Advertisement

Drugs & Aging

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 63–73 | Cite as

Prevention of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalised Older Patients Using a Software-Supported Structured Pharmacist Intervention: A Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial

  • David O’Sullivan
  • Denis O’Mahony
  • Marie N. O’Connor
  • Paul Gallagher
  • James Gallagher
  • Shane Cullinan
  • Richard O’Sullivan
  • Joseph Eustace
  • Stephen ByrneEmail author
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

Proven interventions to reduce adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in older hospitalised patients are lacking. Previous randomised controlled trial (RCT) data indicate that a structured pharmacist review of medication (SPRM) can reduce inappropriate prescribing in older hospitalised patients. However, no RCT data show that an SPRM reduces ADRs in this population.

Methods

We performed a cluster RCT comparing a clinical decision support software (CDSS)-supported SPRM intervention with standard pharmaceutical care in older patients hospitalised with an acute unselected illness. Over 13 months, we screened 1833 patients aged ≥65 years admitted to specialist services other than geriatric medicine for study inclusion. We randomised 361 patients to the trial intervention arm and 376 patients to the control arm, applying the intervention at a single timepoint within 48 h of admission. The primary endpoint (ADR incidence) was assessed at 7–10 days post-admission or at discharge (whichever came first). The secondary endpoints were the median hospital length of stay (LOS) and hospital mortality rate.

Results

Attending clinicians in the intervention group implemented 54.8 % of SPRM/CDSS prescribing recommendations. Ninety-one ADRs occurred in 78 control patients (20.7 %) compared with 61 ADRs in 50 intervention patients (13.9 %), i.e., an absolute risk reduction of 6.8 %. The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one patient having one ADR was 15; the total NNT to prevent one ADR was 14. The median LOS and hospital mortality were not significantly different.

Conclusion

An SPRM delivered on a CDSS platform significantly reduces ADR incidence in acutely hospitalised older people.

Keywords

Pharmaceutical Care Clinical Pharmacist Absolute Risk Reduction Medication Reconciliation Pharmacist Intervention 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

A funding body (Health Research Board of Ireland: HRA_HSR/2010/14) grant funded this work.

Conflicts of interest

All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare the following: David O’Sullivan and Marie O’Connor were funded by a Health Research Board Ireland grant to conduct this research using the STOPP/START criteria. Denis O’Mahony and Stephen Byrne were members of the development and validation team that created the STOPP/START criteria and are named on a patent of computer software which used these criteria. Paul Gallagher was a member of the development and validation team that created the STOPP/START criteria. Shane Cullinan, Richard O’Sullivan, James Gallagher and Joseph Eustace have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this study.

Ethical approval

The trial protocol was approved by the biomedical ethics committee (institutional review board) of the University College Cork teaching hospital network.

Author contributions

David O’Sullivan, Denis O’Mahony and Stephen Byrne wrote the manuscript. David O’Sullivan, Denis O’Mahony, Stephen Byrne and Joseph Eustace analysed the data. David O’Sullivan, Denis O’Mahony and Stephen Byrne designed the research. David O’Sullivan, Marie O’Connor, Paul Gallagher, Shane Cullinan, Richard O’Sullivan and James Gallagher performed the research.

