Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 33, Issue 6, pp 909–917 | Cite as

Review of the cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve seamless care focusing on medication

  • Steven SimoensEmail author
  • Anne Spinewine
  • Veerle Foulon
  • Dominique Paulus
Review Article

Abstract

Aim of the review This review of the international literature aims to assess the evidence and its methodological quality relating to the cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve seamless care focusing on medication. Method Studies were identified by searching Medline, EMBASE, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and EconLit up to March 2011 using search terms related to health economics and to seamless care. To be included, economic evaluations had to explore the costs and consequences of an intervention to improve seamless care focusing on medication as compared with usual care. Methodological quality of studies was assessed by considering perspective; design; source of clinical and economic data; cost and consequence measures; allowance for uncertainty; and incremental analysis. Costs were actualized to 2007 values. Results Eight studies on medication interventions for hospitalized patients in the transition between ambulatory and hospital care were included in the review. A variety of types of medication interventions and target populations have been assessed, but the evidence is limited to one economic evaluation for each particular intervention type and each specific target population. Most studies demonstrated an impact of interventions on compliance and (re)hospitalization rates and costs. The studies did not find an impact on quality of life or symptoms. Economic evaluations suffered from methodological limitations related to the narrow perspective; restriction to health care costs only; exclusion of costs of the intervention; use of intermediate consequence measures; no allowance for uncertainty; and absence of incremental analysis. Conclusion In light of the small number of economic evaluations and their methodological limitations, it is not possible to recommend a specific intervention to improve seamless care focusing on medication on health economic grounds.

Keywords

Cost-effectiveness Medication management Seamless care Review 

Notes

Funding

Financial support for this research was received from the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, a state-funded research institution.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Canadian Society of Hospital Pharmacists and Canadian Pharmacists. In: Proceedings of the seamless care workshop, Ottawa; 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Continuity of care in medication management: review of issues and considerations for pharmacy. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2005;62(16):1714–1720.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tam VC, Knowles SR, Cornish PL, Fine N, Marchesano R, Etchells EE. Frequency, type and clinical importance of medication history errors at admission to hospital: a systematic review. CMAJ. 2005;173(5):505–510.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Paulino EI, Bouvy ML, Gastelurrutia MA, Guerreiro M, Buurma H. Drug related problems identified by European community pharmacists in patients discharged from hospital. Pharm World Sci. 2004;26(6):353–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Viktil KK, Blix HS. The impact of clinical pharmacists on drug-related problems and clinical outcomes. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2008;102(3):275–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ernst FR, Grizzle AJ. Drug-related morbidity and mortality: updating the cost-of-illness model. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash). 2001;41(2):192–9.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnson JA, Bootman JL. Drug-related morbidity and mortality. A cost-of-illness model. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155(18):1949–1956.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Spinewine A, Foulon V, Claeys C, De Lepeleire J, Chevalier P, Desplenter FA, et al. Seamless care focusing on medication between hospital and home. Brussels; 2010 (Report No.: KCE report 131A).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Drummond M, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Badger N, Mullis S, Butler K, Tucker D. Pharmacist’s intervention for older hospitalized patients. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2007;64(17):1794–1796.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coleman EA, Parry C, Chalmers S, Min SJ. The care transitions intervention: results of a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(17):1822–1828.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smeenk FW, Ament AJ, van Haastregt JC, de Witte LP, Crebolder HF. Cost analysis of transmural home care for terminal cancer patients. Patient Educ Couns. 1998;35(3):201–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stewart S, Vandenbroek AJ, Pearson S, Horowitz JD. Prolonged beneficial effects of a home-based intervention on unplanned readmissions and mortality among patients with congestive heart failure. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(3):257–261.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cabezas C, Salvador C, Quadrada D, Bartés A, Boré M, Perea N, et al. Randomized clinical trial of a post discharge pharmaceutical care program versus regular follow-up in patients with heart failure. Farmacia Hospitalaria. 2006;30(6):328–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Desplenter FA. Exploring the impact of medication information for psychiatric patients at hospital discharge. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven; 2009.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dudas V, Bookwalter T, Kerr KM, Pantilat SZ. The impact of follow-up telephone calls to patients after hospitalization. Am J Med. 2001;111(9B):26S–30S.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hugtenburg JG, Borgsteede SD, Beckeringh JJ. Medication review and patient counselling at discharge from the hospital by community pharmacists. Pharm World Sci. 2009.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jack BW, Chetty VK, Anthony D, Greenwald JL, Sanchez GM, Johnson AE, et al. A reengineered hospital discharge program to decrease rehospitalization: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(3):178–187.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Karnon J, Campbell F, Czoski-Murray C. Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions aimed at preventing medication error at hospital admission (medicines reconciliation). J Eval Clin Pract. 2009;15(2):299–306.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smith L, McGowan L, Moss-Barclay C, Wheater J, Knass D, Chrystyn H. An investigation of hospital generated pharmaceutical care when patients are discharged home from hospital. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1997;44(2):163–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Karapinar-Carkit F, Borgsteede SD, Zoer J, Siegert C, van TM, Egberts AC, et al. The effect of the COACH program (continuity of appropriate pharmacotherapy, patient counselling and information transfer in healthcare) on readmission rates in a multicultural population of internal medicine patients. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:39.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven Simoens
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anne Spinewine
    • 2
  • Veerle Foulon
    • 1
  • Dominique Paulus
    • 3
  1. 1.Research Centre for Pharmaceutical Care and Pharmaco-economics, KatholiekeUniversiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Center for Clinical PharmacyUniversité Catholique de LouvainBrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.Belgian Healthcare Knowledge CentreBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations