Search

Contains fulltext : 283012.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: The recently conducted Medication Actions to Reduce hospital admissions through a collaboration between Community and Hospital pharmacists (MARCH) transitional care programme, which aimed to test the effectiveness of a transitional care programme on the occurrence of ADEs post-discharge, did not show a significant effect. To clarify whether this non-significant effect was due to poor implementation or due to ineffectiveness of the intervention as such, a process evaluation was conducted. The aim of the study was to gain more insight into the implementation fidelity of MARCH. METHODS: A mixed methods design and the modified Conceptual Framework for Implementation Fidelity was used. For evaluation, the implementation fidelity and moderating factors of four key MARCH intervention components (teach-back, the pharmaceutical discharge letter, the post-discharge home-visit and the transitional medication review) were assessed. Quantitative data were collected during and after the intervention. Qualitative data were collected using semi-structured interviews with MARCH healthcare professionals (community pharmacists, clinical pharmacists, pharmacy assistants and pharmaceutical consultants) and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Not all key intervention components were implemented as intended. Teach-back was not always performed. Moreover, 63% of the pharmaceutical discharge letters, 35% of the post-discharge home-visits and 44% of the transitional medication reviews were not conducted within their planned time frames. Training sessions, structured manuals and protocols with detailed descriptions facilitated implementation. Intervention complexity, time constraints and the multidisciplinary coordination were identified as barriers for the implementation. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Overall, the implementation fidelity was considered to be moderate. Not all key intervention components were carried out as planned. Therefore, the non-significant results of the MARCH programme on ADEs may at least partly be explained by poor implementation of the programme. To successfully implement transitional care programmes, healthcare professionals require full integration of these programmes in the standard work-flow including IT improvements as well as compensation for the time investment.

Objectives: Previous studies on hospital discharge showed limited patient involvement, despite its positive outcomes. In this study, provider-patient communication used to enhance patient participation during discharge medication counselling was examined. Methods: This study comprises a qualitative descriptive observational study. Thirty-four discharge consultations were observed, audio recorded and analysed. We conducted a deductive analysis, elaborating on findings from earlier research. We selected themes and underlying codes illustrating professional-patient communication. For every theme, we identified examples to demonstrate its manifestation during discharge medication counselling. We also assessed what information healthcare professionals (HCPs) shared. Results: HCPs used cues to increase patient participation, e.g. inquired about patient's preferences, showed empathy and support, and verified understanding of information shared. Patient participation occurred through asking questions, and expressing concerns. A central component in discharge medication counselling was the transmission of information from HCPs to patients. This resulted in HCPs taking a leading role. Conclusions: Several HCP cues were detected inviting patients to participate in consultations. Some patients participated in discharge medication counselling. This was influenced by timing of discharge consults, the performing HCP and presence of a relative. Practice implications: HCPs shared a lot of information with patients. However, this does not automatically mean that patients will be able to understand and apply this information. HCPs should understand the importance of using cues to enable patient participation. One example is using the teach-back method for verifying patient understanding. It may also be desirable to ensure that a relative is present when discharge information is offered.

Introduction: Transitional care programs (i.e. interventions delivered both in hospital and in primary care), could increase continuity and consequently quality of care. However, limited studies on the effect of these programs on Adverse Drug Events (ADEs) post-discharge are available. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a transitional pharmaceutical care program on the occurrence of ADEs 4 weeks post-discharge.Methods: A multicentre prospective before-after study was performed in a general teaching hospital, a university hospital and 49 community pharmacies. The transitional pharmaceutical care program consisted of: teach-back to the patient at discharge, a pharmaceutical discharge letter, a home visit by a community pharmacist and a clinical medication review by both the community and the clinical pharmacist, on top of usual care. Usual care consisted of medication reconciliation at admission and discharge by pharmacy teams. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who reported at least 1 ADE 4 weeks post-discharge. Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for potential confounders.Results: In total, 369 patients were included (control: n = 195, intervention: n = 174). The proportion of patients with at least 1 ADE did not statistically significant differ between the intervention and control group (general teaching hospital: 59% vs. 67%, ORadj 0.70 [95% CI 0.38–1.31], university hospital: 63% vs 50%, OR adj 1.76 [95% CI 0.75–4.13]).Conclusion: The transitional pharmaceutical care program did not decrease the proportion of patients with ADEs after discharge. ADEs after discharge were common and more than 50% of patients reported at least 1 ADE. A process evaluation is needed to gain insight into how a transitional pharmaceutical care program could diminish those ADEs.

Background after hospitalisation for cardiac disease, older patients are at high risk of readmission and death. Objective the cardiac care bridge (CCB) transitional care programme evaluated the impact of combining case management, disease management and home-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) on hospital readmission and mortality. Design single-blind, randomised clinical trial. Setting the trial was conducted in six hospitals in the Netherlands between June 2017 and March 2020. Community-based nurses and physical therapists continued care post-discharge. Subjects cardiac patients ≥ 70 years were eligible if they were at high risk of functional loss or if they had had an unplanned hospital admission in the previous 6 months. Methods the intervention group received a comprehensive geriatric assessment-based integrated care plan, a face-to-face handover with the community nurse before discharge and follow-up home visits. The community nurse collaborated with a pharmacist and participants received home-based CR from a physical therapist. The primary composite outcome was first all-cause unplanned readmission or mortality at 6 months. Results in total, 306 participants were included. Mean age was 82.4 (standard deviation 6.3), 58% had heart failure and 92% were acutely hospitalised. 67% of the intervention key-elements were delivered. The composite outcome incidence was 54.2% (83/153) in the intervention group and 47.7% (73/153) in the control group (risk differences 6.5% [95% confidence intervals, CI −4.7 to 18%], risk ratios 1.14 [95% CI 0.91–1.42], P = 0.253). The study was discontinued prematurely due to implementation activities in usual care. Conclusion in high-risk older cardiac patients, the CCB programme did not reduce hospital readmission or mortality within 6 months. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register 6,316, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/6169

Knowledge regarding preventable hospital readmissions is scarce. Our aim was to compare the clinical characteristics of potentially preventable readmissions (PPRs) with non-PPRs. Additionally, we aimed to identify risk factors for PPRs. Our study included readmissions within 30 days after discharge from 1 of 7 hospital departments. Preventability was assessed by multidisciplinary meetings. Characteristics of the readmissions were collected and 23 risk factors were analyzed. Of the 1120 readmissions, 125 (11%) were PPRs. PPRs occurred equally among different departments (p = 0.21). 29.6% of PPRs were readmitted by a practitioner of a different medical specialty than the initial admission (IA) specialist. The PPR group had more readmissions within 7 days (PPR 54% vs. non-PPR 44%, p = 0.03). The median LOS was 1 day longer for PPRs (p = 0.16). Factors associated with PPR were higher age (p = 0.004), higher socio-economic status (p = 0.049), fewer prior hospital admissions (p = 0.004), and no outpatient visit prior to readmission (p = 0.025). This study found that PPRs can occur at any department in the hospital. There is not a single type of patient that can easily be pinpointed to be at risk of a PPR, probably due to the multifactorial nature of PPRs.

Background Drug-related problems after discharge are common among older adults with polypharmacy. Medication review during hospitalization has been proposed as one solution. Inpatient medication review is often based on clinical records only. An obstacle is the lack of insight into the outpatient history. Therefore, a geriatric stewardship was designed and involved an inpatient medication review by a hospital pharmacist and geriatrician based on (I) clinical records to draft initial recommendations, (II) consultations with primary care providers (general practitioner and community pharmacist) to discuss the hospital-based recommendations, (III) patient interviews to assess their needs, and (IV) a multidisciplinary evaluation of all previous steps to draft final recommendations. Objective To assess the effect of the geriatric stewardship on drug-related problems reported by patients after discharge. Setting General teaching hospital. Methods An implementation study (pre–post design) was performed. Orthopaedic and surgical patients (≥ 65 years) with polypharmacy and a frailty risk factor were included. The pre-group received usual care, the post-group received the geriatric stewardship intervention. Two weeks post-discharge, patient-reported drug-related problems were assessed using a validated questionnaire. Drug-related problems were classified into drug-related complaints, practical problems, and questions about medication. Outcomes The outcomes were the number and type of drug-related problems per patient (primary) and the number of initial recommendations that were altered due to primary care provider and patient input (secondary). Results In total, 127 patients were analysed (usual care n = 74, intervention n = 53). Intervention patients reported fewer drug-related problems compared to usual care: 2.8 versus 3.3 per patient (Adjusted relative risk 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.66–1.05). This difference resulted from a halving in drug-related complaints (p

BackgroundHarm due to medications is common during the transition from hospital to home. Approaches that seek to prevent harm often involve isolated medication-related interventions and show conflicting results. However, until now, no review has focused on the effect of intervention components delivered both in hospital and following discharge from hospital to home.ObjectiveTo examine effects of medication-related interventions on hospital readmissions, medication-related problems (MRPs), medication adherence and mortality.MethodsFor this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and CENTRAL databases without language restrictions. Citations of included articles were checked through Web of Science and Scopus from inception to 20 June 2019. We included prospective studies that examined effects of medication-related interventions delivered both in hospital and following discharge from hospital to home compared with usual care. Three authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality in pairs.ResultsFourteen original studies were included, comprising 8182 patients. Interventions consisted mainly of patient education and medication reconciliation in the hospital, and patient education following discharge. Nine studies were included in the meta-analysis; compared with usual care (n=3376 patients), medication-related interventions (n=1820 patients) reduced hospital readmissions by 3.8 percentage points within 30 days of discharge (number needed to treat=27, risk ratio (RR) 0.79 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.96)). Meta-regression analysis suggested that readmission rates were reduced by 17% per additional intervention component (RR 0.83 (95% Cl 0.75 to 0.91)). Medication adherence and MRPs may be improved. Effects on mortality were unclear.ConclusionsStudied medication-related interventions reduce all-cause hospital readmissions within 30 days. The treatment effect appears to increase with higher intervention intensities. More evidence is needed for recommendations on adherence, mortality and MRPs.

Background In-hospital medication reviews are regularly performed. However, discontinuity in care could occur because secondary care providers lack insight into the outpatient history. Furthermore, for the implementation or follow-up of some medication review-based interventions, the help of primary care providers is essential. This requires interprofessional collaboration between secondary and primary care. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study was to gain insight into the perceptions of primary and secondary care providers on interprofessional collaboration on medication reviews in hospitalised patients. Methods Ten face-to-face semi-structured interviews and three focus group discussions were conducted with 20 healthcare providers from three hospitals and community health services. The interviews were aimed at exploring general practitioners’, community pharmacists’, geriatricians’, and hospital pharmacists’ experiences, attitudes, and views of interprofessional collaboration. Focus groups consisted of representatives of all professional groups. Through group discussion, interprofessional collaboration was explored by addressing three main questions: 1) What are the benefits of in-hospital medication reviews? 2) What are the barriers to in-hospital medication reviews from an interprofessional collaboration perspective? 3) Given the barriers mentioned, how should this interprofessional collaboration between primary and secondary care be designed? Data were analysed using a thematic-content approach. Results The need for in-hospital medication reviews was underlined due to their many benefits, such as reducing potentially preventable re-admissions. Barriers regarding interprofessional collaboration between primary and secondary care can be subdivided into three main themes: 1) defining in-hospital medication reviews (e.g., lack of clear goals), 2) execution of medication reviews (e.g., hospital setting is dynamic), and 3) follow-up after discharge (e.g., unclear instructions). Care providers suggested solutions for each of the barriers mentioned, for example, by using supportive staff in order to overcome the gap between primary and secondary care providers and making clear agreements on proper means of communication. Conclusion Primary and secondary care providers recognise the importance of in-hospital medication reviews and the need for interprofessional collaboration. To create satisfying interprofessional collaboration, conditions should be met on defining in-hospital medication reviews across settings and involving both primary and secondary care providers in implementing medication reviews and organising their follow-up.

Aims: Medication non-adherence post-discharge is common among patients, especially those suffering from chronic medical conditions, and contributes to hospital admissions and mortality. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the Cardiac Care Bridge (CCB) intervention on medication adherence post-discharge. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of the CCB randomized single-blind trial, a study in patients ≥70 years, at high risk of functional loss and admitted to cardiology departments in six hospitals. In this multi-component intervention study, community nurses performed medication reconciliation and observed medication-related problems (MRPs) during post-discharge home visits, and pharmacists provided recommendations to resolve MRPs. Adherence to high-risk medications was measured using the proportion of days covered (PDC), using pharmacy refill data. Furthermore, MRPs were assessed in the intervention group. Results: For 198 (64.7%) of 306 CCB patients, data were available on adherence (mean age: 82 years; 58.9% of patients used a multidose drug dispensing [MDD] system). The mean PDC before admission was 92.3% in the intervention group (n = 99) and 88.5% in the control group (n = 99), decreasing to 85.2% and 84.1% post-discharge, respectively (unadjusted difference: -2.6% (95% CI -9.8 to 4.6, P = .473); adjusted difference -3.3 (95% CI -10.3 to 3.7, P = .353)). Post-hoc analysis indicated that a modest beneficial intervention effect may be restricted to MDD non-users (Pinteraction = .085). In total, 77.0% of the patients had at least one MRP post-discharge. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that a multi-component intervention, including several components targeting medication adherence in older cardiac patients discharged from hospital back home, did not benefit their medication adherence levels. A modest positive effect on adherence may potentially exist in those patients not using an MDD system. This finding needs replication.

Contains fulltext : 235781.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) Background Medication management is jeopardized during a patient's transition from hospital to home. Insight is required from both hospital and primary healthcare providers on how care should be organised to achieve continuity of medication management. Objective This study aimed to identify perspectives of hospital and primary healthcare providers on barriers to the continuity of medication management during a patient's transition from hospital to home and facilitators to overcome these. Setting A qualitative descriptive study was conducted within hospital and primary healthcare settings in the Netherlands. Method Two focus groups were performed with two community care registered nurses, two community pharmacists, four general practitioners, two hospital nurses, two hospital pharmacists, four outpatient pharmacists, two pharmacy technicians, and one physician. A semi-structured interview guide was used to identify perspectives of participants on barriers to continuity of medication management and facilitators to overcome these. Data were analysed following thematic content analysis. Main outcome measure Barriers to the continuity of medication management during a patient's transition from hospital to home would be enumerated, along with facilitators to overcome these barriers. Results Three main themes of barriers and facilitators were identified: (1) healthcare provider collaboration, including the transfer of medication information and effective collaboration; (2) patient's medication use, including information about medication, personalised care, and supervision after discharge; and (3) organisation of healthcare, including the connection between information systems and the supply of medication. Conclusion Barriers and facilitators to continuity of medication management during the transition from hospital to home occur at the provider, patient, and healthcare-system levels. Future interventions should focus on all levels through interprofessional healthcare teams, tailoring care to patient needs, and on the use of a uniform, nationwide patient electronic health record.

Item does not contain fulltext INTRODUCTION: Patients with Parkinson disease (PD) use multiple drugs. This pill burden with consequent poor adherence may cause worsening of motor symptoms and drug-related problems. Therefore, a multifaceted pharmacist-led intervention program was designed to improve adherence, motor-functioning, and quality of life (QoL) in PD patients. METHODS: This prospective pilot study was performed in an outpatient PD clinic, where usual care was compared with stepwise introduction of 3 interventions: unit dose packaging (UDP), Parkinson KinetiGraph (PKG), and pharmacist-led medication review (MR).The study analyzed endpoints at 6 weeks (stage 1, usual care), 10 weeks (stage 2, UDP), 14 weeks (stage 3, UDP + PKG), and 26 weeks (UDP + PKG + MR) on motor symptoms, medication adherence, and QoL. RESULTS: Medication adherence improved significantly after the combined UDP, PKG, and MR intervention in nonadherent patients. On time significantly increased from 56% (+/-30) at stage 1, to 64% (+/-25) at stage 3, and to 68% (+/-27) at stage 4, which correlated with an increase of 1.4 and 2.2 hours in stage 3 and 4, respectively. Quality of life only improved significantly after MR (Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire with 8 domains, 21.0 +/- 3.5 in stage 3 vs 19.5 +/- 5.3 in stage 4, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our data did not support the added value of UDP alone or in combination with PKG. Only the combined intervention of UDP, PKG, and MR showed significant improvements in medication adherence, on time, and QoL. This supports the effectiveness of MR by a clinical pharmacist for PD patients in an outpatient setting. Therefore, this small scale study should be followed by larger-scale trials on this topic.

Background A large number of articles examined the preventability rate of readmissions, but comparison and interpretability of these preventability rates is complicated due to the large heterogeneity of methods that were used. To compare (the implications of) the different methods used to assess the preventability of readmissions by means of medical record review. Methods A literature search was conducted in PUBMED and EMBASE using “readmission” and “avoidability” or “preventability” as key terms. A consensus-based narrative data synthesis was performed to compare and discuss the different methods. Results Abstracts of 2504 unique citations were screened resulting in 48 full text articles which were included in the final analysis. Synthesis led to the identification of a set of important variables on which the studies differed considerably (type of readmissions, sources of information, definition of preventability, cause classification and reviewer process). In 69% of the studies the cause classification and preventability assessment were integrated; meaning specific causes were predefined as preventable or not preventable. The reviewers were most often medical specialist (67%), and 27% of the studies added interview as a source of information. Conclusion A consensus-based standardised approach to assess preventability of readmission is warranted to reduce the unwanted bias in preventability rates. Patient-related and integrated care related factors are potentially underreported in readmission studies.

BackgroundMedication-related problems are common after hospitalization, for example when changes in patients' medication regimens are accompanied by insufficient patient education, poor information transfer between healthcare providers, and inadequate follow-up post-discharge. We investigated the effect of a pharmacy-led transitional care program on the occurrence of medication-related problems four weeks post-discharge.MethodsA prospective multi-center before-after study was conducted in six departments in total of two hospitals and 50 community pharmacies in the Netherlands. We tested a pharmacy-led program incorporating (i) usual care (medication reconciliation at hospital admission and discharge) combined with, (ii) teach-back at hospital discharge, (iii) improved transfer of medication information to primary healthcare providers and (iv) post-discharge home visit by the patient's own community pharmacist, compared with usual care alone. The difference in medication-related problems four weeks post-discharge, measured by means of a validated telephone-interview protocol, was the primary outcome. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used, adjusting for potential confounders after multiple imputation to deal with missing data.ResultsWe included 234 (January-April 2016) and 222 (July-November 2016) patients in the usual care and intervention group, respectively. Complete data on the primary outcome was available for 400 patients. The proportion of patients with any medication-related problem was 65.9% (211/400) in the usual care group compared to 52.4% (189/400) in the intervention group (p = 0.01). After multiple imputation, the proportion of patients with any medicationrelated problem remained lower in the intervention group (unadjusted odds ratio 0.57; 95% CI 0.38-0.86, adjusted odds ratio 0.50; 95% CI 0.31-0.79).ConclusionsA pharmacy-led transitional care program reduced medication-related problems after discharge. Implementation research is needed to determine how best to embed these interventions in existing processes.

