Advertisement

Drugs & Aging

, Volume 35, Issue 7, pp 665–675 | Cite as

Contribution of Patient Interviews as Part of a Comprehensive Approach to the Identification of Drug-Related Problems on Geriatric Wards

  • Dominik StämpfliEmail author
  • Fabienne Boeni
  • Andy Gerber
  • Victor A. D. Bättig
  • Kurt E. Hersberger
  • Markus L. Lampert
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

Inappropriate prescribing is linked to increased risks for adverse drug reactions and hospitalisation. Combining explicit and implicit criteria of inappropriate prescribing with the information obtained in patient interviews seems beneficial with regard to the identification of drug-related problems (DRPs) in hospitalised patients.

Objective

We aimed to investigate the inclusion of pharmacist interviews as part of medication reviews (including the use of explicit and implicit criteria of inappropriate prescribing) to identify DRPs in older inpatients.

Methods

Clinical medication reviews were performed on geriatric and associated physical and neurological rehabilitation wards in a regional secondary care hospital. Data from electronic medical records, laboratory data, and current treatment regimens were complemented with a novel structured patient interview performed by a clinical pharmacist. The structured interview questioned patients on administration issues, prescribed medication, self-medication, and allergies. The reviews included the use of current treatment guidelines, the Medication Appropriateness Index, the Screening Tool of Older People’s Prescriptions (STOPP, v2), and the Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment (START, v2). The potential relevance of the DRPs was estimated using the German version of the CLEO tool.

Results

In 110 patients, 595 DRPs were identified, averaging 5.4 per patient (range 0–17). The structured interviews identified 249 DRPs (41.8%), of which 227 were not identified by any other source of information. The majority of DRPs (213/249, i.e. 85.5%) identified by patient interview were estimated to be of minor clinical relevance (i.e. limited adherence, knowledge, quality of life, or satisfaction).

Conclusion

We demonstrated that structured patient interviews identified additional DRPs that other sources did not identify. Embedded within a comprehensive approach, the structured patient interviews were needed as data resource for over one-third of all DRPs.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the contributing wards and the hospital staff for their generous assistance and Dr. Roland Preston for proof-reading the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This study was enabled by funding from the University of Basel. No external sources of funding were used to assist in the conduct of this study or the preparation of this article.

Conflict of interest

Dominik Stämpfli, Fabienne Boeni, Andy Gerber, Victor Bättig, Kurt Hersberger and Markus Lampert declare that they have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this study.

