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.

Contains fulltext : 251158.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: Insufficient information transfer is a major barrier in the transition from hospital to home. This study describes the systematic development and evaluation of an intervention to improve medication information transfer between hospital and community pharmacists. OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate an intervention to improve the medication information transfer between hospital and community pharmacists based on patients', community and hospital pharmacists' needs. METHODS: The intervention development and evaluation was guided by the six-step Intervention Mapping (IM) approach: (1) needs assessment to identify determinants of the problem, with a scoping review and focus groups with patients and healthcare providers, (2) formulation of intervention objectives with an expert group, (3) inventory of communication models to design the intervention, (4) using literature review and qualitative research with pharmacists and patients to develop the intervention (5) pilot-testing of the intervention in two hospitals, and (6) a qualitative evaluation of the intervention as part of a multicenter before-after study with hospital and community pharmacists. RESULTS: Barriers in the information transfer are mainly time and content related. The intervention was designed to target a complete, accurate and timely medication information transfer between hospital and community pharmacists. A pharmaceutical discharge letter was developed to improve medication information transfer. Hospital and community pharmacists were positive about the usability, content, and comprehensiveness of the pharmaceutical discharge letter, which gave community pharmacists sufficient knowledge about in-hospital medication changes. However, hospital pharmacists reported that it was time-consuming to draft the discharge letter and not always feasible to send it on time. The intervention showed that pharmacists are positive about the usability, content and comprehensiveness. CONCLUSION: This study developed an intervention systematically to improve medication information transfer, consisting of a discharge letter to be used by hospital and community pharmacists supporting continuity of care.

Item does not contain fulltext Older people are often affected by impaired organ and bodily functions resulting in multimorbidity and polypharmacy, turning them into the main user group of many medicines. Very often, medicines have not specifically been developed for older people, causing practical medication problems for them like limited availability of easy to swallow formulations, easy to open packaging and dosing instructions for enteral administration. In 2020, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) published a reflection paper 'Pharmaceutical development of medicines for use in the older population', which discusses how the emerging needs of an ageing European population can be addressed by medicines regulation. The paper intends to help industry to better consider the needs of older people during pharmaceutical/clinical medicines development by summarising data on the most relevant topics, providing early suggestions on how to move forward and prompting expert discussions and studies into knowledge gaps. Topics include patient acceptability, (dis)advantages of an administration route, formulation, dosage form, packaging, dosing device and user instruction. While the paper is directed at older people and the pharmaceutical industry, the reflections are also relevant to younger patients with similar disease-related needs and of value to other stakeholders parties, e.g., healthcare professionals, academics, patients and caregivers, as the paper makes clear what can be expected from industry and where collaborative work is needed. This commentary provides an overview of the different steps in the development of the reflection paper, discusses points considered most controversial and/or subject to (multidisciplinary) expert discussions and indicates their value for real world clinical practice.

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 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.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy may result in medication-related readmissions (MRRs). Identifying MRRs is time consuming. Screening of readmissions by students could increase efficiency for healthcare professionals. Recently, two screening tools have been published: the Assessment Tool for identifying Hospital Admissions Related to Medications (AT-HARM10) tool and the Drug-Related Admission (DRA) adjudication guide. It is unknown whether pharmacy students could identify MRRs with these tools. OBJECTIVE: To compare the agreement between two pharmacy students applying the AT-HARM10 tool and DRA adjudication guide in identifying MRRs vs a multidisciplinary panel. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted from February to July 2020 at OLVG hospital. Readmissions within 30 days after discharge from seven departments were reviewed by a multidisciplinary panel (pharmacists and physicians). MRRs were defined as readmission where medication was the main cause or medication significantly contributed to the readmission. Two 5th year pharmacy-students volunteered to blindly apply both tools individually on all MRRs and a random sample of non-MRRs. The consensus results of the students and the multidisciplinary panel were compared and displayed as a percentage and Cohen's kappa (κ). RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-six readmission cases were selected in total, consisting of 181 MRRs and 185 non-MRRs. The agreement between the students using the AT-HARM10 tool vs the multidisciplinary panel was moderate (80%, κ = 0.60 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52-0.68)). The DRA adjudication guide had a moderate agreement (81%, κ = 0.62 (CI: 0.54-0.70)). Students misclassified MRRs mainly because the multidisciplinary panel found disease progression more profound than a contribution of medication. CONCLUSIONS: Two students have an overall agreement of 80% in comparison with the multidisciplinary panel with a moderate Cohen's kappa. Students are more often overestimated, but they may be a good option to preselect potential MRRs to save time for healthcare professionals. However, some MRRs will be missed.

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.

Contains fulltext : 218225.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: Hospital readmissions are increasingly used as an indicator of quality in health care. One potential risk factor of readmissions is polypharmacy. No studies have explored the patients' perspectives on the medication relatedness and potential preventability of their readmissions. OBJECTIVE: To compare the patients' perspectives on the medication relatedness and potential preventability of their readmissions with the providers' perspectives. METHODS: Patients unplanned readmitted within 30 days after discharge at one of the participating departments of OLVG Hospital in Amsterdam were interviewed during their readmission. Patients' perspectives regarding medication relatedness of their readmissions, the potential preventability, possible preventable interventions, and satisfaction with medication information were examined. Health-care providers also reviewed files of these readmitted patients. Primary outcome was the percentage of medication-related and potentially preventable readmissions according to the patient vs the provider. Descriptive data analysis was used. RESULTS: According to patients, 36 of 172 (21%) readmissions were medication-related, and of these, 21 (58%) were potentially preventable. According to providers, 26 (15%) readmissions were medication-related and 6 (23%) of these were potentially preventable. Patients and providers agreed on the medication relatedness in 11 of the 172 readmissions, and in two of these, agreement on the potential preventability existed. According to patients, preventive interventions belonged mostly to the hospital level, followed by the primary care level and patient level. CONCLUSION: Patients and providers differ substantially on their perspectives regarding the medication relatedness and preventability of readmissions. Patients were more likely to view medication-related readmissions as preventable.

Contains fulltext : 220997.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) OBJECTIVES: To identify the preventability, determinants and causes of unplanned hospital readmissions within 30 days of discharge using a multidisciplinary approach and including patients' perspectives. DESIGN: A prospective cross-sectional single-center study. SETTING: Urban teaching hospital in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 430 patients were included. Inclusion criteria were: age ≥ 18 years, discharged from one of seven participating clinical departments and an unplanned readmission within 30 days. METHODS: Residents from the participating departments individually assessed whether the readmission was caused by healthcare, the preventability and possible causes of readmissions using a tool. Thereafter, the preventability of the cases was discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting with residents of all participating departments and clinical pharmacists. The primary outcome was the proportion of readmissions that were potentially preventable. Secondary outcomes were the determinants for a readmission, causes for preventable readmissions, the change in the final decision on preventability after the multidisciplinary meeting and the value of patient interviews in assessing preventability. Differences in characteristics of potentially preventable readmissions (PPRs) and non-PPRs were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 430 readmissions, 56 (13%) were assessed as PPRs. Age was significantly associated with a PPR (adjusted OR: 2.42; 95%, CI 1.23-4.74; p = 0.01). The main causes for PPRs were diagnostic (30%), medication (27%) and management problems (27%). During the multidisciplinary meeting, the final decision on preventability changed in 11% of the cases. When a patient interview was available, it was used as a source of information to assess preventability in 26% of readmissions. In 7% of cases, the patient interview was mentioned as the most important source. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: 13% of readmissions were potentially preventable with diagnostic, medication or management problems being main causes. A multidisciplinary review approach and including the patient's perspective could contribute to a better understanding of the complexity of readmissions and possible improvements.

AIMS: Medication safety requires urgent attention in hospital pharmacy. This study evaluated the medication-related problems/errors as reported to the Dutch medication incident registry and disseminated for information to pharmacists. Through analysis by an expert panel we aimed to better understand which problems could have been mitigated by the drug product design. Additionally, the (wider) implications of the problems for current hospital/clinical practice were discussed.METHODS: Items were extracted from the public Portal for Patient Safety. Items were included if relevant for older people and connected with the drug product design and excluded if they should reasonably have been intercepted by compliance to routine controls or well-known professional standards in pharmaceutical care. To explore any underreporting of well-known incidents, it was investigated if different medication-related problems could be observed in a regional hospital practise over a 1-month period. For 6 included items (cases), the implications for hospital/clinical practise were discussed in an expert panel.RESULTS: In total, 307 items were identified in the Portal for Patient Safety; all but 14 were excluded. Six cases were added from daily hospital practice. These 20 cases commonly related to confusing product characteristics, packaging issues such as the lack of a single unit package for an oncolytic product, or incorrect or incomplete user instructions.CONCLUSION: Medication registries provide important opportunities to evaluate real-world medication-related problems. However, underreporting of well-known problems should be considered. The product design can be used as an (additional) risk mitigation measure to support medication safety in hospital practice.

