Search

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

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.

Item does not contain fulltext Background In the Netherlands, a nationwide Medication Record System based on pharmacy dispensing data is used to obtain information about patients' actual medication use. However, it is not clear to what extent the information of the Nationwide Medication Record System corresponds to the medication information obtained with the Best Possible Medication History. Objective To examine the validity of medication dispensing records collected from the Nationwide Medication Record System by comparing them to the Best Possible Medication History. Method An observational study was performed. Patients from several hospital departments were included at admission. To obtain the Best Possible Medication History, pharmacy technicians performed medication reconciliation at admission, using dispensing records from the Nationwide Medication Record System and information from the patient himself. Primary outcome is percentage of patients with no discrepancies between the Nationwide Medication Record System and the Best Possible Medication History. Descriptive analysis was used. Results Eighty-two patients were approached and 66 (80%) were included, with in total 478 medicines in the Best Possible Medication History. Seventeen percent of the patients had no discrepancies and 33% (n = 156) of the medication records contained a discrepancy between the Nationwide Medication Record System and the Best Possible Medication History. Most common type of discrepancy was omission (44%). Conclusion Even with a Nationwide Medication Record System medication reconciliation with the patient remains essential to obtain complete information about patient's actual medication use.

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.

Background: Hospital readmission rates are increasingly used as a measure of healthcare quality. Medicines are the most common therapeutic intervention but estimating the contribution of adverse drug events as a cause of readmissions is difficult.Objectives: To assess the prevalence and preventability of medication-related readmissions within 30 days after hospital discharge and to describe the risk factors, type of medication errors and types of medication involved in these preventable readmissions.Design: A cross-sectional observational study.Setting: The study took place across the cardiology, gastroenterology, internal medicine, neurology, psychiatry, pulmonology and general surgery departments in the OLVG teaching hospital, Netherlands.Participants: Patients with an unplanned readmission within 30 days after discharge from an earlier hospitalization (index hospitalization: IH) were reviewed.Measurements: The prevalence and preventability of medication-related readmissions were assessed by residents in multidisciplinary meetings. A senior internist and hospital pharmacist reassessed the prevalence and preventability of identified cases. Generalized estimating equation with logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors of potentially preventable medication-related readmissions.Results: Of 1,111 included readmissions, 181 (16%) were medication-related, of which 72 (40%) were potentially preventable. The number of medication changes at IH (Adjusted odds ratio [ORadj]: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.05–1.24) and having ≥3 hospitalizations 6 months before IH (ORadj: 2.11; 95% CI: 1.12–3.98) were risk factors of a preventable medication-related readmission. Of these preventable readmissions, 35% were due to prescribing errors, 35% by non-adherence and 30% by transition errors. Medications most frequently involved were diuretics and antidiabetics.Conclusion: This study shows that 16% of readmissions are medication-related, of which 40% are potentially preventable. If the results are confirmed in larger multicentre studies, this may indicate that more attention should be paid to medication-related harm in order to lower the overall readmission rates.

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.

Purpose The need for information for patients and caregivers at the point of hospital discharge is paramount and potentially extensive. Objective The objective of this study was to assess patients' informational needs at hospital discharge, patients' recall of medication changes implemented in the hospital and patients' medication related problems experienced one week after hospital discharge. Methods The study was conducted in a teaching hospital where patients received structured discharge counseling. Patients were interviewed at hospital discharge regarding their informational needs. One week post-discharge, patients were interviewed by phone to assess any changes in informational needs, their recall regarding in-hospital medication changes and the medication related problems. Descriptive analysis and logistic regression were used to address study objectives. Results The 124 patients in the study regarded the following topics as most relevant for counseling: what the medicine is for (57%), side effects (52%), drug-drug interactions (45%), action of the drug (37%) and reimbursement (31%). In 9% of patients the informational needs changed post-discharge, e.g. the topic side effects increased in importance. Forty-nine percent could recall whether and which medication was changed during hospitalization. Medication-related problems and side effects were reported by respectively 27% and 15% of patients, whereas only 7% contacted their doctor or pharmacist. Conclusions Patients' informational needs are very individual and can change post-discharge. Despite structured counseling, only half of the patients were able to recall the medication changes implemented in the hospital. Furthermore, patients reported several problems for which they did not consult a healthcare provider. This insight could help in smoothing the transition from hospital to the primary care setting.

