Impact of Pharmacist-led Discharge Counseling on Hospital Readmission and Emergency Department Visits: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Transitions of care can contribute to medication errors and other adverse drug events. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of pharmacist-led discharge counseling on hospital readmission and emergency department visits through a systematic review and meta-analysis. EDATA SOURCES: Lectronic searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, and DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals), along with a manual search (July 2017). PROSPERO registration no. CRD42017068444. STUDY SELECTION: Two independent reviewers performed all the steps of the systematic review process (screening of titles and abstracts, full-text appraisal, data extraction, and quality assessment), with contributions from a third researcher. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting data on pharmacist-led discharge counseling. DATA EXTRACTION: Primary extracted outcomes were emergency department visits and hospital readmission rates. DATA SYNTHESIS: Meta-analyses of intervention versus usual care for hospital readmission and emergency department visit rates were performed using the inverse variance method. Results are reported as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Prediction intervals (PIs) were also calculated. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed. A total of 21 RCTs were included in the qualitative synthesis and 18 in the meta-analyses (n = 7,244 patients). The original meta-analysis revealed a significant difference in the impact between pharmacist-led discharge counseling and usual care on overall hospital readmission (RR = 0.864 [95% CI 0.763-0.997], P = .020) and emergency department (RR = 0.697 [95% CI 0.535-0.907], P = .007) visits. However, the small number of included studies, the high heterogeneity among trials (I2 between 40% and 60%), and the wide PIs (hospital readmission: PI 0.542-1.186; emergency department visits: PI 0.027-1.367) prevented drawing further conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Insufficient evidence exists regarding the effect of pharmacist-led discharge counseling on hospital readmission and emergency department visits. Further well-designed clinical trials with defined core outcome sets are needed.

Pharmacist-led discharge medication counselling: A scoping review.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: Discharge medication counselling has produced improved quality of care and health outcomes, especially by reducing medication errors and readmission rates, and improving medication adherence. However, no studies have assembled an evidence-based discharge counselling process for clinical pharmacists. Thus, the present study aims to map the components of the pharmacist-led discharge medication counselling process. METHODS: We performed a scoping review by searching electronic databases (Pubmed, Scopus, and DOAJ) and conducting a manual search to identify studies published up to July 2017. Studies that addressed pharmacist-led discharge medication counselling, regardless of the population, clinical conditions, and outcomes evaluated, were included. RESULTS: A total of 1563 studies were retrieved, with 75 matching the inclusion criteria. Thirty-two different components were identified, and the most prevalent were the indication of the medications and adverse drug reactions, which were reported in more than 50% of the studies. The components were reported similarly by studies from the USA and the rest of the world, and over the years. However, 2 differences were identified: the use of a dosage schedule, which was more frequent in studies published in 2011 or before and in studies outside the USA; and the teach-back technique, which was used more frequently in the USA. Poor quality reporting was also observed, especially regarding the duration of the counselling, the number of patients, and the medical condition. CONCLUSION: Mapping the components of the pharmacist-led discharge counselling studies through a scoping review allowed us to reveal how this service is performed around the world. Wide variability in this process and poor reporting were identified. Future studies are needed to define the core outcome set of this clinical pharmacy service to allow the generation of robust evidence and reproducibility in clinical practice.

Impact on process results of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) applied to medication use: overview of systematic reviews

Objective: The purpose of this overview (systematic review of systematic reviews) is to evaluate the impact of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) applied to medication use in the care process. Methods: A search for systematic reviews that address CDSS was performed on Medline following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane recommendations. Terms related to CDSS and systematic reviews were used in combination with Boolean operators and search field tags to build the electronic search strategy. There was no limitation of date or language for inclusion. We included revisions that investigated, as a main or secondary objective, changes in process outcomes. The Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) score was used to evaluate the quality of the studies. Results: The search retrieved 954 articles. Five articles were added through manual search, totaling an initial sample of 959 articles. After screening and reading in full, 44 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. In the medication-use processes where CDSS was used, the most common stages were prescribing (n=38 (86.36%) and administering (n=12 (27.27%)). Most of the systematic reviews demonstrated improvement in the health care process (30/44 - 68.2%). The main positive results were related to improvement of the quality of prescription by the physicians (14/30 - 46.6%) and reduction of errors in prescribing (5/30 - 16.6%). However, the quality of the studies was poor, according to the score used. Conclusion: CDSSs represent a promising technology to optimize the medication-use process, especially related to improvement in the quality of prescriptions and reduction of prescribing errors, although higher quality studies are needed to establish the predictors of success in these systems (AU)

No disponible

Impact on process results of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) applied to medication use: overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this overview (systematic review of systematic reviews) is to evaluate the impact of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) applied to medication use in the care process. METHODS: A search for systematic reviews that address CDSS was performed on Medline following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane recommendations. Terms related to CDSS and systematic reviews were used in combination with Boolean operators and search field tags to build the electronic search strategy. There was no limitation of date or language for inclusion. We included revisions that investigated, as a main or secondary objective, changes in process outcomes. The Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) score was used to evaluate the quality of the studies. RESULTS: The search retrieved 954 articles. Five articles were added through manual search, totaling an initial sample of 959 articles. After screening and reading in full, 44 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. In the medication-use processes where CDSS was used, the most common stages were prescribing (n=38 (86.36%) and administering (n=12 (27.27%)). Most of the systematic reviews demonstrated improvement in the health care process (30/44 - 68.2%). The main positive results were related to improvement of the quality of prescription by the physicians (14/30 - 46.6%) and reduction of errors in prescribing (5/30 - 16.6%). However, the quality of the studies was poor, according to the score used. CONCLUSION: CDSSs represent a promising technology to optimize the medication-use process, especially related to improvement in the quality of prescriptions and reduction of prescribing errors, although higher quality studies are needed to establish the predictors of success in these systems.

Potentially inappropriate prescribing andthe risk of adverse drug reactions in critically ill older adults.

BACKGROUND: Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use in the elderly is associated with increased risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), but there is limited information regarding PIM use in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to describe the prevalence and factors associated with the use of PIM and the occurrence of PIM-related adverse reactions in the critically ill elderly. METHODS: This study enrolled all critically ill older adults (60 years or more) admitted to medical or cardiovascular ICUs between January and December 2013, in a large tertiary teaching hospital. For all patients, clinical pharmacists listed the medications given during the ICU stay and data on drugs were analyzed using 2012 Beers Criteria, to identify the prevalence of PIM. For each identified PIM the medical records were analyzed to evaluate factors associated with its use. The frequency of ADRs and, the causal relationship between PIM and the ADRs identified were also evaluated through review of medical records. RESULTS: According to 2012 Beers Criteria, 98.2% of elderly patients used at least one PIM (n=599), of which 24.8% were newly started in the ICUs. In 29.6% of PIMs, there was a clinical circumstance that justified their prescription. The number of PIMs was associated with ICU length of stay and total number of medications. There was at least one ADR identified in 17.8% of patients; more than 40% were attributed to PIM, but there was no statistical association. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high prevalence of PIM used in acutely ill older people, but they do not seem to be the major cause of adverse drug reactions in this population. Although many PIMs had a clinical circumstance that led to their prescription during the course of ICU hospitalization, many were still present upon hospital discharge. Therefore, prescription of PIMs should be minimized to improve the safety of elderly patients.