Correlation between the number of patient-reported adverse events, adverse drug events, and quality of life in older patients: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies on medication therapy management services, e.g. medication reconciliation and medication review, do not show consistent improvements in patient's health-related quality of life. However, these services can reduce adverse drug events. AIM: To evaluate the correlation between health-related quality of life and adverse events/adverse drug events reported by patients. METHOD: Older patients (≥ 65 years) with polypharmacy (≥ 5 medicines) admitted to orthopaedic or surgical wards were included. Patients were contacted post-discharge to evaluate patient-reported adverse events, health-related quality of life using the EuroQol questionnaire and self-perceived health status on a 5-point Likert scale. The outcomes were the correlation between health-related quality of life and the number of adverse events/adverse drug events, and potential predictors for these events. Spearman correlation and Poisson regression were used for data analysis. RESULTS: 102 patients were included. The correlation between health-related quality of life and adverse events was weak but significant (Spearman correlation coefficient: - 0.328, p = 0.001). No correlation was found for adverse drug events (- 0.064, p = 0.521). Self-perceived health status was a predictor for adverse events, not for adverse drug events. Health-related quality of life was neither a predictor for adverse events, nor for adverse drug events. CONCLUSION: The correlation between the number of patient-reported adverse events, adverse drug events and health-related quality of life measured by the EuroQol was weak. There is a need for a questionnaire that includes the impact of medication use and is sensitive to outcomes that are affected by medication therapy management services.

The effect of an inpatient geriatric stewardship on drug-related problems reported by patients after discharge.

Background Drug-related problems after discharge are common among older adults with polypharmacy. Medication review during hospitalization has been proposed as one solution. Inpatient medication review is often based on clinical records only. An obstacle is the lack of insight into the outpatient history. Therefore, a geriatric stewardship was designed and involved an inpatient medication review by a hospital pharmacist and geriatrician based on (I) clinical records to draft initial recommendations, (II) consultations with primary care providers (general practitioner and community pharmacist) to discuss the hospital-based recommendations, (III) patient interviews to assess their needs, and (IV) a multidisciplinary evaluation of all previous steps to draft final recommendations. Objective To assess the effect of the geriatric stewardship on drug-related problems reported by patients after discharge. Setting General teaching hospital. Methods An implementation study (pre-post design) was performed. Orthopaedic and surgical patients (≥ 65 years) with polypharmacy and a frailty risk factor were included. The pre-group received usual care, the post-group received the geriatric stewardship intervention. Two weeks post-discharge, patient-reported drug-related problems were assessed using a validated questionnaire. Drug-related problems were classified into drug-related complaints, practical problems, and questions about medication. Outcomes The outcomes were the number and type of drug-related problems per patient (primary) and the number of initial recommendations that were altered due to primary care provider and patient input (secondary). Results In total, 127 patients were analysed (usual care n = 74, intervention n = 53). Intervention patients reported fewer drug-related problems compared to usual care: 2.8 versus 3.3 per patient (Adjusted relative risk 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.66-1.05). This difference resulted from a halving in drug-related complaints (p < 0.05), for example pain, drowsiness, nausea or constipation. Nearly 30% of the initial recommendations based on the clinical records were discarded or modified after primary care provider consultations and patient interviews. Conclusion The geriatric stewardship did not significantly reduce drug-related problems, but it significantly halved drug-related complaints. One-in-three initial recommendations were altered due to primary care provider and patient input. Inpatient medication reviews should not be based on clinical records only; they require transmural collaboration and patient participation to ensure continuity of patient care.

Medication reviews in hospitalized patients: a qualitative study on perceptions of primary and secondary care providers on interprofessional collaboration.

BACKGROUND: In-hospital medication reviews are regularly performed. However, discontinuity in care could occur because secondary care providers lack insight into the outpatient history. Furthermore, for the implementation or follow-up of some medication review-based interventions, the help of primary care providers is essential. This requires interprofessional collaboration between secondary and primary care. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study was to gain insight into the perceptions of primary and secondary care providers on interprofessional collaboration on medication reviews in hospitalised patients. METHODS: Ten face-to-face semi-structured interviews and three focus group discussions were conducted with 20 healthcare providers from three hospitals and community health services. The interviews were aimed at exploring general practitioners', community pharmacists', geriatricians', and hospital pharmacists' experiences, attitudes, and views of interprofessional collaboration. Focus groups consisted of representatives of all professional groups. Through group discussion, interprofessional collaboration was explored by addressing three main questions: 1) What are the benefits of in-hospital medication reviews? 2) What are the barriers to in-hospital medication reviews from an interprofessional collaboration perspective? 3) Given the barriers mentioned, how should this interprofessional collaboration between primary and secondary care be designed? Data were analysed using a thematic-content approach. RESULTS: The need for in-hospital medication reviews was underlined due to their many benefits, such as reducing potentially preventable re-admissions. Barriers regarding interprofessional collaboration between primary and secondary care can be subdivided into three main themes: 1) defining in-hospital medication reviews (e.g., lack of clear goals), 2) execution of medication reviews (e.g., hospital setting is dynamic), and 3) follow-up after discharge (e.g., unclear instructions). Care providers suggested solutions for each of the barriers mentioned, for example, by using supportive staff in order to overcome the gap between primary and secondary care providers and making clear agreements on proper means of communication. CONCLUSION: Primary and secondary care providers recognise the importance of in-hospital medication reviews and the need for interprofessional collaboration. To create satisfying interprofessional collaboration, conditions should be met on defining in-hospital medication reviews across settings and involving both primary and secondary care providers in implementing medication reviews and organising their follow-up.