Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Physician-Implemented Medication Screening Tool in Older Hospitalised Patients in Ireland

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Drugs & Aging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

A recent randomised controlled trial conducted in an Irish University teaching hospital that evaluated a physician-implemented medication screening tool, demonstrated positive outcomes in terms of a reduction in incident adverse drug reactions.

Objective

The present study objective was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of physicians applying this screening tool to older hospitalised patients compared with usual hospital care in the context of the earlier randomised controlled trial.

Method

We used a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a conventional outcome analysis in a cluster randomised controlled trial. Patients in the intervention arm (n = 360) received a multifactorial intervention consisting of medicines reconciliation, communication with patients’ senior medical team, and generation of a pharmaceutical care plan in addition to usual medical and pharmaceutical care. Control arm patients (n = 372) received usual medical and pharmaceutical care only. Incremental cost effectiveness was examined in terms of costs to the healthcare system and an outcome measure of adverse drug reactions during inpatient hospital stay. Uncertainty in the analysis was explored using a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve.

Results

On average, the intervention arm was more costly but was also more effective. Compared with usual care (control), the intervention was associated with a non-statistically significant increase of €877 (95% confidence interval − €1807, €3561) in the mean healthcare cost, and a statistically significant decrease of − 0.164 (95% confidence interval − 0.257, − 0.070) in the mean number of adverse drug reaction events per patient. The associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per adverse drug reaction averted was €5358. The probability of the intervention being cost effective at threshold values of €0, €5000 and €10,000 was 0.236, 0.455 and 0.680, respectively.

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented, this physician-led intervention is not likely to be cost effective compared with usual hospital care. To inform future healthcare policy decisions in this field, more economic analyses of structured medication reviews by other healthcare professionals and by computerised clinical decision support software need to be conducted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Life expectancy at birth (indicator). 2018. https://data.oecd.org/healthstat/life-expectancy-at-birth.htm. Accessed 26 Jan 2018.

  2. Lehnert T, Heider D, Leicht H, Heinrich S, Corrieri S, Luppa M, et al. Health care utilization and costs of elderly persons with multiple chronic conditions. Med Care Res Rev. 2011;68(4):387–420.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. O’Connor MN, Gallagher P, O’Mahony D. Inappropriate prescribing. Drugs Aging. 2012;29(6):437–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Linjakumpu T, Hartikainen S, Klaukka T, Veijola J, Kivelä S-L, Isoaho R. Use of medications and polypharmacy are increasing among the elderly. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55(8):809–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hanlon JT, Pieper CF, Hajjar ER, Sloane RJ, Lindblad CI, Ruby CM, et al. Incidence and predictors of all and preventable adverse drug reactions in frail elderly persons after hospital stay. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2006;61(5):511–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nguyen JK, Fouts MM, Kotabe SE, Lo E. Polypharmacy as a risk factor for adverse drug reactions in geriatric nursing home residents. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2006;4(1):36–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Scott I, Jayathissa S. Quality of drug prescribing in older patients: is there a problem and can we improve it? Intern Med J. 2010;40(1):7–18.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Davies EC, Green CF, Taylor S, Williamson PR, Mottram DR, Pirmohamed M. Adverse drug reactions in hospital in-patients: a prospective analysis of 3695 patient-episodes. PLoS One. 2009;4(2):e4439.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Davies EC, Green CF, Mottram DR, Pirmohamed M. Adverse drug reactions in hospitals: a narrative review. Curr Drug Saf. 2007;2(1):79–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Forget EL, Roos LL, Deber RB, Walld R. Variations in lifetime healthcare costs across a population. Healthc Policy. 2008;4(1):e148–67.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Scott MG, Scullin C, Hogg A, et al. Integrated medicines management to medicines optimisation in Northern Ireland (2000–2014): a review. Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2014-000512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ahern F, Sahm LJ, Lynch D, McCarthy S. Determining the frequency and preventability of adverse drug reaction-related admissions to an Irish University Hospital: a cross-sectional study. Emerg Med J. 2014;31(1):24–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Christensen M, Lundh A. Medication review in hospitalised patients to reduce morbidity and mortality. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(2):CD008986.

