Advertisement

European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

, Volume 68, Issue 7, pp 1095–1101 | Cite as

Association between multi-dose drug dispensing and drug treatment changes

  • Christina SjöbergEmail author
  • Henrik Ohlsson
  • Susanna M Wallerstedt
Pharmacoepidemiology and Prescription

Abstract

Purpose

To compare drug treatment changes in older hip fracture patients with and without multi-dose drug dispensing (MDD) after discharge from hospital.

Methods

Hip fracture patients (aged 65 years or older) for whom the same prescribing procedure was used at discharge and at the 6-month follow-up were extracted from two patient cohorts consecutively recruited in 2008 (n = 100) and 2009 (n = 99), respectively. Of these hip fracture patients, 107 patients used MDD and 47 used ordinary prescriptions (OP) throughout the study period. Drug treatment was registered at discharge and at the 6-month follow-up. Each drug was classified as changed (withdrawn, dosage adjusted or added) or unchanged. The association between MDD and changes in drug treatment was analysed with generalised estimating equations (GEE). Age, sex, cognition, year of study and type of drug (fall-risk-increasing, fracture-preventing or other) were included in the model.

Results

A total of 1,980 drugs were prescribed at discharge and at the 6-month follow-up to the 154 patients. Of the 1,413 drugs prescribed via MDD, 597 (43%) drugs were unchanged. The corresponding figure for drugs prescribed via OP was 166 out of 567 (29%) prescribed drugs. Analysis with GEE revealed an odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of 1.66 (1.20–2.31) to 1.77 (1.38–2.27) for a drug to be classified as unchanged when prescribed via the MDD system.

Conclusions

MDD is associated with fewer changes in drug treatment compared with OP. Further studies of risks and benefits from this prescribing procedure are urged.

Keywords

Prescribing Multi-dose drug dispensing Drug treatment Elderly 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The study was supported by the National Board of Health and Welfare. The funding source did not influence design, methods, subject recruitment, data collections, analysis, preparation of paper or the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Leipzig RM et al (1999) Drugs and falls in older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis: II. Cardiac and analgesic drugs. J Am Geriatr Soc 47(1):40–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leipzig RM et al (1999) Drugs and falls in older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis: I. Psychotropic drugs. J Am Geriatr Soc 47(1):30–39PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Qaseem A et al (2008) Pharmacologic treatment of low bone density or osteoporosis to prevent fractures: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 149(6):404–415PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sjoberg C et al (2010) Treatment with fall-risk-increasing and fracture-preventing drugs before and after a hip fracture: an observational study. Drugs Aging 27(8):653–661. doi: 10.2165/11538200-000000000-00000 5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chrischilles EA et al (2009) Inappropriate medication use as a risk factor for self-reported adverse drug effects in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 57(6):1000–1006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johnell K et al (2007) The relationship between number of drugs and potential drug-drug interactions in the elderly: a study of over 600,000 elderly patients from the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register. Drug Saf 30(10):911–918PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Westerbotn M et al (2006) Factors influencing the handling of medicines among very old people living at home in an urban area. Aging Clin Exp Res 18(6):497–502PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Åkerlund M et al. (2011) ApoDos–The multi-dose drug dispensing of the Swedish Pharmacies (ApoDos–Apotekets dosexpedierade läkemedel). In: The Swedish Medical Products Agency (Läkemedelsverket) (ed) Book of medication 2011–2012(Läkemedelsboken 2011–2012). The Swedish Medical Products Agency (Läkemedelsverket), Stockholm, pp 1250–1254Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Statens beredning för medicinsk utvärdering (Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care) (2009) Äldres läkemedelsanvändning—hur kan den förbättras? (How Can Drug Consumption among the Elderly be Improved?) Report 193. Summary and conclusions available in English at: http://sbu.se/upload/Publikationer/Content1/1/Drug_Consumption_among_Elderly_summary.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2011
  10. 10.
    Bakken T et al (2003) Improved medicine lists with multi-dose packaging? Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 123(24):3595–3597PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Midlov P et al (2005) Medication errors when transferring elderly patients between primary health care and hospital care. Pharm World Sci 27(2):116–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wekre LJ et al (2010) Multidose drug dispensing and discrepancies between medication records. Qual Saf Health Care 19(5):1–4. doi:  10.1136/qshc.2009.038745 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnell K et al (2008) Multi-dose drug dispensing and inappropriate drug use: a nationwide register-based study of over 700,000 elderly. Scand J. Prim Health Care 26(2):86–91. doi:  10.1080/02813430802022196 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sjoberg C et al (2011) Association between multi-dose drug dispensing and Quality of Drug Treatment - A Register-Based Study. PLoS One 6(10):e26574. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026574 PONE-D-11-10309 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kragh A (2004) Two out of three persons living in nursing homes for the elderly are treated with at least ten different drugs. A survey of drug prescriptions in the northeastern part of Skane. Lakartidningen 101(11):994–996, 999Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    van der Velde N et al (2007) Risk of falls after withdrawal of fall-risk-increasing drugs: a prospective cohort study. Br J Clin Pharmacol 63:232–237. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2006.02736.x Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hidle U (2007) Implementing technology to improve medication safety in healthcare facilities: a literature review. J N Y State Nurses Assoc 38(2):4–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Modig S et al (2009) Frail elderly patients in primary care—their medication knowledge and beliefs about prescribed medicines. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 65(2):151–155. doi: 10.1007/s00228-008-0581-8: PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christina Sjöberg
    • 1
    Email author
  • Henrik Ohlsson
    • 2
    • 3
  • Susanna M Wallerstedt
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of GeriatricsSahlgrenska University Hospital/MölndalMölndalSweden
  2. 2.Centre for Primary Health Care ResearchLund University/Region Skåne, Skåne University HospitalMalmöSweden
  3. 3.Social Epidemiology, Department of Clinical Science, Faculty of MedicineLund UniversityMalmöSweden
  4. 4.Department of Clinical PharmacologySahlgrenska University HospitalGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations