Clinical pharmacist intervention to improve medication safety for hip fracture patients through secondary and primary care settings: a nonrandomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hip fracture patients face a patient safety threat due to medication discrepancies and adverse drug reactions when they have a combination of high age, polypharmacy and several care transitions. Consequently, optimised pharmacotherapy through medication reviews and seamless communication of medication information between care settings is necessary. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the impact on medication management and pharmacotherapy. The secondary aim was to evaluate implementation of the novel Patient Pathway Pharmacist intervention for hip fracture patients. METHODS: Hip fracture patients were included in this nonrandomised controlled trial, comparing a prospective intervention group (n = 58) with pre-intervention controls who received standard care (n = 50). The Patient Pathway Pharmacist intervention consisted of the steps: (A) medication reconciliation at admission to hospital, (B) medication review during hospitalisation, (C) recommendation for the medication information in the hospital discharge summary, (D) medication reconciliation at admission to rehabilitation, and (E) medication reconciliation and (F) review after hospital discharge. The primary outcome measure was quality score of the medication information in the discharge summary (range 0-14). Secondary outcomes were potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) at discharge, proportion receiving pharmacotherapy according to guidelines (e.g. prophylactic laxatives and osteoporosis pharmacotherapy), and all-cause readmission and mortality. RESULTS: The quality score of the discharge summaries was significantly higher for the intervention patients (12.3 vs. 7.2, p < 0.001). The intervention group had significantly less PIMs at discharge (- 0.44 (95% confidence interval - 0.72, - 0.15), p = 0.003), and a higher proportion received prophylactic laxative (72 vs. 35%, p < 0.001) and osteoporosis pharmacotherapy (96 vs. 16%, p < 0.001). There were no differences in readmission or mortality 30 and 90 days post-discharge. The intervention steps were delivered to all patients (step A, B, E, F = 100% of patients), except step (C) medication information at discharge (86% of patients) and step (D) medication reconciliation at admission to rehabilitation (98% of patients). CONCLUSION: The intervention steps were successfully implemented for hip fracture patients and contributed to patient safety through a higher quality medication information in the discharge summary, fewer PIMs and optimised pharmacotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03695081.

Medication management for patients with hip fracture at a regional hospital and associated primary care units in Norway: a descriptive study based on a survey of clinicians' experience and a review of patient records.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with hip fracture are at high risk of medication errors due to a combination of high age, comorbidities, polypharmacy and several care transitions after fracture. The aim was to study medication management tasks concerning patient safety: medication reconciliation, medication review and communication of key medication information in care transitions. DESIGN: Descriptive study comprising a self-administered clinician survey (MedHipPro-Q) and a retrospective review of hospital medical records of patients with hip fracture. SETTING: Regional hospital and the associated primary care units (South-Eastern Norway). PARTICIPANTS: The survey received responses from 253 clinicians, 61 medical doctors and 192 nurses, involved in the medication management of patients with hip fracture, from acute admittance to the regional hospital, through an in-hospital fast track, primary care rehabilitation and back to permanent residence. Respondents' representativeness was unknown, introducing a risk of selection and non-response bias, and extrapolating findings should be done with caution. The patient records review included a random sample of records of patients with hip fracture (n=50). OUTCOME MEASURES: Medication reconciliation, medication review and communication of medication information from two perspectives: the clinicians' (ie, experiences with medication management) and the practice (ie, documentation of completed medication management). RESULTS: In the survey, most clinicians stated they performed medication reconciliation (79%) and experienced that patients often arrived without a medication list after care transition (37%). Doctors agreed that more patients would benefit from medication reviews (86%). In the hospital patient records, completed medication reconciliation was documented in most patients (76%). Medication review was documented in 2 of 50 patients (4%). Discharge summary guidelines were followed fully for 3 of 50 patients (6%). CONCLUSION: Our study revealed a need for improved medication management for patients with hip fracture. Patients were at risk of medication information not being transferred correctly between care settings, and medication reviews seemed to be underused in clinical practice.

Development and initial validation of MedHipPro-Q: a questionnaire assessing medication management of hip fracture patients in different care settings.

BACKGROUND: A validated questionnaire to assess medication management of hip fracture patients within and outside the hospital setting was lacking. The study aims were to describe the hip fracture patient pathway, and develop a valid and feasible questionnaire to assess clinicians' experience with medication management of hip fracture patients in different care settings throughout the patient pathway. METHODS: This qualitative, descriptive methodological study used strategic and snowball sampling. The questionnaire was developed, and face and content validity explored through interviews with stakeholders. Phase I described the hip fracture patient pathway, and identified questionnaire dimensions in semi-structured interviews with management and clinicians (n = 37). The patient pathway was also discussed in six meetings (n = 70). Phase II refined a first draft of the questionnaire through cognitive interviews with future respondents (n = 23). The draft was modified after each interview. Post hoc, cognitive interview data were analysed using matrix analysis to condense problems and solutions into themes and subthemes. Phase III, converted the final version to a digital format, and tested its feasibility with a subset of the cognitive interview participants (n = 21) who completed the questionnaire and provided feedback. RESULTS: Phase I: Hip fracture patients were cared for in at least three different care settings, and went through at least four handovers between and within primary and secondary care. Three questionnaire dimensions were identified: 1) Medication reconciliation and review, 2) Communication of key information, and 3) Profession and setting. Phase II: The MedHipPro-Q was representative of how the different professions experienced medication management in all settings, and hence showed face and content validity. Post hoc analysis: Problem themes (with sub-themes) were Representativeness (-of patient pathway and -of respondent reality) and Presentation (Language and Appearance). Solution themes (with sub-themes) were: Content (added or deleted) and Presentation (modified appearance or corrected language). Phase III: Participants did not identify technical, linguistic or content flaws in the questionnaire, and the digital version was considered feasible for use. CONCLUSION: The novel MedHipPro-Q showed good face and content validity, and was feasible for use throughout the hip fracture patient pathway. The rigorous development process supports its construct validity and reliability.

How are drug regimen changes during hospitalisation handled after discharge: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate drug regimen changes during hospitalisation and explore how these changes are handled after patients are transferred back into the care of their general practitioners (GPs). DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: Patients in this multicentre study had undergone at least one change in their drug regimens at discharge from the general medicine departments at six hospitals in Norway. These changes were altered doses, discontinuation of drugs or start of new drugs. Clinical pharmacists visited the patients' GPs 4-5 months after patient discharge and recorded any additional drug regimen changes. RESULTS: In total, 105 patients (mean age 76.1 years, 54.3% women) completed the study. On average, they used 5.6 drugs at admission (range 0-16) and 7.6 drugs at discharge (range 1-17). On average, 4.4 drug changes per patient (SD 2.7, range 1-16) were made at the hospital, and 3.4 drug changes per patient (SD 2.9, range 0-14) within 4-5 months of discharge. Of the 465 drug changes made in hospital, 153 were changed again after discharge (mean 1.5 per patient, SD 1.8, range 0-13). The drug regimens of 90 of these 105 patients were changed after discharge. The OR for extensive drug changes after discharge (≥ 4 changes) increased significantly with the number of drugs used at discharge from hospital (OR=1.29, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.59). Only 68 of 105 discharge notes contained complete drug lists, and only 24 of the discharge notes were received by the GPs within 7 days. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to the extensive changes in drug regimens during hospitalisation, almost equally extensive changes were made in the initial months after discharge. Surveillance of drug regimens is particularly necessary in the period immediately after hospital discharge.