RESUMO
BACKGROUND: It is debatable whether treating multimorbid nursing home patients with antihypertensive drugs produces beneficial effects. Most cardiovascular guidelines promote treatment; few have advice on how to deprescribe when treatment may no longer be necessary. We investigated the effect of medication review on antihypertensive drug use and the association between cognition, blood pressure, and prescribing. METHODS: From August 2014 to December 2015, 765 patients from 72 units (clusters) in 32 Norwegian nursing homes were included in a 4-month, multicentre, cluster-randomized, controlled trial, with 9-month follow-up. Patients ≥ 65 years old with antihypertensive treatment (n = 295, 39%) were randomized to systematic medication review where the physician received support from peers (collegial mentoring) or were given care as usual (control condition). Outcome measures were the number of antihypertensive drugs, systolic blood pressure, and pulse. We used hospitalizations and deaths as criteria to assess harm. RESULTS: At baseline, each patient used 9.2 ± 3.5 regular drugs, and 1.6 ± 0.7 antihypertensives. Mean blood pressure was 128/71 mmHg and 9% had a systolic pressure ≥ 160 mmHg. Between baseline and month four, antihypertensives were deprescribed to a significantly higher extent in the intervention group (n = 43, 32%) compared to control (n = 11, 10%); Incidence Rate Ratio = 0.8, 95% CI = 0.7-0.9. In the intervention group, there was an immediate increase in systolic blood pressure when antihypertensives were reduced, from baseline 128 ± 19.5 mmHg to 143 ± 25.5 mmHg at month four. However, at month nine, the blood pressure had reverted to baseline values (mean 134 mmHg). Deprescription did not affect pulse and systolic pressure. The number of hospitalizations was higher in control patients at month four (P = 0.031) and nine (P = 0.041). CONCLUSION: A systematic medication review supported by collegial mentoring significantly decreased the use of antihypertensive drugs in nursing home patients without an effect on the systolic blood pressure over time.
RESUMO
Objective: To evaluate diabetes patients' self-monitoring of blood glucose using a community pharmacy-based quality assurance procedure, to investigate whether the procedure improved the quality of the patient performance of self monitoring of blood glucose, and to examine the opinions of the patients taking part in the study. Methods: The results of patient blood glucose measurements were compared to the results obtained with HemoCue Glucose 201+ by pharmacy employees in 16 Norwegian community pharmacies. Patient performance was monitored using an eight item checklist. Patients whose blood glucose measurements differed from pharmacy measurements by more than 20% were instructed in the correct use of their glucometer. The patients then re-measured their blood glucose. If the results were still outside the set limits, the control procedure was repeated with a new lot of glucometer strips, and then with a new glucometer. The patients returned for a follow-up visit after three months. Results: During the first visit, 5% of the 338 patients had measurements that deviated from pharmacy blood glucose values by more than 20% and user errors were observed for 50% of the patients. At the second visit, there was no significant change in the analytical quality of patient measurements, but the percentage of patients who made user errors had decreased to 29% (p < 0.001). Eighty-five percent of the patients reported that they used their blood glucose results to adjust medication, exercise or meals. Fifty-one percent of the patients reported a greater trust in their measurements after the second visit. Eighty percent of patients wished to have their measurements assessed yearly. Of these patients, 83% preferred to have the assessment done at the community pharmacy. Conclusion: A community pharmacy-based quality assessment procedure of patients' self monitoring of blood glucose significantly reduced the number of user errors. The analytical quality of the patients´ measurements was good and did not improve further during the study. The high analytical quality might be explained by a selection bias of participating patients. Patients also reported increased confidence in their blood glucose measurements after their measurements had been assessed at the pharmacy (AU)
Objetivo: Evaluar la auto-monitorización de la glucemia de pacientes diabéticos que utilizan un procedimiento de aseguramiento de la calidad en farmacia comunitaria, investigar si el procedimiento mejoró la calidad de la ejecución de la monitorización del paciente, y examinar las opiniones de los pacientes que tomaron parte en el estudio. Métodos: Los resultados de las medidas de glucemia de los pacientes se compararon con los resultados obtenidos con un HemoCue Glucose 201+ por los empleados de la farmacia en 16 farmacias comunitarias noruegas. Se monitorizó la actuación del paciente utilizando un check-list de 8 puntos. Se educó en el uso del glucómetro a los pacientes cuyos valores de glicemia diferían en más de un 20% de los medidos en la farmacia. Después los pacientes volvieron a medir su glucemia. Si los resultados estaban aún fuera de los límites se repetía el procedimiento con un nuevo paquete de tiras de glucómetro, y después con un nuevo glucómetro. Los pacientes volvieron para una visita de seguimiento tres meses después. Resultados: Durante la primera visita, el 5% de los 338 pacientes tuvieron mediciones malas que se desviaron de las de la farmacia en valores superiores al 20% y se observaron errores en el 50% de los pacientes. En la segunda visita, no hubo cambios significativos en la calidad analítica de las medias de los pacientes, pero el porcentaje de usuarios con errores disminuyó al 29% (p<0,001). El 85% de los pacientes informó que utilizaban los resultados de su glucemia para ajustar la medicación, ejercicio o comidas. El 51% de los pacientes informó que tenían una mayor confianza en su medición después de la segunda visita. El 80% de los pacientes deseaba que se le evaluasen sus mediciones de glicemia anualmente. De estos pacientes, el 83% prefería que la evaluación se hiciese en la farmacia comunitaria. Conclusión: Un procedimiento de evaluación de la calidad de la auto-monitorización de glucemia realizado en farmacia comunitaria redujo significativamente el número de errores de los usuarios. La calidad analítica de las medidas de los pacientes fue buena y no mejoró durante el estudio. La alta calidad analítica podría explicarse por un sesgo de selección de los pacientes participantes. Los pacientes también informaron e un aumento de confianza en sus medidas de glucemia después de que sus mediciones fueses evaluadas en la farmacia (AU)
