Potentially inappropriate medication in acute hospitalized elderly patients with polypharmacy: an observational study comparing PRISCUS, STOPP, and Beers criteria.

PURPOSE: To compare the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) in the elderly according to the PRISCUS list, STOPP criteria, and Beers criteria. Secondary, to describe the differences using the three criteria focused on the inappropriate prescription of psychotropic drugs in the elderly. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed at Severo Ochoa University Hospital. The study included 365 patients, aged 80 years and older, living in Madrid, Spain. RESULTS: 93.42% of patients received at least one PIM during hospitalization. Using the PRISCUS list, this changed from 32.6 to 2.7% at discharge. Applying STOPP criteria lowered the percentage from 65.20 to 10.95%, and with Beers criteria from 80.27 to 10.13. Lower Barthel index at admission was associated with an increased relative risk for receiving at least one PIM (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.15-2.80, p = 0.024) using PRISCUS list as a tool in conjunction with STOPP criteria (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.89-2.33, p = 0.037). Polypharmacy at admission predicted the presence of PIMs with STOPP criteria (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.07-2.84, p = 0.001). Regarding psychotropic medicines, 208 patients (56.98%) received at least one psychotropic medicine during hospitalization. A total of 26.30% of patients were treated with psychotropic medicines, detected by the PRISCUS list, and 53.97% and 29.85% with STOPP and Beers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Explicit criteria are a useful tool for identifying during hospitalization of the elderly patients. As indicated by the results, new research is needed to carry out an adaptation in our country that includes an evaluation of the strengths of the three tools to decrease PIMs and improve prescription in the elderly.

[Errors of prescription, transcription and administration according to pharmacological group at hospital]. / Errores de prescripción, trascripción y administración según grupo farmacológico en el ámbito hospitalario.

OBJECTIVE: Most studies of medication errors are focused only on finding global prevalence by patients, by phases or according to a certain group of medication. It's just a partial view of the problem. To analyze and compare the prevalence of errors in prescription, transcription and administration, and their clinical repercussions in different pharmacological groups in a third-level hospital. METHODS: Prospective inclusion study with direct observation disguised as medication administration and comparison with prescriptions and transcriptions at history clinical. The ME and its clinical effects were classified by expert consensus. We calculated the different error rates and their repercussions with their confidence intervals at 95%. Then we compared using Chi-square tests. RESULTS: We studied 5,578 prescribed drugs and we observed the administration of 1,879 doses. A total of 117 different pharmacological groups were found, although 50.1% of the prescriptions belonged to only 9 types. We found heparins had a lower prevalence of errors in prescription and transcription and aspirin also had a lower prevalence of prescription errors. On the opposite side, a greater number of errors were obtained in transcription of Paracetamol, Metamizole and Laxatives and a prevalence of errors in the administration phase superior to rest in Paracetamol and in Proton Pump Inhibitors. The impact of medication error increased as medication process progressed, being similar between groups in prescription. In transcription, Heparins and Corticosteroids presented more serious errors. In administration, medication error are more serious for Diuretics and Statins (p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Drugs considered potentially dangerous present fewer errors (Heparins, Corticoids), but more serious. Drugs with the highest prevalence of errors were Paracetamol and Inhibitors of proton pump but had a lower impact.

OBJETIVO: La mayoría de los estudios sobre errores de medicación se centran sólo en hallar prevalencias globales por pacientes, por fases del proceso o según un determinado grupo de fármacos, por lo que se da una visión parcial. El objetivo de este trabajo fue analizar y comparar la prevalencia de errores en prescripción, trascripción y administración y sus repercusiones clínicas en los principales grupos farmacológicos en un hospital de tercer nivel. METODOS: Estudio de inclusión prospectiva con observación directa disfrazada de la administración de medicamentos y comparación con prescripciones médicas y trascripciones presentes en la historia clínica. Los errores de medicación y sus efectos fueron clasificados por consenso de expertos. Se calcularon las diferentes tasas de errores y sus repercusiones con sus intervalos de confianza al 95% y se compararon utilizando la prueba de Chi cuadrado. RESULTADOS: Se estudiaron 5578 fármacos prescritos, aunque se observó sólo la administración de 1879 dosis. Se encontraron un total de 117 grupos farmacológicos, donde el 50,1% (2795) de las prescripciones pertenecían sólo a 9 tipos. La prevalencia de errores de prescripción global fue de 4,79%, de trascripción de 14,61% y de administración 9,32%. Por grupos, las Heparinas tuvieron una menor prevalencia de errores en la fase de prescripción y en la de trascripción. Se obtuvo mayor número de errores en trascripción de los Analgésicos como el Paracetamol y el Metamizol y de los Laxantes, y una prevalencia de errores en administración superior al resto en Analgésicos como el Paracetamol y en los Inhibidores de la Bomba de Protones. Las repercusiones clínicas de los errores de medicación en la fase de prescripción fueron parecidas entre grupos farmacológicos. En trascripción Heparinas y Corticoides presentaron errores más graves, mientras que en la administración fueron los IECAS y las Estatinas (p<0,05). CONCLUSIONES: Los fármacos considerados clásicamente como de alto riesgo presentaron menos errores (Heparinas, Corticoides), pero más graves. Los fármacos con mayor prevalencia de errores fueron los Analgésicos (Paracetamol) y los Inhibidores de la Bomba de Protones, pero tuvieron una menor repercusión clínica.

Errores de prescripción, trascripción y administración según grupo farmacológico en el ámbito hospitalario / Errors of prescription, transcription and administration according to pharmacological group at hospital

OBJETIVO: La mayoría de los estudios sobre errores de medicación se centran sólo en hallar prevalencias globales por pacientes, por fases del proceso o según un determinado grupo de fármacos, por lo que se da una visión parcial. El objetivo de este trabajo fue analizar y comparar la prevalencia de errores en prescripción, trascripción y administración y sus repercusiones clínicas en los principales grupos farmacológicos en un hospital de tercer nivel. MÉTODOS: Estudio de inclusión prospectiva con observación directa disfrazada de la administración de medicamentos y comparación con prescripciones médicas y trascripciones presentes en la historia clínica. Los errores de medicación y sus efectos fueron clasificados por consenso de expertos. Se calcularon las diferentes tasas de errores y sus repercusiones con sus intervalos de confianza al 95% y se compararon utilizando la prueba de Chi cuadrado. RESULTADOS: Se estudiaron 5578 fármacos prescritos, aunque se observó sólo la administración de 1879 dosis. Se encontraron un total de 117 grupos farmacológicos, donde el 50,1% (2795) de las prescripciones pertenecían sólo a 9 tipos. La prevalencia de errores de prescripción global fue de 4,79%, de trascripción de 14,61% y de administración 9,32%. Por grupos, las Heparinas tuvieron una menor prevalencia de errores en la fase de prescripción y en la de trascripción. Se obtuvo mayor número de errores en trascripción de los Analgésicos como el Paracetamol y el Metamizol y de los Laxantes, y una prevalencia de errores en administración superior al resto en Analgésicos como el Paracetamol y en los Inhibidores de la Bomba de Protones. Las repercusiones clínicas de los errores de medicación en la fase de prescripción fueron parecidas entre grupos farmacológicos. En trascripción Heparinas y Corticoides presentaron errores más graves, mientras que en la administración fueron los IECAS y las Estatinas (p<0,05). CONCLUSIONES: Los fármacos considerados clásicamente como de alto riesgo presentaron menos errores (Heparinas, Corticoides), pero más graves. Los fármacos con mayor prevalencia de errores fueron los Analgésicos (Paracetamol) y los Inhibidores de la Bomba de Protones, pero tuvieron una menor repercusión clínica

OBJECTIVE: Most studies of medication errors are focused only on finding global prevalence by patients, by phases or according to a certain group of medication. It's just a partial view of the problem. To analyze and compare the prevalence of errors in prescription, transcription and administration, and their clinical repercussions in different pharmacological groups in a third-level hospital. METHODS: Prospective inclusion study with direct observation disguised as medication administration and comparison with prescriptions and transcriptions at history clinical. The ME and its clinical effects were classified by expert consensus. We calculated the different error rates and their repercussions with their confidence intervals at 95%. Then we compared using Chi-square tests. RESULTS: We studied 5,578 prescribed drugs and we observed the administration of 1,879 doses. A total of 117 different pharmacological groups were found, although 50.1% of the prescriptions belonged to only 9 types. We found heparins had a lower prevalence of errors in prescription and transcription and aspirin also had a lower prevalence of prescription errors. On the opposite side, a greater number of errors were obtained in transcription of Paracetamol, Metamizole and Laxatives and a prevalence of errors in the administration phase superior to rest in Paracetamol and in Proton Pump Inhibitors. The impact of medication error increased as medication process progressed, being similar between groups in prescription. In transcription, Heparins and Corticosteroids presented more serious errors. In administration, medication error are more serious for Diuretics and Statins (p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Drugs considered potentially dangerous present fewer errors (Heparins, Corticoids), but more serious. Drugs with the highest prevalence of errors were Paracetamol and Inhibitors of proton pump but had a lower impact

The impact of medication reconciliation program at admission in an internal medicine department.

BACKGROUND: Medication reconciliation process has proved to be an effective tool to improve the safety of drug use. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of an intervention aimed to decrease unintended discrepancies between patient's usual treatment and medications prescribed on admission to the Department of Internal Medicine. METHODS: A quasi-experimental study was carried out from June 2009 to May 2010, analyzing discrepancies between home medication and drugs prescribed in a tertiary care hospital, before (first phase) and after (second phase) an electronic reconciliation tool was introduced at admission. This tool connected patients' usual medication with the electronic prescription program. The research team was made up of two hospital pharmacists, two nurses and three physicians from the Internal and Preventive Medicine Departments. RESULTS: During the two phases of the study, 162 patients were included with a total of 1,959 medicines reconciled. The incidence of unintended discrepancies decreased from 3.5% to 1.8% after the intervention (p value 0.03). The proportion of patients with at least one unintended discrepancy was 23.7% in the first phase and 14.6% in the second phase (p value 0.20). Omission was the most common unintended discrepancy. Asthmatic patients showed 6 times higher risk of being affected by an unintended discrepancy (OR 6.37, 95%CI 1.6-25.5; p value 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a computerized tool integrated into the electronic prescribing program could be very helpful to develop a medication reconciliation process. It is essential to involve all hospital staff in this process.

Comparison of medication error rates and clinical effects in three medication prescription-dispensation systems.

PURPOSE: Medication errors (MEs) are important in terms of their magnitude and severity, and there are numerous systems in place to reduce their occurrence. However, the ideal system has not yet been identified. The authors' institution uses three different medication prescription-dispensation systems which operate simultaneously. ME rates were compared, overall and by phase (prescription, transcription and administration) and their overall and specific clinical impact. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The administration of medicinal products was observed directly and compared with medical and nursing prescriptions. Errors and adverse events were classified by a consensus of experts. FINDINGS: In the traditional system the error prevalence rate was 13.59 per cent, (99 per cent CI, 12.15-14.61 per cent), in the single dose system it was 6.43 per cent (99 per cent CI, 5.53-7.32) and in the electronic prescription system it was 8.86 per cent (99 per cent CI, 7.33-10.17). The highest error rates in all phases were found in the traditional system. The phase affected by most errors in all three models was transcription, and the least affected was administration, except for the single dose system, in which prescription was the worst. The effects of errors in the administration phase are greater, although less so than with the automated system. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The dispensation phase was not analyzed. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: A study of errors will enable us to reduce their occurrence if we know the most frequent types and in which phase they are produced, we will be able to prioritise the areas in which to work and select the necessary preventive measures. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: It is possible that automated medication dispensation systems reduce error rates and the severity of their effects.

Developing a programme for medication reconciliation at the time of admission into hospital.

The aim of this article is to describe the methods used to develop the medication reconciliation programme implemented in a tertiary care hospital, and to discuss the main problems encountered and lessons learned during the process. A quasi-experimental study was carried out, analysing discrepancies between routine medication and drugs prescribed in the hospital, before and after an electronic reconciliation tool was introduced at admission. This tool was integrated into the computerized provider order entry system. The implementation of the electronic reconciliation tool has shown a reduction of the rate of discrepancies, decreasing from 7.24% (CI 95% 6.0-8.5) before the intervention to 4.18% (CI 95% 3.2-5.1) afterwards. Projects like this are costly, but this study has made it possible to detect numerous areas where interventions could be useful and proved the importance of a medication reconciliation programme.