  14. Blenkinsopp A, Bond C, Raynor DK. Medication reviews. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;74(4):573–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2012.04331.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Gillespie U, Alassaad A, Henrohn D, Garmo H, Hammarlund-Udenaes M, Toss H, et al. A comprehensive pharmacist intervention to reduce morbidity in patients 80 years or older: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(9):894–900.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hellström LM, Bondesson Å, Höglund P, Midlöv P, Holmdahl L, Rickhag E, et al. Impact of the Lund Integrated Medicines Management (LIMM) model on medication appropriateness and drug-related hospital revisits. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;67(7):741–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Trivalle C, Cartier T, Verny C, Mathieu AM, Davrinche P, Agostini H, et al. Identifying and preventing adverse drug events in elderly hospitalised patients: a randomised trial of a program to reduce adverse drug effects. J Nutr Health Aging. 2010;14(1):57–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Schmader KE, Hanlon JT, Pieper CF, Sloane R, Ruby CM, Twersky J, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. O’Connor MN, O’Sullivan D, Gallagher PF, Eustace J, Byrne S, O’Mahony D. Prevention of hospital-acquired adverse drug reactions in older people using Screening Tool of Older Persons’ Prescriptions and Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment criteria: a cluster randomized controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016;64(8):1558–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. O’Sullivan D, O’Mahony D, O’Connor MN, Gallagher P, Gallagher J, Cullinan S, et al. Prevention of adverse drug reactions in hospitalised older patients using a software-supported structured pharmacist intervention: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Drugs Aging. 2016;33(1):63–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hill-Taylor B, Sketris I, Hayden J, Byrne S, O’Sullivan D, Christie R. Application of the STOPP/START criteria: a systematic review of the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing in older adults, and evidence of clinical, humanistic and economic impact. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2013;38(5):360–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Gallagher J, O’Sullivan D, McCarthy S, Gillespie P, Woods N, O’Mahony D, et al. Structured pharmacist review of medication in older hospitalised patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Drugs Aging. 2016;33(4):285–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Prevention of Adverse Drug Events (ADEs) in hospitalised older patients. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT01467050. Accessed 21 Jun 2018.

  25. Sikdar KC, Dowden J, Alaghehbandan R, MacDonald D, Wang PP, Gadag V. Adverse drug reactions in elderly hospitalized patients: a 12-year population-based retrospective cohort study. Ann Pharmacother. 2012;46(7–8):960–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) Activity in acute public hospitals in Ireland. Annual report 2012. Ireland. 2013. http://www.hpo.ie/latest_hipe_nprs_reports/HIPE_2012/HIPE_Report_2012.pdf. Accessed 05 Jan 2018.

  27. Campbell MK, Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG. Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ. 2012;345:e5661.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA). Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies in Ireland. Ireland. 2017. https://www.hiqa.ie/sites/default/files/2017-10/Draft_HIQA_Economic_Guidelines_2017_consultation.pdf. Accessed 6 Jan 2018.

  29. Health Service Executive (HSE). Consolidated salary scales in accordance with Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2013. Ireland. 2013. http://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/benefitsservices/pay/July%202013.pdf. Accessed 4 Jan 2018.

  30. Gallagher PF, O’Connor MN, O’Mahony D. Prevention of potentially inappropriate prescribing for elderly patients: a randomized controlled trial using STOPP/START criteria. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;89(6):845–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Healthcare Pricing Office (HPO). Hospital in-patient enquiry scheme (HIPE) report 2012. Dublin: Department of Health (DoH); 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Gyllensten H, Jönsson AK, Hakkarainen KM, Svensson S, Hägg S, Rehnberg C. Comparing methods for estimating direct costs of adverse drug events. Value Health. 2017;20(10):1299–310.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Gomes M, Ng ESW, Grieve R, Nixon R, Carpenter J, Thompson SG. Developing appropriate methods for cost-effectiveness analysis of cluster randomized trials. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32(2):350–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gillespie P, O’Shea E, Casey D, Murphy K, Devane D, Cooney A, et al. The cost-effectiveness of a structured education pulmonary rehabilitation programme for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care: the PRINCE cluster randomised trial. BMJ Open. 2013;3(11):e003479.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Fenwick E, Byford S. A guide to cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Br J Psychiatry. 2005;187:106–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hoch JS, Rockx MA, Krahn AD. Using the net benefit regression framework to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: an example using data from a trial of external loop recorders versus Holter monitoring for ambulatory monitoring of “community acquired” syncope. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6(1):68.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2013;11(1):6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Ramsey S, Willke R, Briggs A, Brown R, Buxton M, Chawla A, et al. Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: the ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report. Value Health. 2005;8(5):521–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med. 2010;8(1):18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Rottenkolber D, Schmiedl S, Rottenkolber M, Farker K, Saljé K, Mueller S, et al. Adverse drug reactions in Germany: direct costs of internal medicine hospitalizations. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20(6):626–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Godfrey C, Heather N, Bowie A, Brodie J, Parrott S, Ashton H, et al. Randomised controlled trial of two brief interventions against long-term benzodiazepine use: cost-effectiveness. Addict Res Theory. 2008;16(4):309–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Campbell F, Karnon J, Czoski-Murray C, Jones R. A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions aimed at preventing medication error (medicines reconciliation) at hospital admission. Report for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence as part of the Patient Safety Pilot. Sheffield: The University of Sheffield, School of Health and Related Research; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Gallagher J, McCarthy S, Byrne S. Economic evaluations of clinical pharmacist interventions on hospital inpatients: a systematic review of recent literature. Int J Clin Pharm. 2014;36(6):1101–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Clinical Trial of a New Software ENgine for the Assessment & Optimization of Drug and Non-drug Therapy in Older peRsons. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02097654. Accessed 21 Jun 2018.

  46. OPtimising thERapy to Prevent Avoidable Hospital Admissions in the Multimorbid Older People. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02986425. Accessed 21 Jun 2018.

  47. Dalton K, O’Brien G, O’Mahony D, Byrne S. Computerised interventions designed to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing in hospitalised older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age Ageing. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afy086. Epub ahead of print.

  48. Kuperman GJ, Gibson RF. Computer physician order entry: benefits, costs, and issues. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139(1):31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Tierney WM, Miller ME, Overhage JM, McDonald CJ. Physician inpatient order writing on microcomputer workstations: effects on resource utilization. JAMA. 1993;269(3):379–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Regier DA, Sunderji R, Lynd LD, Gin K, Marra CA. Cost-effectiveness of self-managed versus physician-managed oral anticoagulation therapy. CMAJ. 2006;174(13):1847–52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Ghatnekar O, Bondesson Å, Persson U, Eriksson T. Health economic evaluation of the Lund Integrated Medicines Management Model (LIMM) in elderly patients admitted to hospital. BMJ Open. 2013;3(1):e001563.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. O’Sullivan D, O’Mahony D, O’Connor MN, Gallagher P, Cullinan S, O’Sullivan R, et al. The impact of a structured pharmacist intervention on the appropriateness of prescribing in older hospitalized patients. Drugs Aging. 2014;31(6):471–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Zermansky AG, Silcock J. Is medication review by primary-care pharmacists for older people cost effective? Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(1):11–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Buck MD, Atreja A, Brunker CP, Jain A, Suh TT, Palmer RM, et al. Potentially inappropriate medication prescribing in outpatient practices: prevalence and patient characteristics based on electronic health records. Ame J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2009;7(2):84–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Bierman AS, Pugh MJV, Dhalla I, Amuan M, Fincke BG, Rosen A, et al. Sex differences in inappropriate prescribing among elderly veterans. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2007;5(2):147–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Hofer-Dueckelmann C, Prinz E, Beindl W, Szymanski J, Fellhofer G, Pichler M, et al. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with hospital admissions: elderly female patients are at highest risk. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;49(10):577.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Patterson SM, Hughes CM, Cardwell C, Lapane KL, Murray AM, Crealey GE. A cluster randomized controlled trial of an adapted US model of pharmaceutical care for nursing home residents in Northern Ireland (Fleetwood Northern Ireland study): a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59(4):586–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. McHorney CA. Measuring and monitoring general health status in elderly persons: practical and methodological issues in using the SF-36 Health Survey. Gerontologist. 1996;36(5):571–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Panageas KS, Schrag D, Russell Localio A, Venkatraman ES, Begg CB. Properties of analysis methods that account for clustering in volume—outcome studies when the primary predictor is cluster size. Stat Med. 2007;26(9):2017–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Hohl CM, Dankoff J, Colacone A, Afilalo M. Polypharmacy, adverse drug-related events, and potential adverse drug interactions in elderly patients presenting to an emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2001;38(6):666–71. https://doi.org/10.1067/mem.2001.119456.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Gallagher J, Byrne S, Woods N, Lynch D, McCarthy S. Cost-outcome description of clinical pharmacist interventions in a university teaching hospital. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):177.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Yagudina RI, Kulikov AU, Serpik VG, Ugrekhelidze DT. Concept of combining cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis in health care decision-making. Value Health Reg Issues. 2017;13:61–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Lam MPS, Cheung BMY. The use of STOPP/START criteria as a screening tool for assessing the appropriateness of medications in the elderly population. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2012;5(2):187–97.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the patients and practitioners who participated in the trial.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pharmaceutical Care Research Group, School of Pharmacy, Cavanagh Pharmacy Building, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

    Gary L. O’Brien, David O’Sullivan, James Gallagher & Stephen Byrne

  2. School of Medicine, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Brookfield Complex, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

    Denis O’Mahony & Marie N. O’Connor

  3. Department of Geriatric Medicine, Cork University Hospital, Wilton, Cork, Ireland

    Denis O’Mahony & Marie N. O’Connor

  4. J.E. Cairnes School of Business and Economics, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland

    Paddy Gillespie

  5. Department of Accounting, Finance and Information Systems, Cork University Business School, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

    Mark Mulcahy

  6. National Finance Division, Health Service Executive, Model Business Park, Model Farm Road, Cork, Ireland

    Valerie Walshe

Authors
  1. Gary L. O’Brien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Denis O’Mahony
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paddy Gillespie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mark Mulcahy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Valerie Walshe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marie N. O’Connor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. David O’Sullivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. James Gallagher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Stephen Byrne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

GLO, SB, DO, PG, JG, VW and MM wrote the manuscript. GLO, PG and JG analysed the data. SB and DO designed the original research trial. MNO and DO recruited trial participants and gathered the original trial data.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Gary L. O’Brien or Stephen Byrne.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This research project was funded by the Health Research Board of Ireland (Grant HRA_HSR/2010/14) and the Irish Research Council (GOIPG/2016/635). The funders had no part in the design of the analysis, the collection, analysis and interpretation of the data, the writing of the report or the decision to submit the article for publication.

Conflict of interest

Stephen Byrne and Denis O’Mahony have part ownership in a patent “A Prescription Decision Support System” (based on STOPP/START prescribing rules); the patent was registered with the European Patent Office (Munich); Patent no. 11757950.8–1952. Stephen Byrne and Denis O’Mahony are also involved with two European Commission-funded grants that involve clinical trials in which there is computerised deployment of the STOPP/START criteria as part of an intervention designed to optimise pharmacotherapy in older adults. The first European Commission grant is called “Development and clinical trials of a new Software Engine for the Assessment and Optimization of drug and non-drug Therapy in Older peRsons [SENATOR]”, grant agreement 305930, awarded under the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7). The trial is registered with the US National Institutes of Health (NCT02097654). Denis O’Mahony is coordinator of the SENATOR project. The second European Commission-funded project is called “OPERAM: OPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in the Multimorbid elderly”. OPERAM is funded under the Horizon 2020 programme (PHC 17-2014). The OPERAM trial is based on another software intervention called “Screening Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing”, which uses STOPP/START rules to assess the pharmacotherapy of older people. The trial is registered with the US National Institutes of Health (NCT02986425). Gary L. O’Brien, Paddy Gillespie, Mark Mulcahy, Valerie Walshe, Marie N. O’Connor, David O’Sullivan and James Gallagher have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Ethics Approval

The research ethics committee (institutional review board) of the local teaching hospitals network approved the trial protocol and the trial was registered with the US National Institutes of Health (NCT01467050).

Informed Consent

Written consent was sought and obtained from all participating patients prior to enrolment in the study.

Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) Classification

This article is classified as I19 according to the JEL system.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 34 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

O’Brien, G.L., O’Mahony, D., Gillespie, P. et al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Physician-Implemented Medication Screening Tool in Older Hospitalised Patients in Ireland. Drugs Aging 35, 751–762 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-018-0564-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-018-0564-0

Search

Navigation