Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 327–334 | Cite as

Drug-related problems in institutionalized, polymedicated elderly patients: opportunities for pharmacist intervention

  • Cristina Silva
  • Célia Ramalho
  • Isabel Luz
  • Joaquim Monteiro
  • Paula Fresco
Research Article

Abstract

Background An aging population and the increasing prevalence of chronic diseases have led to the increased use of medicines. Portugal is one of the European countries where more medicines are consumed and the associated expense is higher. Medicines are associated with enormous health benefits but also with the potential to cause illness and death. A drug related problem (DRP) is an “an event or circumstance involving drug therapy that actually or potentially interferes with desired health outcomes”. In the U.S., they represent the 4th–6th leading cause of death and have an estimated cost of 130 billion dollars. Moreover, many of these DRP can be avoided. Elderly are at increased risk of DRP due to multiple factors: pluripathology and consequent polypharmacy, complex dosing regimens, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic and functional/cognitive changes. Therefore, this population would be the one who would benefit most from the prevention, detection and control of DRP. The role of the pharmacist as an integral element of health care has been recognized by various international and European organizations. Providing pharmaceutical care as a patient-centered activity, focusing on their needs related to pharmacotherapy, contributes to guarantee that drug expenditure is a good investment, with benefits that outweigh potential risks. Objective To evaluate the need for pharmaceutical care implementation in institutionalized, polymedicated elderly. Methods Descriptive observational cross-sectional study carried out in six Portuguese nursing homes, selected by convenience, in November–December 2013. Each institution selected up to six patients, according to the following inclusion criteria: age ≥65 years, number of medications ≥5 and ability to respond to an interview. All participants signed an informed consent form. Pharmacists carried out a structured interview with each patient and consulted patient medical records to gather demographic data and information on health problems and medications used. To identify DRP, official drug information sources were consulted, and the STOPP and START tool was used. The ATC, the ICD-10 and the PCNE Classification V 6.2 classification systems were used for medicines, health problems and DRP classifications, respectively. For each medicine used, the cheapest equivalent available was also identified. Results The sample included 31 elderly (64.52 % female, mean age 81.65 ± 6.86). On average, subjects presented a mean of 7.94 ± 2.76 health problems with diseases of the circulatory system being the most common. The sample used a median of ten medicines per patient. Those medicines working in the cardiovascular, nervous and digestive systems were the most frequently used (29.75, 29.43 and 19.30 %, respectively). A total of 484 DRP (median: 15 DRP/patient) was found. The most common DRP were Adverse Drug Event, non-allergic (49.51 %), Drug treatment more costly than necessary (19.11 %), Effect of drug treatment not optimal (14.82 %) and Unnecessary drug treatment (6.16 %). The most cost-effective proposal, would lead to a saving of € 3,950/year in the studied sample. Conclusion These results reinforce the need for the implementation of pharmaceutical care services to institutionalized elderly, necessary to improve medicines efficacy and safety, better clinical outcomes and cost reduction.

Keywords

Drug-related problems Elderly Pharmacist intervention Polymedication Portugal 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are deeply grateful to Dr. Nuno Lages for the trust he has deposited in our work and to Eng. Sérgio Gonçalves for its assistance on facilitating the contact and cooperation with the NH. We also would like to thank the responsibles of the six NH involved, for the kind cooperation and, ultimately, all the patients that agreed to participate in this study.

Funding

The authors thank Diola—Sénior Assistance (Portugal) for financial support.

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Campos AC. Health reforms—the conductor wire. Edições Almedina. 2008. ISBN:9789724036045.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hafner JW Jr, Belknap SM, Squillante MD, Bucheit KA. Adverse drug events in emergency department patients. Ann Emerg Med. 2002;39(3):258–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baena MI, et al. Medicine-related problems resulting in emergency. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2006;62:387–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Queneau P, et al. Emergency department visits caused by adverse drug events. Results of a French survey. Drug Saf. 2007;30(1):81–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Budnitz DS, Pollock DA, Weidenbach KN, Mendelsohn AB, Schroeder TJ, Annest JL. National surveillance of emergency department visits for outpatient adverse drug events. JAMA. 2006;296(15):1858–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    World Health Organization, Department of Medicines Policy and Standards; International Pharmaceutical Federation. Developing pharmacy practice—a focus on patient care. In: Wiedenmayer K, Summers RS, Mackie CA, Gous AG, Everard M, Tromp D, editors. Handbook—2006 Edition. The Netherlands: World Health Organization; 2006.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McDonnell PJ, Jacobs MR. Hospital admissions resulting from preventable adverse drug reactions. Ann Pharmacother. 2002;36(9):1331–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beijer HJM, Blaey CJ. Hospitalisations caused by adverse drug reactions (ADR): a meta analysis of observational studies. Pharm World Sci. 2002;24(2):46–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guerreiro MP, Cantrill JM, Pisco L, Martins AP. Considerations on preventable drug related morbidity in primary care part I—impact of preventable drug-related morbidity. Rev Port Clin Geral. 2005;21:269–79.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    National Road Safety Authority. Victims in continental Portugal 2012 [Internet] [cited 2014 Jul 20]. http://www.ansr.pt/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=xcxwXWaAJl0%3D&tabid=36&language=en-US.
  11. 11.
    Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe, PCNE. Working group on drug-related problems [Internet] [cited 2014 Jul 20]. http://www.pcne.org/sig/drp/drug-related-problems.php.
  12. 12.
    Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe. Classification for drug related problems [Internet] V6.2; [revised January 2010; cited 2014 Jul 20]. http://www.pcne.org/upload/files/11_PCNE_classification_V6-2.pdf.
  13. 13.
    National Pharmacies Association. Living longer and better, knowing your medicines. Farm Saúde [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2014 Jul 20];152:4–5. http://www.anf.pt/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=886.
  14. 14.
    Veehof LJG, Stewart RE, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, Meyboom-de Jong B. The development of polypharmacy. A longitudinal study. Fam Pract. 2000;17:261–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mangoni AA, Jackson SH. Age-related changes in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: basic principles and practical applications. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;57(1):6–14.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krska J, et al. Pharmacist-led medication review in patients over 65: a randomized, controlled trial in primary care. Age Ageing. 2001;30:205–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Council of Europe. Resolution ResAP (2001)2 concerning the pharmacist’s role in the framework of health security (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 21 March 2001 at the 746th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) [Internet] [cited 2014 Jul 20]. https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=193721&Site=CM.
  18. 18.
    Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies. Committee on identifying and preventing medication errors. In: Aspden P, Wolcott JA, Bootman JL, Cronenwett LR, editors. Preventing medication errors [Internet] [cited 2014 Jul 20]. Washington, DC; 2006. http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2006/Preventing-Medication-Errors-Quality-Chasm-Series.aspx.
  19. 19.
    Carter BL, et al. A cluster randomized trial to evaluate physician/pharmacist collaboration to improve blood pressure control. J Clin Hypertens. 2008;10:260–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gallagher P, Ryan C, Byrne S, Kennedy J, O’Mahony D. STOPP (screening tool of older person’s prescriptions) and START (screening tool to alert doctors to right treatment). Consensus validation. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008;46(2):72–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Verrue C, Petrovic M, Mehuys E, Boussery K, Somers A, Spinewine A, et al. Organization of the medication management process in Belgian nursing homes. JAMDA. 2011;12(4):308–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sergi G, De Rui M, Sarti S, Manzato E. Polypharmacy in the elderly: Can comprehensive geriatric assessment reduce inappropriate medication use? Drugs Aging. 2011;28(7):509–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mendes Z, Guedes S, Marques FB, Miranda A. A terapêutica e custos no idoso polimedicados. Farmácia Observatório. 2009;23:6–7.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Onder G, Liperoti R, Fialova D, Topinkova E, Tosato M, Danese P, et al. Polypharmacy in nursing home in Europe: results from the SHELTER study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2012;67(6):698–704.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dwyer LL, Han B, Woodwell DA, Rechtsteiner EA. Polypharmacy in nursing home residents in the United States: results of the 2004 national nursing home survey. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2010;8(1):63–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Huang AR, Mallet L, Rochefort CM, Eguale T, Buckeridge DL, Tamblyn R. Medication-related falls in the elderly: causative factors and preventive strategies. Drugs Aging. 2012;29(5):359–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hill KD, Wee R. Psychotropic drug-induced falls in older people: a review of interventions aimed at reducing the problem. Drugs Aging. 2012;29(1):15–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    de Souto Barreto P, Lapeyre-Mestre M, Mathieu C, Piau C, Bouget C, Cayla F, et al. Prevalence and associations of the use of proton-pump inhibitors in nursing homes: a cross-sectional study. JAMDA. 2013;14(4):265–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gallagher P, Barry P, O’Mahony D. Inappropriate prescribing in the elderly. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2007;32(2):113–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brulhart MI, Wermeille JP. Multidisciplinary medication review: evaluation of a pharmaceutical care model for nursing homes. Int J Clin Pharm. 2011;33:549–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bootman JL, Harrison DL, Cox E. The health care cost of drug-related morbidity and mortality in nursing facilities. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157(18):2089–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij ter bevordering der Pharmacie 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristina Silva
    • 1
    • 2
  • Célia Ramalho
    • 1
  • Isabel Luz
    • 1
    • 3
  • Joaquim Monteiro
    • 1
    • 4
    • 5
  • Paula Fresco
    • 1
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.SerFarma, LtdCoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.Faculty of Pharmacy, Center for Pharmaceutical StudiesUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  3. 3.Farmácia RainhaCarrazeda de AnsiãesPortugal
  4. 4.Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Higher Institute of Health Sciences - North (ISCS-N)CESPU, Institute of Research and Advanced Training in Health Sciences and TechnologiesGandra PRDPortugal
  5. 5.MedInUp - Center for Drug Discovery and Innovative MedicinesUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal
  6. 6.Laboratory of Pharmacology, Department of Drug Sciences, Faculty of PharmacyUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations