How intervention studies measure the effectiveness of medication safety-related clinical decision support systems in primary and long-term care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors and associated adverse drug events (ADE) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. In recent years, the prevention of medication errors has become a high priority in healthcare systems. In order to improve medication safety, computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) are increasingly being integrated into the medication process. Accordingly, a growing number of studies have investigated the medication safety-related effectiveness of CDSS. However, the outcome measures used are heterogeneous, leading to unclear evidence. The primary aim of this study is to summarize and categorize the outcomes used in interventional studies evaluating the effects of CDSS on medication safety in primary and long-term care. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library for interventional studies evaluating the effects of CDSS targeting medication safety and patient-related outcomes. We extracted methodological characteristics, outcomes and empirical findings from the included studies. Outcomes were assigned to three main categories: process-related, harm-related, and cost-related. Risk of bias was assessed using the Evidence Project risk of bias tool. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Almost all studies (n = 31) used process-related outcomes, followed by harm-related outcomes (n = 11). Only three studies used cost-related outcomes. Most studies used outcomes from only one category and no study used outcomes from all three categories. The definition and operationalization of outcomes varied widely between the included studies, even within outcome categories. Overall, evidence on CDSS effectiveness was mixed. A significant intervention effect was demonstrated by nine of fifteen studies with process-related primary outcomes (60%) but only one out of five studies with harm-related primary outcomes (20%). The included studies faced a number of methodological problems that limit the comparability and generalizability of their results. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the effectiveness of CDSS is currently inconclusive due in part to inconsistent outcome definitions and methodological problems in the literature. Additional high-quality studies are therefore needed to provide a comprehensive account of CDSS effectiveness. These studies should follow established methodological guidelines and recommendations and use a comprehensive set of harm-, process- and cost-related outcomes with agreed-upon and consistent definitions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42023464746.

Secondary Prevention via Case Managers in Stroke Patients: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Claims Data from German Statutory Health Insurance Providers.

Strokes remain a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. The STROKE OWL study evaluated a novel case management approach for patients with stroke (modified Rankin Scale 0-4) or transient ischemic attack (TIA) who received support across healthcare settings and secondary prevention training from case managers for one year. The primary aim of this quasi-experimental study was a reduction in stroke recurrence. Here, we report the results of a health economic analysis of the STROKE OWL study, conducted in accordance with CHEERS guidelines. The calculations were based on claims data of cooperating statutory health insurance companies. In addition to a regression analysis for cost comparison, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was determined, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was carried out. In total, 1167 patients per group were included in the analysis. The intervention group incurred 32.3% higher direct costs (p < 0.001) than the control group. With a difference of EUR 1384.78 (95% CI: [1.2384-1.4143], p < 0.0001) and a 5.32% increase in hazards for the intervention group (HR = 1.0532, 95% CI: [0.7869-1.4096], p = 0.7274) resulting in an ICER of EUR 260.30, we found that the case management intervention dominated in the total stroke population, even for an arbitrarily high willingness to pay. In the TIA subgroup, however, the intervention was cost-effective even for a low willingness to pay. Our results are limited by small samples for both TIA and severe stroke patients and by claims data heterogeneity for some cost components, which had to be excluded from the analysis. Future research should investigate the cost-effectiveness of case management interventions for both severe stroke and TIA populations using appropriate data.

Risk factors for herpes zoster infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis unveiling common trends and heterogeneity patterns.

PURPOSE: The burden of herpes zoster (HZ) is substantial and numerous chronic underlying conditions are known as predisposing risk factors for HZ onset. Thus, a comprehensive study is needed to synthesize existing evidence. This study aims to comprehensively identify these risk factors. METHODS: A systematic literature search was done using MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science for studies published from January 1, 2003 to January 1, 2023. A random-effects model was used to estimate pooled Odds Ratios (OR). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. For sensitivity analyses basic outlier removal, leave-one-out validation and Graphic Display of Heterogeneity (GOSH) plots with different algorithms were employed to further analyze heterogeneity patterns. Finally, a multiple meta-regression was conducted. RESULTS: Of 6392 considered records, 80 were included in the meta-analysis. 21 different conditions were identified as potential risk factors for HZ: asthma, autoimmune disorders, cancer, cardiovascular disorders, chronic heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD), depression, diabetes, digestive disorders, endocrine and metabolic disorders, hematological disorders, HIV, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), mental health conditions, musculoskeletal disorders, neurological disorders, psoriasis, renal disorders, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and transplantation. Transplantation was associated with the highest risk of HZ (OR = 4.51 (95% CI [1.9-10.7])). Other risk factors ranged from OR = 1.17-2.87, indicating an increased risk for all underlying conditions. Heterogeneity was substantial in all provided analyses. Sensitivity analyses showed comparable results regarding the pooled effects and heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed an increased risk of HZ infections for all identified factors.

A Case Management Approach in Stroke Care: A Mixed-Methods Acceptance Analysis from the Perspective of the Medical Profession.

PURPOSE OF STUDY: In terms of continuous and coordinated health care, cross-sectoral care structures are crucial. However, the German health care system is characterized by fragmentation of medical services and responsibilities. This fragmentation leads to multiple interfaces frequently causing loss of information, effectiveness, and quality. The concept of case management has the potential to improve cooperation between sectors and health care providers. Hence, a case management intervention for patients with stroke was evaluated with an acceptance analysis on the physicians' willingness to cooperate with stroke managers and their assessment of the potential of case management for the health care of patients with stroke. PRIMARY PRACTICE SETTINGS: Primary practice settings included physicians working in the hospital, rehabilitation, and outpatient sectors who had actual or potential contact with a stroke case manager within the project region of East Westphalia-Lippe. METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLE: The analysis was conducted using a mixed-methods approach. Expert interviews were conducted in 2020. Afterward a questionnaire was developed, which was then distributed to physicians in 2021. Both the interviews and the questionnaire included questions on conceptual knowledge and concrete expectations prior of the project, on experiences during the project and on recommendations and physicians' assessment of future organization in health care to classify and describe the acceptance. RESULTS: Nine interviews were conducted and 23 questionnaires were completed. Only slightly more than 50% of the physicians had prior knowledge of the case management approach. Overall, ambiguous results concerning the acceptance of case managers were revealed. Additional personal assistance for patients with stroke was seen as beneficial at the same time critical perspectives regarding further fragmentation of health care and overlapping of competences with existing professional groups or forms of health care were collected. General practitioners in particular were critical of the case management approach. IMPLICATIONS FOR CASE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE: From the physicians' point of view, at least two changes are necessary for the project approach to be integrated into standard care. First, the target group should be adapted according to the case management approach. Second, the delegation of tasks and responsibilities to case managers should be revised. The sectoral difference in the acceptance of case managers by physicians indicates that active cooperation and communication in everyday work has direct impact on the acceptance of a new occupational profession. Physician acceptance has a significant impact on the implementation of new treatment modalities and thus influences the overall quality of health care.

The Relationship of Continuity of Care, Polypharmacy and Medication Appropriateness: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Worldwide, polypharmacy and medication appropriateness-related outcomes (MARO) are growing public health concerns associated with potentially inappropriate prescribing, adverse health effects, and avoidable costs to health systems. Continuity of care (COC) is a cornerstone of high-quality care that has been shown to improve patient-relevant outcomes. However, the relationship between COC and polypharmacy/MARO has not been systematically explored. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the operationalization of COC, polypharmacy, and MARO as well as the relationship between COC and polypharmacy/MARO. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL. Quantitative observational studies investigating the associations between COC and polypharmacy and/or COC and MARO by applying multivariate regression analysis techniques were eligible. Qualitative or experimental studies were not included. Information on the definition and operationalization of COC, polypharmacy, and MARO and reported associations was extracted. COC measures were assigned to the relational, informational, or management dimension of COC and further classified as objective standard, objective non-standard, or subjective. Risk of bias was assessed by using the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were included. Overall, substantial differences existed in terms of the COC dimensions and related COC measures. Relational COC was investigated in each study, while informational and management COC were only covered among three studies. The most frequent type of COC measure was objective non-standard (n = 16), followed by objective standard (n = 11) and subjective measures (n = 3). The majority of studies indicated that COC is strongly associated with both polypharmacy and MARO, such as potentially inappropriate medication (PIM), potentially inappropriate drug combination (PIDC), drug-drug interaction (DDI), adverse drug events (ADE), unnecessary drug use, duplicated medication, and overdose. More than half of the included studies (n = 15) had a low risk of bias, while five studies had an intermediate and seven studies a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Differences regarding the methodological quality of included studies as well as the heterogeneity in terms of the operationalization and measurement of COC, polypharmacy, and MARO need to be considered when interpreting the results. Yet, our findings suggest that optimizing COC may be helpful in reducing polypharmacy and MARO. Therefore, COC should be acknowledged as an important risk factor for polypharmacy and MARO, and the importance of COC should be considered when designing future interventions targeting these outcomes.