References

  1. 1.
    Gallagher P, Ryan C, Byrne S, et al. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fick DM, Cooper JW, Wade WE, et al. Updating the Beers criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults: results of a US consensus panel of experts. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(22):2716–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Petrovic M, van der Cammen T, Onder G. Adverse drug reactions in older people: detection and prevention. Drugs Aging. 2012;29(6):453–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    O’Connor MN, Gallagher P, O’Mahony D. Inappropriate prescribing: criteria, detection and prevention. Drugs Aging. 2012;29(6):437–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cherubini A, Ruggiero C, Gasperini B, et al. The prevention of adverse drug reactions in older subjects. Curr Drug Metab. 2011;12(7):652–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Routledge PA, O’Mahony MS, Woodhouse KW. Adverse drug reactions in elderly patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;57(2):121–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holt S, Schmiedl S, Thurmann PA. Potentially inappropriate medications in the elderly: the PRISCUS list. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010;107(31–32):543–51.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Passarelli MC, Jacob-Filho W, Figueras A. Adverse drug reactions in an elderly hospitalised population: inappropriate prescription is a leading cause. Drugs Aging. 2005;22(9):767–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    O’Connor MN, Gallagher P, Byrne S, et al. Adverse drug reactions in older patients during hospitalisation: are they predictable? Age Ageing. 2012;41(6):771–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davies EC, Green CF, Taylor S, et al. Adverse drug reactions in hospital in-patients: a prospective analysis of 3695 patient-episodes. PLoS One. 2009;4(2):e4439.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, et al. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. BMJ. 2004;329(7456):15–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spinewine A, Fialova D, Byrne S. The role of the pharmacist in optimizing pharmacotherapy in older people. Drugs Aging. 2012;29(6):495–510.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaur S, Mitchell G, Vitetta L, et al. Interventions that can reduce inappropriate prescribing in the elderly: a systematic review. Drugs Aging. 2009;26(12):1013–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Spinewine A, Dhillon S, Mallet L, et al. Implementation of ward-based clinical pharmacy services in Belgium—description of the impact on a geriatric unit. Ann Pharmacother. 2006;40(4):720–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Spinewine A, Swine C, Dhillon S, et al. Effect of a collaborative approach on the quality of prescribing for geriatric inpatients: a randomized, controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55(5):658–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Murray MD, Ritchey ME, Wu J, et al. Effect of a pharmacist on adverse drug events and medication errors in outpatients with cardiovascular disease. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(8):757–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mueller SK, Sponsler KC, Kripalani S, et al. Hospital-based medication reconciliation practices: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(14):1057–69.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schnipper JL, Hamann C, Ndumele CD, et al. Effect of an electronic medication reconciliation application and process redesign on potential adverse drug events: a cluster-randomized trial. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(8):771–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hodkinson HM. Evaluation of a mental test score for assessment of mental impairment in the elderly. Age Ageing. 1972;1(4):233–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Salvi F, Miller MD, Grilli A, et al. A manual of guidelines to score the modified cumulative illness rating scale and its validation in acute hospitalized elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56(10):1926–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    WHO. Guidelines for ATC classification and DDD assignment. 2011. http://www.whocc.no/filearchive/publications/2011guidelines.pdf. Accessed Sept 2015.
  23. 23.
    British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. British National Formulary. 58th ed. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2011.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    World Health Organisation (WHO). International drug monitoring—the role of the national centers. Geneva: World Health Organisation (WHO); 1972.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hamilton H, Gallagher P, Ryan C, et al. Potentially inappropriate medications defined by STOPP criteria and the risk of adverse drug events in older hospitalized patients. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(11):1013–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    World Health Organisation (WHO). Causality assessment of suspected adverse reactions. http://who-umc.org/Graphics/24734.pdf. Accessed Sept 2015.
  27. 27.
    Hallas J, Harvald B, Gram LF, et al. Drug related hospital admissions: the role of definitions and intensity of data collection, and the possibility of prevention. J Intern Med. 1990;228(2):83–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hartwig SC, Siegel J, Schneider PJ. Preventability and severity assessment in reporting adverse drug reactions. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1992;49(9):2229–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hanlon JT, Weinberger M, Samsa GP, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of a clinical pharmacist intervention to improve inappropriate prescribing in elderly outpatients with polypharmacy. Am J Med. 1996;100(4):428–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schmader KE, Hanlon JT, Pieper CF, et al. Effects of geriatric evaluation and management on adverse drug reactions and suboptimal prescribing in the frail elderly. Am J Med. 2004;116(6):394–401.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    O’Connor M, O’Sullivan D, Gallagher P, et al. Prevention of adverse drug events in hospitalized older patients: a randomised controlled trial using STOPP/START criteria. Eur Geriatr Med. 2012;3:S132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    University College Cork. Adverse drug event prevention using structured pharmacist review [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01467128]. US National Institutes of Health, ClinicalTrials.gov. http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01467128. Accessed 2 Nov 2015.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • David O’Sullivan
    • 1
  • Denis O’Mahony
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marie N. O’Connor
    • 2
  • Paul Gallagher
    • 2
    • 3
  • James Gallagher
    • 1
  • Shane Cullinan
    • 1
  • Richard O’Sullivan
    • 1
  • Joseph Eustace
    • 4
  • Stephen Byrne
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Pharmaceutical Care Research Group, School of PharmacyUniversity College CorkCorkIreland
  2. 2.Department of Geriatric MedicineCork University HospitalCorkIreland
  3. 3.School of Medicine, College of Medicine and Health SciencesBrookfield Complex, University College CorkCorkIreland
  4. 4.Health Research Board of Ireland Clinical Research FacilityUniversity College CorkCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations