Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Inappropriate prescribing in patients accessing specialist palliative day care services

  • Research Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background For patients accessing specialist palliative care day services, medication is prescribed routinely to manage acute symptoms, treat long-term conditions or prevent adverse events associated with these conditions. As such, the pharmacotherapeutic burden for these patients is high and polypharmacy is common. Consequently, the risk of these patients developing drug-related toxicities through drug–drug interactions is exacerbated. Medication use in this group should, therefore, be evaluated regularly to align with achievable therapeutic outcomes considering remaining life expectancy. Objective To (1) assess the prevalence of inappropriate medication use; (2) identify potential drug–drug interactions; and, (3) determine how many potential drug–drug interactions could be prevented by discontinuing inappropriate medication. Setting A specialist tertiary care palliative care centre in Northern England serving a population of 330,000. Main outcome measure Prescribing of inappropriate medication. Method Medication histories for patients accessing a specialist palliative day care centre were established and a modified Delphi method was used to reach consensus of medication appropriateness. The Delphi method utilized a framework considering the following factors: remaining life expectancy of the patient, time until benefit of the treatment, goals of care and treatment targets. Potential drug interactions were established using drug interaction recognition software and categorised by their ability to cause harm. Results A total number of 132 patients were assessed during the study period who were prescribed 1,532 (mean = 12/patient) medications; 238 (16 %) were considered inappropriate in the context of limited life expectancy. The most common class of medications considered inappropriate were the statins, observed in 35 (27 %) patients. A total of 267 potential drug–drug interactions were identified; 112 were clinically significant and 155 were not considered clinically significant. Discontinuation of inappropriate medication would reduce the total number of medications taken to 1,294 (mean = 10/patient) and prevent 31 clinically significant potential drug–drug interactions. Conclusion Patients accessing specialist palliative day care services take many inappropriate medications. These medications not only increase the pharmacotherapeutic burden for the patient but they also contribute to potential drug–drug interactions. These patients should have their medication reviewed in the context of life limiting illness aligned with achievable therapeutic outcomes.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Potter J, Hami F, Bryan T, Quigley C. Symptoms in 400 patients referred to palliative care services: prevalence and patterns. Palliat Med. 2003;17:310–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sera L, McPherson ML, Holmes HM. Commonly prescribed medications in a population of hospice patients. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2013; Feb 12 (Epub ahead of print).

  3. Koh NY, Koo WH. Polypharmacy in palliative care: can it be reduced? Singap Med J. 2002;43(6):279–83.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Rottlaender D, Scherner M, Schneider T, Erdmann E. Polypharmacy, compliance and non-prescription medication in patients with cardiovascular disease in Germany. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2007;132(4):139–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Riechelmann RP, Zimmermann C, Chin SN, Wang L, O’Carroll A, Zarinehbaf S, et al. Potential drug interactions in cancer patients receiving supportive care exclusively. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2008;35:535–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Girre V, Arkoub H, Puts MT, Vantelon C, Blanchard F, Droz JP, et al. Potential drug interactions in elderly cancer patients. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2011;78:220–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Currow DC, Abernethy AP. Frameworks for approaching prescribing at the end of life. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(21):2404.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hall PS, Lord SR, El-Laboudi A, Seymour MT. Non-cancer medications for patients with incurable cancer: time to stop and think? Br J Gen Pract. 2010;60(573):243–4.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Maddison AR, Fisher J, Johnston G. Preventive medication use among persons with limited life expectancy. Prog Palliat Care. 2011;19(1):15–21.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nicholson A, Andrew I, Etherington R, Gamlin R, Lovel T, Lloyd J. Futile and inappropriate prescribing: an assessment of the issue in a series of patients admitted to a specialist palliative care unit. Int J Pharm Pract. 2001;9(S1):72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. The end of life care. The national audit office, 2008. http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/07081043.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2013.

  12. Boulkedid R, Abdoul H, Loustau M, Sibony O, Alberti C. Using and reporting the Delphi method for selecting healthcare quality indicators: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(6):e20476.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Holmes HM, Hayley DC, Alexander GC, Sachs GA. Reconsidering medication appropriateness for patients late in life. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(6):605–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hsu CC, Sandford BA. The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2007;12(10):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rx systems. Proscript. http://rxsystems.co.uk/products. Accessed 10 Oct 2013.

  16. Riechelmann RP, Tannock IF, Wang L, Saad ED, Taback NA, et al. Potential drug interactions and duplicate prescriptions among cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(8):592–600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Baxter K, Preston CL. Stockley’s drug interactions. 10th ed. UK: Pharmaceutical Press; 2013. ISBN 978 0 85711 061 9.

  18. Electronic Medicines Compendium. http://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/. Last accessed 10 Oct 2013.

  19. Todd A, Williamson S, Husband A, Baqir W, Mahony M. Patients with advanced lung cancer: is there scope to discontinue inappropriate medication? Int J Clin Pharm. 2013;35:181–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Riechelmann RP, Krzyzanowska MK, Zimmermann C. Futile medication use in terminally ill cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2009;17(6):745–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Fede A, Miranda M, Antonangelo D, Trevizan L, Schaffhausser H, Hamermesz B, et al. Use of unnecessary medications by patients with advanced cancer: cross-sectional survey. Support Care Cancer. 2011;19:1313–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. van Leeuwen RW, Swart EL, Boven E, Boom FA, Schuitenmaker MG, Hugtenburg JG. Potential drug interactions in cancer therapy: a prevalence study using an advanced screening method. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(10):2334–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nishio S, Watanabe H, Kosuge K, Uchida S, Hayashi H, Ohashi K. Interaction between amlodipine and simvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia and hypertension. Hypertens Res. 2005;28(3):223–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Drug Safety Update. Simvastatin: evidence supporting recent advice on dose limitations with concomitant amlodipine or diltiazem. Med Healthc Regul Agency. http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Safetyinformation/DrugSafetyUpdate/CON199561. Accessed 10 Oct 2013.

  25. Steiness E. Diuretics, digitalis and arrhythmias. Acta Med Scand Suppl. 1981;647:75–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. British National Formulary 64, September 2012. UK: Pharmaceutical Press. ISBN 978-0857110657.

  27. Launay-Vacher V, Oudard S, Janus N, Gligorov J, Pourrat X, Rixe O, et al. Renal Insufficiency and Cancer Medications (IRMA) Study Group: prevalence of Renal Insufficiency in cancer patients and implications for anticancer drug management: the renal insufficiency and anticancer medications (IRMA) study. Cancer. 2007;110(6):1376–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gokula M, Holmes HM. Tools to reduce polypharmacy. Clin Geriatr Med. 2012;28(2):323–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fick DM, Cooper JW, Wade WE, Waller JL, Maclean JR, Beers MH. Updating the Beers criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults: results of a US consensus panel of experts. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:2716–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hanlon JT, Schmader KE, Samsa GP. A method for assessing drug therapy appropriateness. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:1045–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gallagher P, Ryan C, Byrne S. 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;46:72–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet. 1994;344(8934):1383–9.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Shepherd J, Blauw GJ, Murphy MB, Bollen EL, Buckley BM, Cobbe SM. PROSPER study group. PROspective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk: pravastatin in elderly individuals at risk of vascular disease (PROSPER): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;360:1623.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;360(9326):7–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Callahan AS. Vascular pleiotropy of statins: clinical evidence and biochemical mechanisms. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2003;5(1):33–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Weisman SM, Graham DY. Evaluation of the benefits and risks of low-dose aspirin in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(19):2197–202.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Nordin BEC. Calcium and osteoporosis. Nutrition. 1997;13(7/8):664–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bayliss EA, Bronsert MR, Reifler LM, Ellis JL, Steiner JF, McQuillen DB, et al. Statin prescribing patterns in a cohort of cancer patients with poor prognosis. J Palliat Med. 2013;16(4):412–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Tanvetyanon T, Choudhury AM. Physician practice in the discontinuation of statins among patients with advanced lung cancer. J Palliat Care. 2006;22(4):281–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Stavrou EP, Buckley N, Olivier J, Pearson SA. Discontinuation of statin therapy in older people: does a cancer diagnosis make a difference? An observational cohort study using data linkage. BMJ Open. 2012;2:e000880.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Schuling J, Gebben H, Veehof LJ, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM. Deprescribing medication in very elderly patients with multimorbidity: the view of Dutch GPs. A qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2012;13:56.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Dr. Mark Lee and Dr. Peter Robson for their critical discussions around appropriate medication use in palliative care.

Funding

None.

Conflicts of interest

The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Pharmacy, School of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham University, Stockon-on-Tees, UK

    A. Todd & A. Husband

  2. Department of Pharmacy, Health and Well-being, Faculty of Applied Science, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, UK

    H. Nazar

  3. Faculty of Pharmacy and School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    S. Pearson

  4. St Benedict’s Hospice and Centre for Specialist Palliative Care, Ryhope, Sunderland, UK

    I. Andrew & L. Baker

Authors
  1. A. Todd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Nazar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Pearson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. I. Andrew
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. L. Baker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. Husband
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Todd.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Todd, A., Nazar, H., Pearson, S. et al. Inappropriate prescribing in patients accessing specialist palliative day care services. Int J Clin Pharm 36, 535–543 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-014-9932-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-014-9932-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation