlate this with severity of illness and mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted at a London Teaching Hospital Critical Care Unit. Data were collected for patients who were either discharged or died during September 2011 and stayed longer than 48 hours. The drug cost was related to 150 drugs that were then related to patient's acuity and outcome. RESULTS: The median daily drug cost of the 85 patients was £26. The highest cost patients in the 85th percentile had significantly higher daily drug costs (median, £403) and higher scores for patient acuity. Patients with hematologic malignancy had a median daily drug cost (£561) more than 20 times higher than those without. A regression analysis based on patient's diversity explained 93% of the variance in the daily drug cost. CONCLUSIONS: Although the median daily drug cost for an adult critically ill patient was low, this cost significantly escalated with patient acuity and hematologic malignancy. A reference method has been designed for an in-depth evaluation of daily drug cost that could be used to compare expenditure in other units.

Early experiences of the mini-PAT (Peer Assessment Tool) amongst hospital pharmacists in south east London.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to describe early experience of use of the mini-PAT (Peer Assessment Tool) amongst general-level pharmacists working in secondary care, and to capture their views about the method of assessment. METHODS: General-level pharmacists who had completed two rounds of the mini-PAT assessment in their first year post-qualification were asked to complete a semi-structured questionnaire, assessing the usefulness and acceptability of the assessment method. KEY FINDINGS: The pharmacists found the assessment method useful and acceptable, with many citing that they found it useful to see how they were doing in relation to their peers. To further improve the assessment method, the general-level pharmacists suggested that any verbatim comments made should have the relevant assessor's name next to it, so the context of the comment can be understood. CONCLUSIONS: Early experience suggests that the mini-PAT is a useful formative assessment tool for use amongst GLPs.