Item does not contain fulltext OBJECTIVES: To summarize the evidence on the prevalence and preventability of drug-related hospital readmissions. DESIGN: A systematic review was performed of studies that examined drug-related hospital readmissions. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception through August 2016. Reference lists and a citation analysis on Web of Science and Scopus were also consulted. Two reviewers extracted study data with dual assessment of risk of bias. Prevalence and preventability of readmission due to drugs were calculated. Data were qualitatively summarized according to outcome. RESULTS: Nineteen studies met the eligibility criteria. Nine measured readmissions due to drug-related problems, seven due to adverse drug reactions, two due to adverse drug events, and one due to drug-drug interactions. Rates of readmissions due to drugs varied from 3% to 64% (median 21%, interquartile range (IQR) 14-23%). Readmissions were deemed preventable in 5% to 87% of cases (median 69%, IQR 19-84%). Evidence regarding the risk factors for drug-related readmissions and drugs causing these readmissions was inconsistent. CONCLUSION: Although studies show high variability in prevalence and preventability of drug-related hospital readmissions, readmissions due to drugs seem to occur often, especially in older adults. Further research is needed to specify the causes of preventable readmissions and implement effective interventions to reduce medication-related hospital admissions.

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.

Patients play an important role in achieving the desired therapeutic outcomes, as they are frequently responsible for their own medication management. To facilitate drug administration and overcome medication issues, the patients’ needs and preferences should be considered in the pharmaceutical drug product design. With the aim to evaluate the current state of evidence for patient appropriateness, acceptability, usability and preference for aspects of this design, a literature search was performed. Comparative clinical studies that assessed such endpoints for different patient populations were included and summarized descriptively. The search identified 45 publications that met the inclusion criteria. A detailed analysis of the studies identified two main areas investigating either packaging design ( n = 10) or dosage form design ( n = 35). Studies on packaging design showed preferences for wing top and screw cap openings, push-through blisters and suppositories with slide system. Additionally, child-resistant containers should be avoided concerning specific patient populations. Regarding dosage form design, sprinkles and minitablets were the most preferred in studies involving young patients, while preferences varied considerably depending on route of administration and geographical region in studies with adult patients. Review of the methodology used in the studies revealed that ten studies had used well-defined protocols and observational endpoints to investigate patient appropriateness. Studies focusing on methodology for testing the appropriateness and usability of drug products by patients were not found. In conclusion, more interdisciplinary scientific efforts are required to develop and increase research in understanding patient needs and preferences.

Background Medication reconciliation (MR) is a widely recognised method to promote patient safety. However, its implementation is generally limited to an interaction at a single transition point. Objectives To examine the rates and types of changes implemented in patient's medication regimens when MR is performed longitudinally at hospital admission, discharge and post-discharge, and to assess the clinical impact. Methods A prospective multicentre cohort study was conducted in two hospitals. Patients received MR at admission, discharge and within five days post-discharge at home. Data was collected on rates and types of changes implemented in their medication regimens, due to MR, at all three transition points. These changes entailed corrections of unintentional discrepancies, e.g., between patients’ actual medication use and physician prescriptions, and optimisations of pharmacotherapy, e.g., adding laxatives when opioids are prescribed. Using a validated instrument, the clinical impact of all medication changes were scored. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results In total, 197 patients with a median age of 73 years were included. In 86.3% of patients at least one change was implemented in the medication regimen due to longitudinal MR. At admission, discharge and post-discharge, changes in medication regimens were necessary in 66.5%, 62.9% and 52.8% of patients, respectively. At admission and post-discharge, mainly unintentional discrepancies were corrected, and at discharge mainly optimisations were implemented. Implemented medication changes, due to longitudinal MR, prevented potential harm in 161 patients (81.7%). Potentially serious medication errors were most often prevented at hospital discharge, and predominantly involved optimising antithrombotic agents. Conclusions Changes in medication regimens were implemented in 86.3% of patients due to longitudinal MR at admission, discharge and post-discharge. The rates and types of medication changes vary over time. Hospital discharge is an important moment for optimising pharmacotherapy.

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.