Background After hospitalization for cardiac disease, older patients are at high risk of readmission and death. Although geriatric conditions increase this risk, treatment of older cardiac patients is limited to the management of cardiac diseases. The aim of this study is to investigate if unplanned hospital readmission and mortality can be reduced by the Cardiac Care Bridge transitional care program (CCB program) that integrates case management, disease management and home-based cardiac rehabilitation. Methods In a randomized trial on patient level, 500 eligible patients ≥ 70 years and at high risk of readmission and mortality will be enrolled in six hospitals in the Netherlands. Included patients will receive a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) at admission. Randomization with stratified blocks will be used with pre-stratification by study site and cognitive status based on the Mini-Mental State Examination (15–23 vs ≥ 24). Patients enrolled in the intervention group will receive a CGA-based integrated care plan, a face-to-face handover with the community care registered nurse (CCRN) before discharge and four home visits post-discharge. The CCRNs collaborate with physical therapists, who will perform home-based cardiac rehabilitation and with a pharmacist who advices the CCRNs in medication management The control group will receive care as usual. The primary outcome is the incidence of first all-cause unplanned readmission or mortality within 6 months post-randomization. Secondary outcomes at three, six and 12 months after randomization are physical functioning, functional capacity, depression, anxiety, medication adherence, health-related quality of life, healthcare utilization and care giver burden. Discussion This study will provide new knowledge on the effectiveness of the integration of geriatric and cardiac care. Trial registration NTR6316. Date of registration: April 6, 2017. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3301-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective: Medication regimens change during hospital admission, and these discrepancies can lead to an increased risk of patient harm after hospital discharge. Information about medication according to the patient's needs may contribute to patient safety by improvement of knowledge and adherence. The goal of this study is to explore the patient's needs on information about medication at hospital discharge. Research design and methods: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were performed with 31 patients from the pulmonology, internal medicine and cardiology departments who were discharged with at least one prescribed drug from the hospital to primary care in the Netherlands. Interviews were analysed with content analysis. Results: Patients had variable needs concerning information about discharge medication. Most patients wanted to receive basic information about their medication, alternatives for the prescribed medication and side effects. Some patients did not need basic information or explicitly mentioned that information about side effects would negatively influence their attitude towards medication. Patients preferred a combination of oral instructions and written information. Conclusions: Information at discharge should be tailored to the individual needs of the patient. Practice implications: In the process of providing patient information at hospital discharge, the preference of some patients for non-disclosure of information should be recognised. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Background: Medication reconciliation aims to correct discrepancies in medication use between health care settings and to check the quality of pharmacotherapy to improve effectiveness and safety. In addition, medication reconciliation might also reduce costs. Objective: To evaluate the effect of medication reconciliation on medication costs after hospital discharge in relation to hospital pharmacy labor costs. Methods: A prospective observational study was performed. Patients discharged from the pulmonology department were included. A pharmacy team assessed medication errors prevented by medication reconciliation. Interventions were classified into 3 categories: correcting hospital formulary-induced medication changes (eg, reinstating less costly generic drugs used before admission), optimizing pharmacotherapy (eg. discontinuing unnecessary laxative), and eliminating discrepancies (eg, restarting omitted preadmission medication). Because eliminating discrepancies does not represent real costs to society (before hospitalization, the patient was also using the medication), these medication costs were not included in the cost calculation. Medication costs at 1 month and 6 months after hospital discharge and the associated tabor costs were assessed using descriptive statistics and scenario analyses. For the 6-month extrapolation, only medication intended for chronic use was included. Results: Two hundred sixty-two patients were included. Correcting hospital formulary changes saved €1 63/patient (exchange rate: EUR 1 = USD 1.3443) in medication costs at 1 month after discharge and €9.79 at 6 months. Optimizing pharmacotherapy saved €20.13/patient in medication costs at 1 month and €86.86 at 6 months. The associated labor costs for performing medication reconciliation were €41.04/patient. Medication cost savings from correcting hospital formulary-induced changes and optimizing of pharmacotherapy (€96.65/patient) outweighed the labor costs at 6 months extrapolation by €55.62/patient (sensitivity analysis €37.25–71.10). Conclusions: Preventing medication errors through medication reconciliation results in higher benefits than the costs related to the net time investment.