Residential Aged Care Medication Review to Improve the Quality of Medication Use: A Systematic Review

被引:42
作者
Thiruchelvam, Kaeshaelya [1 ]
Hasan, Syed Shahzad [1 ]
Wong, Pei Se [1 ]
Kairuz, Therese [2 ]
机构
[1] Int Med Univ, Sch Pharm, 126,Jalan Jalil Perkasa 19, Kuala Lumpur 57000, Malaysia
[2] James Cook Univ, Coll Med & Dent, Townsville, Qld, Australia
关键词
Aged care; medication review; medication use; quality; residential; NURSING-HOME RESIDENTS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL; ELDERLY-PEOPLE; PHARMACEUTICAL CARE; OLDER-PEOPLE; PHARMACIST; INTERVENTIONS; POLYPHARMACY; IMPACT; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.1016/j.jamda.2016.10.004
中图分类号
R592 [老年病学]; C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ; 100203 ;
摘要
Background: Aging is often associated with various underlying comorbidities that warrant the use of multiple medications. Various interventions, including medication reviews, to optimize pharmacotherapy in older people residing in aged care facilities have been described and evaluated. Previous systematic reviews support the positive impact of various medication-related interventions but are not conclusive because of several factors. Objectives: The current study aimed to assess the impact of medication reviews in aged care facilities, with additional focus on the types of medication reviews, using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Methods: A systematic searching of English articles that examined the medication reviews conducted in aged care facilities was performed using the following databases: PubMed, CINAHL, IPA, TRiP, and the Cochrane Library, with the last update in December 2015. Extraction of articles and quality assessment of included articles were performed independently by 2 authors. Data on interventions and outcomes were extracted from the included studies. The SIGN checklist for observational studies and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in RCTs were applied. Outcomes assessed were related to medications, reviews, and adverse events. Results: Because of the heterogeneity of the measurements, it was deemed inappropriate to conduct a meta-analysis and thus a narrative approach was employed. Twenty-two studies (10 observational studies and 12 controlled trials) were included from 1141 evaluated references. Of the 12 trials, 8 studies reported findings of pharmacist-led medication reviews and 4 reported findings of multidisciplinary team-based reviews. The medication reviews performed in the included trials were prescription reviews (n = 8) and clinical medication reviews (n = 4). In the case of the observational studies, the majority of the studies (8/12 studies) reported findings of pharmacist-led medication reviews, and only 2 studies reported findings of multidisciplinary team-based reviews. Similarly, 6 studies employed prescription reviews, whereas 4 studies employed clinical medication reviews. The majority of the recommendations put forward by the pharmacist or a multidisciplinary team were accepted by physicians. The number of prescribed medications, inappropriate medications, and adverse outcomes (eg, number of deaths, frequency of hospitalizations) were reduced in the intervention group. Conclusion: Medication reviews conducted by pharmacists, either working independently or with other health care professionals, appear to improve the quality of medication use in aged care settings. However, robust conclusions cannot be drawn because of significant heterogeneity in measurements and potential risk for biases. (C) 2016 AMDA -The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine.
引用
收藏
页码:87.e1 / 87.e14
页数:14
相关论文
共 68 条
[1]   Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Elderly Japanese Patients [J].
Akazawa, Manabu ;
Imai, Hirohisa ;
Igarashi, Ataru ;
Tsutani, Kiichiro .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PHARMACOTHERAPY, 2010, 8 (02) :146-160
[2]   Interventions to optimise prescribing for older people in care homes [J].
Alldred, David P. ;
Kennedy, Mary-Claire ;
Hughes, Carmel ;
Chen, Timothy F. ;
Miller, Paul .
COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2016, (02)
[3]  
American Pharmacists Association, 2008, MED THER MAN PHARM P
[4]  
[Anonymous], ASSESSING RISK BIAS
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2015, Suggested risk of bias criteria for EPOC reviews
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2007, INT J PHARM PRACT, DOI DOI 10.1211/ijpp.15.2.0003
[7]  
[Anonymous], 2002, NAT COLL MED MAN SER
[8]  
[Anonymous], 2011, Patient-centred care: improving quality and safety by focusing care on patients and consumers
[9]  
Australian Government Department of Health, 2014, MED MAN REV
[10]  
Baqir W, 2014, BMJ QUAL IMPROV REP