The Patient-Held Active Record of Medication Status (PHARMS) study: a mixed-methods feasibility analysis.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors frequently occur as patients transition between hospital and the community, and may result in patient harm. Novel methods are required to address this issue. AIM: To assess the feasibility of introducing an electronic patient-held active record of medication status device (PHARMS) at the primary-secondary care interface at the time of hospital discharge. DESIGN AND SETTING: A mixed-methods study (non-randomised controlled intervention, and a process evaluation of qualitative interviews and non-participant observation) among patients >60 years in an urban hospital and general practices in Cork, Ireland. METHOD: The number and clinical significance of errors were compared between discharge prescriptions of the intervention (issued with a PHARMS device) and control (usual care, handwritten discharge prescription) groups. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients, junior doctors, GPs, and IT professionals, in addition to direct observation of the implementation process. RESULTS: In all, 102 patients were included in the final analysis (intervention n = 41, control n = 61). Total error number was lower in the intervention group (median 1, interquartile range [IQR] 0-3) than in the control group (median 8, IQR (4-13.5, P<0.001), with the clinical significance score in the intervention group also being lower than the control group (median 2, IQR 0-4 versus median 11, IQR 5-20, P<0.001). The PHARMS device was found to be technically implementable using existing information technology infrastructure, and acceptable to all key stakeholders. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that using PHARMS devices within existing systems in general practice and hospitals is feasible and acceptable to both patients and doctors, and may reduce medication error.

Prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing in a subpopulation of older European clinical trial participants: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate and compare the prevalence and type of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) among community-dwelling older adults (≥65 years) enrolled to a clinical trial in three European countries. DESIGN: A secondary analysis of the Thyroid Hormone Replacement for Subclinical Hypothyroidism Trial dataset. PARTICIPANTS: A subset of 48/80 PIP and 22/34 PPOs indicators from the Screening Tool of Older Persons Prescriptions/Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (STOPP/START) V2 criteria were applied to prescribed medication data for 532/737 trial participants in Ireland, Switzerland and the Netherlands. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of PIP was lower in the Irish participants (8.7%) compared with the Swiss (16.7%) and Dutch (12.5%) participants (P=0.15) and was not statistically significant. The overall prevalence of PPOs was approximately one-quarter in the Swiss (25.3%) and Dutch (24%) participants and lower in the Irish (14%) participants (P=0.04) and the difference was statistically significant. The hypnotic Z-drugs were the most frequent PIP in Irish participants, (3.5%, n=4), while it was non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug and oral anticoagulant combination, sulfonylureas with a long duration of action, and benzodiazepines (all 4.3%, n=7) in Swiss, and benzodiazepines (7.1%, n=18) in Dutch participants. The most frequent PPOs in Irish participants were vitamin D and calcium in osteoporosis (3.5%, n=4). In the Swiss and Dutch participants, they were bone antiresorptive/anabolic therapy in osteoporosis (9.9%, n=16, 8.6%, n=22) respectively. The odds of any PIP after adjusting for age, sex, multimorbidity and polypharmacy were (adjusted OR (aOR)) 3.04 (95% CI 1.33 to 6.95, P<0.01) for Swiss participants and aOR 1.74 (95% CI 0.79 to 3.85, P=0.17) for Dutch participants compared with Irish participants. The odds of any PPOs were aOR 2.48 (95% CI 1.27 to 4.85, P<0.01) for Swiss participants and aOR 2.10 (95% CI 1.11 to 3.96, P=0.02) for Dutch participants compared with Irish participants. CONCLUSIONS: This study has estimated and compared the prevalence and type of PIP and PPOs among this cohort of community-dwelling older people. It demonstrated a significant difference in the prevalence of PPOs between the three populations. Further research is urgently needed into the impact of system level factors as this has important implications for patient safety, healthcare provision and economic costs.

Economic impact of medication error: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Medication error is a significant source of morbidity and mortality among patients. Clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence are required for the implementation of quality of care interventions. Reduction of error-related cost is a key potential benefit of interventions addressing medication error. The aim of this review was to describe and quantify the economic burden associated with medication error. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, CINAHL, EconLit, ABI/INFORM, Business Source Complete were searched. Studies published 2004-2016 assessing the economic impact of medication error were included. Cost values were expressed in Euro 2015. A narrative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 4572 articles were identified from database searching, and 16 were included in the review. One study met all applicable quality criteria. Fifteen studies expressed economic impact in monetary terms. Mean cost per error per study ranged from €2.58 to €111 727.08. Healthcare costs were used to measure economic impact in 15 of the included studies with one study measuring litigation costs. Four studies included costs incurred in primary care with the remaining 12 measuring hospital costs. Five studies looked at general medication error in a general population with 11 studies reporting the economic impact of an individual type of medication error or error within a specific patient population. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variability existed between studies in terms of financial cost, patients, settings and errors included. Many were of poor quality. Assessment of economic impact was conducted predominantly in the hospital setting with little assessment of primary care impact. Limited parameters were used to establish economic impact. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.