Drug-related emergency department visits: external validation of an assessment tool in a general emergency department population.

BACKGROUND: The process of identifying drug-related hospitalisations is subjective and time-consuming. Assessment tool for identifying hospital admissions related to medications (AT-HARM10) was developed to simplify and objectify this process. AT-HARM10 has not previously been externally validated, thus the predictive precision of the tool is uncertain. AIM: To externally validate AT-HARM10 in adult patients admitted to the emergency department (ED). METHOD: This retrospective cross-sectional study investigated 402 patients admitted to the ED, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway. A trained 5th-year pharmacy student used AT-HARM10 to assess all patients and to classify their ED visits as possibly or unlikely drug-related. Assessment of the same patients by an interdisciplinary expert panel acted as the gold standard. The external validation was conducted by comparing AT-HARM10 classifications with the gold standard. RESULTS: According to AT-HARM10 assessments, 169 (42%) patients had a possible drug-related ED visit. Calculated sensitivity and specificity values were 95% and 71%, respectively. Further, positive and negative predictive values were 46% and 98%, respectively. Adverse effects/over-treatment and suboptimal treatment were the issues most frequently overestimated by AT-HARM10 compared with the gold standard. CONCLUSION: AT-HARM10 identifies drug-related ED visits with high sensitivity. However, the low positive predictive value indicates that further review of ED visits classified as possible drug-related by AT-HARM10 is necessary. AT-HARM10 can serve as a useful first-step screening that efficiently identifies unlikely drug-related ED visits, thus only a smaller proportion of the patients need to be reviewed by an interdisciplinary expert panel.

2020 EULAR points to consider for the prevention, screening, assessment and management of non-adherence to treatment in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases for use in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Non-adherence to treatment could preclude reaching an optimal outcome. Thirty to 80% of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) do not adhere to the agreed treatment. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to establish points to consider (PtCs) for the prevention, screening, assessment and management of non-adherence to (non-)pharmacological treatments in people with RMDs. METHODS: An EULAR task force (TF) was established, and the EULAR standardised operating procedures for the development of PtCs were followed. The TF included healthcare providers (HCPs), comprising rheumatologists, nurses, pharmacists, psychologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and patient-representatives from 12 European countries. A review of systematic reviews was conducted in advance to support the TF in formulating the PtCs. The level of agreement among the TF was established by anonymous online voting. RESULTS: Four overarching principles and nine PtCs were formulated. The PtCs reflect the phases of action on non-adherence. HCPs should assess and discuss adherence with patients on a regular basis and support patients to treatment adherence. As adherence is an agreed behaviour, the treatment has to be tailored to the patients' needs. The level of agreement ranged from 9.5 to 9.9 out of 10. CONCLUSIONS: These PtCs can help HCPs to support people with RMDs to be more adherent to the agreed treatment plan. The basic scheme being prevent non-adherence by bonding with the patient and building trust, overcoming structural barriers, assessing in a blame-free environment and tailoring the solution to the problem.

Use of antibiotics in nursing homes--surveillance with different methods.

BACKGROUND: Residents in nursing homes have a heightened risk of developing infections that should be treated with antibiotics. Inappropriate use of antibiotics may generate drug-related problems and increase resistance. In this study, we describe the use of antibiotics in nursing homes on the basis of prevalence surveys and drug sales statistics. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Five nursing homes in Oslo participated in two one-day surveys in 2009. All use of systemic antibiotics was registered. The data collection was undertaken according to a protocol developed by the European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption (ESAC) Network and was part of a European study. The nursing homes' drug sales statistics for systemic antibiotics during 2009, distributed by the number of bed days for each nursing home, were estimated. Information on indications for each antibiotic from the prevalence surveys was collated with sales data to achieve an estimate of how the purchased antibiotics were used. RESULTS: The prevalence surveys showed that more than 8% of the residents received antibiotics. Prophylactic treatment accounted for 33% of the prescriptions. A prevalence of antibiotic use of 10% was estimated from the drug sales statistics. Urinary tract infection was the most frequently registered indication. Pivmecillinam and methenamine were most frequently prescribed and most frequently purchased. Most courses of treatment were prescribed in accordance with the national guidelines for antibiotic use. INTERPRETATION: The results from the drug sales statistics concurred well with the prevalence surveys, and the methods can thus be relevant for purposes of monitoring the use of antibiotics.

Multidisciplinary intervention to identify and resolve drug-related problems in Norwegian nursing homes.

OBJECTIVE: To describe an innovative team intervention to identify and resolve DRPs (drug-related problems) in Norwegian nursing homes. DESIGN: Descriptive intervention study. Setting. Three nursing homes in Bergen, Norway. SUBJECTS: A total of 142 long-term care patients (106 women, mean age 86.9 years). RESULTS: Systematic medication reviews performed by pharmacists in 142 patients revealed altogether 719 DRPs, of which 504 were acknowledged by the patients' physician and nurses, and 476 interventions were completed. "Unnecessary drug" and "Monitoring required" were the most frequently identified DRPs. Drugs for treating the nervous system and the alimentary tract and metabolism were most commonly questioned. CONCLUSIONS: The multidisciplinary team intervention was suitable to identify and resolve drug-related problems in nursing home settings. Systematic medication reviews and involvement of pharmacists in clinical teams should therefore be implemented on a regular basis to achieve and maintain high-quality drug therapy.

Risk of drug-related problems for various antibiotics in hospital: assessment by use of a novel method.

PURPOSE: To investigate the use of antibiotics in hospitals, to explore drug-related problems (DRPs) linked to antibiotics and to introduce a novel way of expressing the risks accompanying use of various antibiotics. METHODS: Patients from internal medicine departments in four Norwegian hospitals were prospectively included in 2002. Demographics, drugs used, medical history, laboratory data and clinical/pharmacological risk factors were recorded. DRPs were identified by clinical pharmacists and assessed in multidisciplinary hospital teams. A new term, the drug risk ratio, was established and defined as the number of times the antibiotic was associated with DRPs in relation to the number of times it was used. RESULTS: Out of the 668 patients included, 283 patients (42%) used antibiotics (AB users). AB users were older (76.2 vs. 73.9), used more drugs on admission (5.1 vs. 4.4) and had more DRPs (3.0 vs. 2.2) than non-users. The DRP categories no further need for drug, non-optimal drug and non-optimal dose were most frequently observed. The drug risk ratio, calculated for 12 antibiotic groups, was highest for aminoglycosides (0.77), beta-lactamase-resistant penicillins (0.56), macrolides (0.54) and quinolones (0.48) and lowest for first- and third-generation cephalosporins, 0.17 and 0.13, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of the hospitalised patients were prescribed antibiotics and antibiotic associated DRPs occurred frequently. The drug risk ratio for the different antibiotic groups varied with a factor of six from the lowest to the highest. A high drug risk ratio would alert of antibiotics which require heightened awareness when going to be used in clinical practice.

The impact of clinical pharmacists on drug-related problems and clinical outcomes.

Drug-related problems are frequent and may result in reduced quality of life, and even morbidity and mortality. Many studies have shown that clinical pharmacists can effectively identify and prevent clinically significant drug-related problems and that physicians acknowledge and act on the clinical pharmacist's suggestions for interventions to the drug-related problems. A pro-active rather than a reactive approach on the part of the pharmacists seems prudent for obtaining most benefit. This includes participation of pharmacists in the multidisciplinary team discussions - at the stage of ordering and prescribing - where all types of drug-related problems, including also potential problems, should be discussed. In addition, counselling by pharmacists about medication on discharge and follow-up after discharge resulted in better outcomes. Furthermore, clinical pharmacists can positively influence other outcomes, such as improvement of levels of markers for drug use (e.g. optimization of lipid levels, anticoagulation levels and blood pressure). Some studies have reported positive effects on hard clinical outcomes, such as reduced length of stay, fewer re-admissions and fewer disease events (e.g. heart failure events and thromboembolism). However, more studies should be undertaken with larger patient populations, including patients from multiple sites. More knowledge about patient-specific factors that predict improved care is also needed. In conclusion, there is increasing evidence that participation and interventions of clinical pharmacists in health care positively influence clinical practice.

Polypharmacy as commonly defined is an indicator of limited value in the assessment of drug-related problems.

AIM: To investigate whether polypharmacy defined as a definite number of drugs is a suitable indicator for describing the risk of occurrence of drug-related problems (DRPs) in a hospital setting. METHODS: Patients admitted to six internal medicine and two rheumatology departments in five hospitals were consecutively included and followed during the hospital stay, with particular attention to medication and DRPs. Comparisons were made between patients admitted with five or more drugs and with less than five drugs. Clinical pharmacists assessed DRPs by reviewing medical records and by participating in multidisciplinary team discussions. RESULTS: Of a total of 827 patients, 391 (47%) used five or more drugs on admission. Patients admitted with five or more and less than five drugs were prescribed the same number of drugs after admission: 4.1 vs. 3.9 drugs [P = 0.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.57, 0.23], respectively. The proportion of drugs used on admission which was associated with DRPs was similar in the patient group admitted with five or more drugs and in those admitted with less than five drugs. The number of DRPs per patient increased approximately linearly with the increase in number of drugs used; one unit increase in number of drugs yielded a 8.6% increase in the number of DRPs (95% CI 1.07, 1.10). CONCLUSION: The number of DRPs per patient was linearly related to the number of drugs used on admission. To set a strict cut-off to identify polypharmacy and declare that using more than this number of drugs represents a potential risk for occurrence of DRPs, is of limited value when assessing DRPs in a clinical setting.