Potential costs and consequences associated with medication error at hospital discharge: an expert judgement study.

OBJECTIVES: Assessing the cost-effectiveness of complex pharmaceutical care interventions and medication error outcomes is hindered by lack of available data on actual outcomes consequent to errors that were intercepted for patient safety reasons. Expert judgement is an approach to acquire data regarding unknown parameters in an economic model which are otherwise insufficient or not possible to obtain. The aim of this paper is to describe a method to approach this problem using findings from a single intervention study and to calculate the potential costs and consequences associated with discharge medication error. METHODS: Using data from a previous intervention study, the hypothetical consequences of medication error(s) at hospital discharge, in terms of diagnosis, healthcare resource utilisation and impact on health-related quality of life, were identified by expert judgement of anonymised cases. Primary healthcare utilisation costs were derived from published tariffs, inpatient costs were derived by simulation in the hospital discharge activity database test environment and the difference between adjudicated baseline and posterror health state was expressed as quality-adjusted life year (QALY) decrement. RESULTS: Four experts provided judgement on 81 cases. Of these, 75 were judged to have potential clinical consequences. Between 56 and 69 of the 81 cases were variably judged to require remedial healthcare utilisation. The mean calculated cost per case (representing an individual patient), based on all 81 cases, was €1009.58, 95% CI 726.64 to 1585.67. The mean QALY loss was 0.03 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.05). CONCLUSION: An expert judgement process proved feasible and useful to estimate financial cost and QALY loss associated with hospital discharge medication error. These estimates will be employed in model-based economic evaluation. This method could be transferred to other prospective observational patient safety research which seeks to assess value for money of complex interventions.

Cost outcomes of potentially inappropriate prescribing in middle-aged adults: A Delphi consensus and cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is common in older adults and is associated with increased medication costs and costs of associated adverse drug events. PIP also affects almost 1/5 of middle-aged adults (45-64 y), as defined by the PRescribing Optimally in Middle-aged People's Treatments (PROMPT) criteria. However, there has been little research on PIP medication costs within this age group. AIMS: Calculate the medication costs of PIP for middle-aged adults according to the 22 PROMPT criteria and compare with the cost of consensus-validated, evidence-based (adequate) alternative prescribing scenarios. METHODS: Adequate alternatives to the 22 PROMPT criteria were created via literature review. A Delphi consensus panel of experts was recruited (n = 16), supported by a patient and public involvement group, to achieve consensus on the alternatives. A retrospective repeated cross-sectional study from 2014 to 2019 was then conducted utilising pseudonymised primary care data from Lambeth DataNet in South London (41 general practices, n = 1 185 335, using Lambeth DataNet May 2020 extract) to calculate the cost of PIP. RESULTS: The cross-sectional study included 55 880 patients. The total PIP cost was £2.79 million, with adequate alternative prescribing costing £2.74 million (cost savings of £51 278). Duplicate drug classes was the most costly criterion for both PIP and alternative prescribing. CONCLUSION: This study calculated the medication costs of PIP and created alternative prescribing scenarios for the 22 PROMPT criteria. There is no substantial cost difference between adequate prescribing vs. PIP. Future studies should investigate the wider health economic costs of alternative prescribing, such as reducing hospital admissions.

Uncoded chronic kidney disease in primary care: a cross-sectional study of inequalities and cardiovascular disease risk management.

BACKGROUND: Uncoded chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with poorer quality of care. AIM: To ascertain the proportion and determinants of CKD, which have not been formally recorded (Read coded), and identify differences in management and quality-of-care measures for patients with coded and uncoded CKD. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional survey undertaken in an ethnically diverse adult population using primary care electronic health records (EHRs) from GP clinics in Lambeth, South London, UK. METHOD: Multivariable logistic regression analysis examined the association of demographic factors, selected comorbidities, deprivation, and cardiovascular disease risk management in CKD, with coding status as outcome. RESULTS: In total, the survey involved 286 162 adults, of whom 9325 (3.3%) were identified with CKD stage 3-5 (assigned as CKD based on estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] values). Of those identified with CKD, 4239 (45.5%) were Read coded, and 5086 (54.5%) were uncoded. Of those identified with CKD stage 3-5, individuals aged ≥50 years were more likely to be coded for CKD, compared with those aged <50 years. Lower levels of coding were independently associated with deprivation and black Caribbean, black African, South Asian, and non-stated ethnicities, compared with white ethnicity. Prescribed statin and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker medications were associated with increased odds of coded CKD. CONCLUSION: This study found that >50% of CKD was uncoded and, for those patients, quality of care was lower compared with those with coded CKD. Future research and practices should focus on areas of greater deprivation and targeted initiatives for those aged <50 years and of black African, black Caribbean, South Asian, or non-stated ethnic groups. Possible areas for improvement include diagnostic coding support, automated CKD recording, and clinical decision support (based on adjusted eGFR results) in the GP clinical records.