Supplementary material

40266_2018_557_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (134 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 133 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Reich O, Rosemann T, Rapold R, Blozik E, Senn O. Potentially inappropriate medication use in older patients in Swiss managed care plans: prevalence, determinants and association with hospitalization. PLoS One. 2014;9(8):e105425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fialová D, Topinková E, Gambassi G, et al. Potentially inappropriate medication use among elderly home care patients in Europe. JAMA. 2005;293(11):1348–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    O’Connor MN, Gallagher P, O’Mahony D. Inappropriate prescribing. Drugs Aging. 2012;29(6):437–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blozik E, Rapold R, Overbeck J, Reich O. Polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medication in the adult, community-dwelling population in Switzerland. Drugs Aging. 2013;30(7):561–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    O’Mahony D, O’Sullivan D, Byrne S, O’Connor MN, Ryan C, Gallagher P. STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 2. Age Ageing. 2015;44(2):213–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaufmann CP, Tremp R, Hersberger KE, Lampert ML. Inappropriate prescribing: a systematic overview of published assessment tools. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;70(1):1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McLean AJ, Le Couteur DG. Aging biology and geriatric clinical pharmacology. Pharmacol Rev. 2004;56(2):163–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    The PCNE classification v 6.2: Classification for drug related problems. Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe Working Conference; 2009.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Spinewine A, Swine C, Dhillon S, Lambert P, Nachega JB, Wilmotte L, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krahenbuhl-Melcher A, Schlienger R, Lampert M, Haschke M, Drewe J, Krahenbuhl S. Drug-related problems in hospitals: a review of the recent literature. Drug Saf. 2007;30(5):379–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Petrovic M, Somers A, Onder G. Optimization of geriatric pharmacotherapy: role of multifaceted cooperation in the hospital setting. Drugs Aging. 2016;33(3):179–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spinewine A, Dhillon S, Mallet L, Tulkens PM, Wilmotte L, Swine C. Implementation of ward-based clinical pharmacy services in Belgium—description of the impact on a geriatric unit. Ann Pharmacother. 2006;40(4):720–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kwint HF, Faber A, Gussekloo J, Bouvy ML. The contribution of patient interviews to the identification of drug-related problems in home medication review. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2012;37(6):674–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Viktil KK, Blix HS, Moger TA, Reikvam A. Interview of patients by pharmacists contributes significantly to the identification of drug-related problems (DRPs). Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2006;15(9):667–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH). Kennzahlen der Schweizer Spitäler [Key Figures for Swiss Hospitals]. Berne: Foph; 2017. http://www.bag-anw.admin.ch/2016_taglab/2016_spitalstatistik/data/download/kzp15_publikation.pdf?v=1487842410. Accessed 16 Nov 2017.
  16. 16.
    Messerli M, Blozik E, Vriends N, Hersberger KE. Impact of a community pharmacist-led medication review on medicines use in patients on polypharmacy: a prospective randomised controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1):145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Horne R, Weinman J, Hankins M. The beliefs about medicines questionnaire: the development and evaluation of a new method for assessing the cognitive representation of medication. Psychol Health. 1999;14(1):1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hersberger KE, Messerli M. Development of clinical pharmacy in Switzerland: involvement of community pharmacists in care for older patients. Drugs Aging. 2016;33(3):205–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe. PCNE statement on medication review. 2013. http://www.pcne.org/upload/files/150_20160504_PCNE_MedRevtypes.pdf. Accessed 16 Nov 2017.
  20. 20.
    Furger P. Guidelines surf-med©: scientific-units-recommendations-formulas: guidelines medizin der Schweiz [Medicine Guidelines of Switzerland]. Neuhausen am Rheinfall: Editions D&F GmbH; 2016.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hanlon JT, Schmader KE, Samsa GP, Weinberger M, Uttech KM, Lewis IK, et al. A method for assessing drug therapy appropriateness. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(10):1045–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Samsa GP, Hanlon JT, Schmader KE, Weinberger M, Clipp EC, Uttech KM, et al. A summated score for the medication appropriateness index: development and assessment of clinimetric properties including content validity. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47(8):891–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Spinewine A, Dumont C, Mallet L, Swine C. Medication appropriateness index: reliability and recommendations for future use [letter]. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(4):720–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    MediQ—Einschätzung des Interaktions-Risikos bei Polypharmazie (mediq—assessment of interaction risks in polypharmacy). 2017. https://mediq.ch/welcome_public. Accessed 16 Nov 2017.
  25. 25.
    Vo TH. Evaluation of the potential impact of pharmacist interventions: development and validation of the CLEO multidimensional tool. Grenoble: Université Grenoble Alpes. 2015. https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01315619/document. Accessed 17 Nov 2017.
  26. 26.
    Stämpfli D, Baumgartner P, Boeni F, Bedouch P, Lampert ML. Translation and validation of the CLEO tool to assess the potential relevance of pharmacists’ interventions. Le Pharmacien Hospitalier et Clinicien. 2017;52(1):e16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    World Health Organization. Anatomical therapeutic Chemical classification system with defined daily doses. Oslo: World Health Organization; 2006.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Maes KA, Tremp RM, Hersberger KE, Lampert ML. Demonstrating the clinical pharmacist’s activity: validation of an intervention oriented classification system. Int J Clin Pharm. 2015;37(6):1162–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maniaci MJ, Heckman MG, Dawson NL. Functional health literacy and understanding of medications at discharge. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008;83(5):554–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wenger NK, Doherty CL, Gurwitz JH, Hirsch GA, Holmes HM, Maurer MS, et al. Optimization of drug prescription and medication management in older adults with cardiovascular disease. Drugs Aging. 2017;34(11):803–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gleason KM, McDaniel MR, Feinglass J, Baker DW, Lindquist L, Liss D, et al. Results of the medications at transitions and clinical handoffs (match) study: an analysis of medication reconciliation errors and risk factors at hospital admission. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(5):441–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Perez A, Doloresco F, Hoffman JM, Meek PD, Touchette DR, Vermeulen LC, et al. Economic evaluations of clinical pharmacy services: 2001–2005. Pharmacotherapy. 2009;29(1):128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chen TF. Pharmacist-led home medicines review and residential medication management review: the Australian model. Drugs Aging. 2016;33(3):199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Verdoorn S, Kwint HF, Faber A, Gussekloo J, Bouvy ML. Majority of drug-related problems identified during medication review are not associated with stopp/start criteria. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;71(10):1255–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Blix HS, Viktil KK, Reikvam Å, Moger TA, Hjemaas BJ, Pretsch P, et al. The majority of hospitalised patients have drug-related problems: results from a prospective study in general hospitals. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;60(9):651–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Forgacs I, Loganayagam A. Overprescribing proton pump inhibitors. BMJ. 2008;336(7634):2–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fraser SD, Roderick PJ, Casey M, Taal MW, Yuen HM, Nutbeam D. Prevalence and associations of limited health literacy in chronic kidney disease: a systematic review. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013;28(1):129–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dageforde LA, Cavanaugh KL. Health literacy: emerging evidence and applications in kidney disease care. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2013;20(4):311–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Barenholtz Levy H. Self-administered medication-risk questionnaire in an elderly population. Ann Pharmacother. 2003;37(7–8):982–7.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    van Sluisveld N, Zegers M, Natsch S, Wollersheim H. Medication reconciliation at hospital admission and discharge: insufficient knowledge, unclear task reallocation and lack of collaboration as major barriers to medication safety. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12(1):170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversity of BaselBaselSwitzerland
  2. 2.Solothurner Spitaeler AGOltenSwitzerland
  3. 3.Felix Platter-HospitalBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations