Background
Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, hence interest in appropriate polypharmacy, where many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients, is growing.

Objectives
This review sought to determine which interventions, alone or in combination, are effective in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people.

Search methods
In November 2013, for this first update, a range of literature databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched, and handsearching of reference lists was performed. Search terms included 'polypharmacy', 'medication appropriateness' and 'inappropriate prescribing'.

Selection criteria
A range of study designs were eligible. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in people 65 years of age and older in which a validated measure of appropriateness was used (e.g. Beers criteria, Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI)).

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Study-specific estimates were pooled, and a random-effects model was used to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess the overall quality of evidence for each pooled outcome.

Main results
Two studies were added to this review to bring the total number of included studies to 12. One intervention consisted of computerised decision support; 11 complex, multi-faceted pharmaceutical approaches to interventions were provided in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals, such as prescribers and pharmacists. Appropriateness of prescribing was measured using validated tools, including the MAI score post intervention (eight studies), Beers criteria (four studies), STOPP criteria (two studies) and START criteria (one study). Interventions included in this review resulted in a reduction in inappropriate medication usage. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall quality of evidence for all pooled outcomes ranged from very low to low. A greater reduction in MAI scores between baseline and follow-up was seen in the intervention group when compared with the control group (four studies; mean difference -6.78, 95% CI -12.34 to -1.22). Postintervention pooled data showed a lower summated MAI score (five studies; mean difference -3.88, 95% CI -5.40 to -2.35) and fewer Beers drugs per participant (two studies; mean difference -0.1, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.09) in the intervention group compared with the control group. Evidence of the effects of interventions on hospital admissions (five studies) and of medication-related problems (six studies) was conflicting.

Authors' conclusions
It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as pharmaceutical care, resulted in clinically significant improvement; however, they appear beneficial in terms of reducing inappropriate prescribing.

/pdf/interventions-to-improve-the-appropriate-use-of-polypharmacy-4qhkhejn6f.pdf

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people

Objectives Pharmacists play a role in providing medication reconciliation. However, data on effectiveness on patients’ clinical outcomes appear inconclusive. Thus, the aim of this study was to systematically investigate the effect of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation programmes on clinical outcomes at hospital transitions. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, IPA, CINHAL and PsycINFO from inception to December 2014. Included studies were all published studies in English that compared the effectiveness of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation interventions to usual care, aimed at improving medication reconciliation programmes. Meta-analysis was carried out using a random effects model, and subgroup analysis was conducted to determine the sources of heterogeneity. Results 17 studies involving 21 342 adult patients were included. Eight studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Most studies targeted multiple transitions and compared comprehensive medication reconciliation programmes including telephone follow-up/home visit, patient counselling or both, during the first 30 days of follow-up. The pooled relative risks showed a more substantial reduction of 67%, 28% and 19% in adverse drug event-related hospital revisits (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.53), emergency department (ED) visits (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.92) and hospital readmissions (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95) in the intervention group than in the usual care group, respectively. The pooled data on mortality (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.16) and composite readmission and/or ED visit (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.00) did not differ among the groups. There was significant heterogeneity in the results related to readmissions and ED visits, however. Subgroup analyses based on study design and outcome timing did not show statistically significant results. Conclusion Pharmacist-led medication reconciliation programmes are effective at improving post-hospital healthcare utilisation. This review supports the implementation of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation programmes that include some component aimed at improving medication safety.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/6/2/e010003.full.pdf

Effectiveness of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation programmes on clinical outcomes at hospital transitions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

SummaryWhat is known and objective
Medication reconciliation is recognized as an important tool for the prevention of medication discrepancies and subsequent patient harm at care transitions. However, there is inconclusive evidence as to the impact of medication reconciliation at hospital transitions overall, as well as pharmacy-led medication reconciliation services. This review sought to evaluate the impact of pharmacy-led medication reconciliation interventions on medication discrepancies at hospital transitions and to categorize these interventions as single transition interventions or multiple transitions interventions.

Methods
PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, IPA, CINHAL and PsycINFO databases, inclusive from inception to December 2014, were searched. Included studies were published studies in English that compared the effectiveness of pharmacy-led medication reconciliation interventions to usual care and that aimed to assess medication discrepancies at hospital transitions. ‘Usual care’ was defined as any care where targeted medication reconciliation was not undertaken as an intervention, or if an intervention was conducted, it was not provided by a pharmacist/pharmacy technician.

Results and discussion
Nineteen studies which involved a total of 15 525 adult patients were included. Eleven studies were randomized controlled trials. Overall, pharmacy-led medication reconciliation intervention usually revealed a trend towards reduction in medication discrepancies, compared with usual care. Seventeen studies involving 18 medication reconciliation interventions targeting the various transitions (admission, 9; discharge, 4; and multiple transitions, 5) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with usual care, single medication reconciliation interventions at transitions in care (either admission or discharge) showed a significant reduction of 66% in patients with medication discrepancies (RR 0·34; 95% CI: 0·23–0·50) in favour of the intervention. There was no difference between groups for interventions targeting multiple transitions (RR 0·88; 95% CI: 0·77–1·02). Subgroup analyses confined to RCTs showed that there were no differences for target of transition (admission vs. discharge), type of intervention (multifaceted intervention vs. medication reconciliation) and setting (single centre vs. multicentre), nor pharmacists vs. pharmacy technicians (non-RCTs only). Importantly, medication discrepancies of higher clinical impact were more easily identified through pharmacy-led interventions than with usual care.

What is new and conclusion
Pharmacy-led medication reconciliation interventions were found to be an effective strategy to reduce medication discrepancies, and had a greater impact when conducted at either admission or discharge but were less effective during multiple transitions in care. Further studies that are designed to assess the impact of the involvement of pharmacy technicians in medication reconciliation are also needed.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jcpt.12364

Pharmacy-led medication reconciliation programmes at hospital transitions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

مداخلات برای بهبود استفاده مناسب از چنددارویی در سالمندان

Background Transitional care provides for the continuity of care as patients move between different stages and settings of care. Medication discrepancies arising at care transitions have been reported as prevalent and are linked with adverse drug events (ADEs) (e.g. rehospitalisation).Medication reconciliation is a process to prevent medication errors at transitions. Reconciliation involves building a complete list of a person's medications, checking them for accuracy, reconciling and documenting any changes. Despite reconciliation being recognised as a key aspect of patient safety, there remains a lack of consensus and evidence about the most effective methods of implementing reconciliation and calls have been made to strengthen the evidence base prior to widespread adoption. Objectives To assess the effect of medication reconciliation on medication discrepancies, patient-related outcomes and healthcare utilisation in people receiving this intervention during care transitions compared to people not receiving medication reconciliation. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, seven other databases and two trials registers on 18 January 2018 together with reference checking, citation searching, grey literature searches and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. Selection criteria We included only randomised trials. Eligible studies described interventions fulfilling the Institute for Healthcare Improvement definition of medication reconciliation aimed at all patients experiencing a transition of care as compared to standard care in that institution. Included studies had to report on medication discrepancies as an outcome. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Study-specific estimates were pooled, using a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome. Main results We identified 25 randomised trials involving 6995 participants. All studies were conducted in hospital or immediately related settings in eight countries. Twenty-three studies were provider orientated (pharmacist mediated) and two were structural (an electronic reconciliation tool and medical record changes). A pooled result of 20 studies comparing medication reconciliation interventions to standard care of participants with at least one medication discrepancy showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.53 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.67; 4629 participants). The certainty of the evidence on this outcome was very low and therefore the effect of medication reconciliation to reduce discrepancies was uncertain. Similarly, reconciliation's effect on the number of reported discrepancies per participant was also uncertain (mean difference (MD) -1.18, 95% CI -2.58 to 0.23; 4 studies; 1963 participants), as well as its effect on the number of medication discrepancies per participant medication (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.29; 2 studies; 3595 participants) as the certainty of the evidence for both outcomes was very low.Reconciliation may also have had little or no effect on preventable adverse drug events (PADEs) due to the very low certainty of the available evidence (RR 0.37. 95% CI 0.09 to 1.57; 3 studies; 1253 participants), with again uncertainty on its effect on ADE (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.30; 4 studies; 1363 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence of the effect of the interventions on healthcare utilisation was conflicting; it probably made little or no difference on unplanned rehospitalisation when reported alone (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.18; 5 studies; 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and had an uncertain effect on a composite measure of hospital utilisation (emergency department, rehospitalisation RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.22; 4 studies; 597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Authors' conclusions The impact of medication reconciliation interventions, in particular pharmacist-mediated interventions, on medication discrepancies is uncertain due to the certainty of the evidence being very low. There was also no certainty of the effect of the interventions on the secondary clinical outcomes of ADEs, PADEs and healthcare utilisation.

/pdf/impact-of-medication-reconciliation-for-improving-9dh21yr0rh.pdf

Impact of medication reconciliation for improving transitions of care

Purpose: Medication errors related to hospital discharge result in rehospitalization and emergency department (ED) visits, yet no systematic approach has been implemented nationally to decrease the...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2150131913502489

Impact of an Outpatient Pharmacist Intervention on Medication Discrepancies and Health Care Resource Utilization in Posthospitalization Care Transitions

Demonstration of achieved competencies is critical in the pharmacy workplace. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of the competency assessment program for pharmacy residents at an academic medical center. The competency assessment program (CAP) survey is a validated, 48-item instrument that evaluates the quality of an assessment program based on 12 criteria, each measured by four questions on a scale of 0 to 100. The CAP was completed by residents (n = 23) and preceptors (n = 28) from the pharmacy residency program between 2010 and 2013. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Cronbach's alpha, and non-parametric tests. Educational Consequences was the only quality criteria falling below the standard for "good quality." Participants that completed residency training elsewhere rated the Comparability (0.04) and Meaningfulness (0.01) of the assessment program higher than those that completed residency at the academic medical center. There were no significant differences between resident and preceptor scores. Overall, the quality of the assessment program was rated highly by residents and preceptors. The process described here provides a useful framework for understanding the quality of workplace learning assessments in pharmacy practice.

Jesica Mangun

Papers

Impact of an Outpatient Pharmacist Intervention on Medication Discrepancies and Health Care Resource Utilization in Posthospitalization Care Transitions

Evaluating the Quality of Competency Assessment in Pharmacy: A Framework for Workplace Learning