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.
DESIGN: Quasi-experimental study consisting of a single group before-and-after study design.
SETTING: A public emergency hospital in Mecca, Saudi Arabia.
PARTICIPANTS: 660 (preintervention) and then 498 (postintervention) handwritten physician orders, medication administration records (MRAs) and pharmacy dispensing sheets of 482 and 388 patients, respectively, from emergency wards, inpatient settings and the pharmacy department were reviewed.
INTERVENTION: The intervention consisted of a series of interactive lectures delivered by an experienced clinical pharmacist to all hospital staff members and dissemination of educational tools (flash cards, printed list of HRAs, awareness posters) designed in line with the recommendations of the Institute for Safe Medical Practices and the US Food and Drug Administration. The duration of intervention was from April to May 2011.
MAIN OUTCOME: Reduction in the incidence of HRAs use from the preintervention to postintervention study period.
FINDINGS: The five most common abbreviations recorded prior to the interventions were 'IJ for injection' (28.6%), 'SC for subcutaneous' (17.4%), drug name and dose running together (9.7%), 'OD for once daily' (5.8%) and 'D/C for discharge' (4.3%). The incidence of the use of HRAs was highest in discharge prescriptions and dispensing records (72.7%) followed by prescriptions from in-patient wards (47.3%). After the intervention, the overall incidence of HRA was significantly reduced by 52% (ie, 53.6% vs 25.5%; p=0.001). In addition, there was a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of HRAs across all three settings: the pharmacy department (72.7% vs 39.3%), inpatient settings (47.3% vs 23.3%) and emergency wards (40.9% vs 10.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacist-led educational interventions can significantly reduce the use of HRAs by healthcare providers. Future research should investigate the long-term effectiveness of such educational interventions through a randomised controlled trial.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Given the current lack of evidence on quality and safety improvements and on the cost-benefits associated with the introduction of eHealth applications, there should be a focus on implementing more mature technologies; it is also important that eHealth applications should be evaluated against a comprehensive and rigorous set of measures, ideally at all stages of their application life cycle.
METHODS: The study consisted of two phases. In Phase 1, a 10-item instrument (SAIL-10) was developed and tested on a cohort of medical and pharmacy students who attended the workshop. In Phase 2, different cohorts of medical and pharmacy students completed SAIL-10 before and after participating in the workshop.
RESULTS: Factor analysis showed that SAIL-10 has two domains: "facilitators of interprofessional learning" and "acceptance to learning in groups". The overall SAIL-10 and the two domains have adequate internal consistency and stable reliability. The total score and scores for the two domains were significantly higher after students attended the prescribing skills workshop.
CONCLUSIONS: This study produced a valid and reliable instrument, SAIL-10 which was used to demonstrate that the prescribing skills workshop, where medical and pharmacy students were placed in an authentic context, was a promising activity to promote interprofessional learning among future healthcare professionals.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We investigated Google Trends® for popular search relating to medication errors, risk management and shift work. Relative search volumes (RSVs) were evaluated from 2008 to 2018. A comparison between RSV curves related to medication errors, risk management and shift work was carried out. Then, we compared the world to Italian search.
RESULTS: RSVs were persistently higher for risk management than for medication errors (mean RSVs 069 vs. 48%) and RSVs were stably higher for medication errors than shift work (mean RSVs 48 vs. 22%). In Italy, RSVs were much lower compared to the rest of the world, and RSVs for medication errors during the study period were negligible. Mean RSVs for risk management and shift work were 3 and 25%, respectively. RSVs related to medication errors and clinical risk management were correlated (r=0.520, p<0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Google Trends® search query volumes related to medication errors, risk management and shift work are different. RSVs for risk management are higher, and they are correlated with medication errors. Also, shift work search appears to be lower. These results should be interpreted in order to correctly evaluate how to decrease the number of medication errors in different health care related setting.