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 A main obstacle of inpatient medication review is the lack of insight into patient needs and the outpatient’s medical history. Purpose To establish whether drug-related problems (DRPs) after discharge can be reduced via geriatric stewardship, which entails inpatient medication reviews based on patient interviews and consultations with primary care providers. Material and methods This implementation study with a pre-post design included hospitalised elderly patients with polypharmacy and a risk factor for frailty who were admitted to orthopaedic or surgical wards. The pre-cohort received the usual care; and the after-cohort received an extended medication review based on: 1) a review of the clinical records; 2) a consultation with the general practitioner and community pharmacist; 3) a patient interview; and 4) a multidisciplinary evaluation of all the recommendations of steps 1 to 3. Two weeks after discharge, patient-reported DRPs were assessed by telephone using a validated questionnaire. DRPs (i.e. an event or circumstance involving drug therapy that actually or potentially interferes with desired health outcomes) were classified into drug-related complaints, practical problems and questions about medication. The primary outcome was the number of DRPs per patient in each group. A Poisson regression was performed to compare the groups, adjusted for potential confounders. Second, we assessed the number of altered recommendations by patient interviews and consultations of primary care providers. Results Of 127 included patients (control: 74, intervention: 53), intervention patients reported fewer DRPs after discharge than patients in usual care, 2.8 vs. 3.3 per patient (RRadjusted 0.83, 95% CI: 0.66 to 1.05). The difference was mainly due to a 50% reduction in drug-related complaints. In the intervention group, nearly 30% of the medication review recommendations based on the clinical records changed after consulting the patient and primary care providers. Conclusion The implementation of geriatric stewardship reduced DRPs after discharge in this cohort. Significance was not reached but further research with larger patient numbers may confirm this effect and determine the effect on clinical outcomes. The importance of patient interviews is consistent with the findings of Viktil et al1 on the value of patient interviews in an inpatient setting. No previous study considered consultations of primary care providers. References and/or acknowledgements 1. Viktil, et al. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf2006;15:667–74. No conflict of interest.

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.

Background Medication errors occur frequently at points of transition in care. The key problems causing these medication errors are: incomplete and inappropriate medication reconciliation at hospital discharge (partly arising from inadequate medication reconciliation at admission), insufficient patient information (especially within a multicultural patient population) and insufficient communication to the next health care provider. Whether interventions aimed at the combination of these aspects indeed result in less discontinuity and associated harm is uncertain. Therefore the main objective of this study is to determine the effect of the COACH program (Continuity Of Appropriate pharmacotherapy, patient Counselling and information transfer in Healthcare) on readmission rates in patients discharged from the internal medicine department. Methods/Design An experimental study is performed at the internal medicine ward of a general teaching hospital in Amsterdam, which serves a multicultural population. In this study the effects of the COACH program is compared with usual care using a pre-post study design. All patients being admitted with at least one prescribed drug intended for chronic use are included in the study unless they meet one of the following exclusion criteria: no informed consent, no medication intended for chronic use prescribed at discharge, death, transfer to another ward or hospital, discharge within 24 hours or out of office hours, discharge to a nursing home and no possibility to counsel the patient. The intervention consists of medication reconciliation, patient counselling and communication between the hospital and primary care healthcare providers. The following outcomes are measured: the primary outcome readmissions within six months after discharge and the secondary outcomes number of interventions, adherence, patient's attitude towards medicines, patient's satisfaction with medication information, costs, quality of life and finally satisfaction of general practitioners and community pharmacists. Interrupted time series analysis is used for data-analysis of the primary outcome. Descriptive statistics is performed for the secondary outcomes. An economic evaluation is performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Discussion This study will be able to evaluate the clinical and cost impact of a comprehensive program on continuity of care and associated patient safety. Trial registration Dutch trial register: NTR1519