Multidisciplinary medication review during older patient hospitalization according to STOPP/START criteria reduces potentially inappropriate prescriptions: MoPIM cohort study.

PURPOSE: Multimorbidity and polypharmacy in older adults converts the detection and adequacy of potentially inappropriate drug prescriptions (PIDP) in a healthcare priority. The objectives of this study are to describe the clinical decisions taken after the identification of PIDP by clinical pharmacists, using STOPP/START criteria, and to evaluate the degree of accomplishment of these decisions. METHODS: Multicenter, prospective, non-comparative cohort study in patients aged 65 and older, hospitalized because of an exacerbation of their chronic conditions. Each possible PIDP was manually identified by the clinical pharmacist at admission and an initial decision was taken by a multidisciplinary clinical committee. At discharge, criteria were re-applied and final decisions recorded. RESULTS: From all patients (n = 674), 493 (73.1%) presented at least one STOPP criteria at admission, significantly reduced up to 258 (38.3%) at discharge. A similar trend was observed for START criteria (36.7% vs. 15.7%). Regarding the top 10 most prevalent STOPP criteria, the clinical committee initially agreed to withdraw 257 (34.2%) prescriptions and to modify 93 (12.4%) prescriptions. However, the evaluation of final clinical decisions revealed that 503 (67.0%) of those STOPP criteria were ultimately amended. For the top 10 START criteria associated PIDP, the committee decided to initiate 149 (51.7%) prescriptions, while a total of 198 (68.8%) were finally introduced at discharge. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical committee, through a pharmacotherapy review, succeeded in identifying and reducing the degree of prescription inadequacy, for both STOPP and START criteria, in older patients with high degree of multimorbidity and polypharmacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02830425.

Factors associated to potentially inappropriate prescribing in older patients according to STOPP/START criteria: MoPIM multicentre cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the present analyses are to estimate the frequency of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) at admission according to STOPP/START criteria version 2 in older patients hospitalised due to chronic disease exacerbation as well as to identify risk factors associated to the most frequent active principles as potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). METHODS: A multicentre, prospective cohort study including older patients (≥65) hospitalized due to chronic disease exacerbation at the internal medicine or geriatric services of 5 hospitals in Spain between September 2016 and December 2018 was conducted. Demographic and clinical data was collected, and a medication review process using STOPP/START criteria version 2 was performed, considering both PIMs and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs). Primary outcome was defined as the presence of any most frequent principles as PIMs, and secondary outcomes were the frequency of any PIM and PPO. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were conducted on all outcomes and multilevel logistic regression analysis, stratified by participating centre, was performed on the primary outcome. RESULTS: A total of 740 patients were included (mean age 84.1, 53.2% females), 93.8% of them presenting polypharmacy, with a median of 10 chronic prescriptions. Among all, 603 (81.5%) patients presented at least one PIP, 542 (73.2%) any PIM and 263 (35.5%) any PPO. Drugs prescribed without an evidence-based clinical indication were the most frequent PIM (33.8% of patients); vitamin D supplement in older people who are housebound or experiencing falls or with osteopenia was the most frequent PPO (10.3%). The most frequent active principles as PIMs were proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and benzodiazepines (BZDs), present in 345 (46.6%) patients. This outcome was found significantly associated with age, polypharmacy and essential tremor in an explanatory model with 71% AUC. CONCLUSIONS: PIMs at admission are highly prevalent in these patients, especially those involving PPIs or BZDs, which affected almost half of the patients. Therefore, these drugs may be considered as the starting point for medication review and deprescription. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02830425.

Visual and Hearing Impairment Are Associated With Delirium in Hospitalized Patients: Results of a Multisite Prevalence Study.

OBJECTIVE: Sensory deficits are important risk factors for delirium but have been investigated in single-center studies and single clinical settings. This multicenter study aims to evaluate the association between hearing and visual impairment or bi-sensory impairment (visual and hearing impairment) and delirium. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study nested in the 2017 "Delirium Day" project. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients 65 years and older admitted to acute hospital medical wards, emergency departments, rehabilitation wards, nursing homes, and hospices in Italy. METHODS: Delirium was assessed with the 4AT (a short tool for delirium assessment) and sensory deficits with a clinical evaluation. We assessed the association between delirium, hearing and visual impairment in multivariable logistic regression models, adjusting for: Model 1, we included predisposing factors for delirium (ie, dementia, weight loss and autonomy in the activities of daily living); Model 2, we added to Model 1 variables, which could be considered precipitating factors for delirium (ie, psychoactive drugs and urinary catheters). RESULTS: A total of 3038 patients were included; delirium prevalence was 25%. Patients with delirium had a higher prevalence of hearing impairment (30.5% vs 18%; P < .001), visual impairment (24.2% vs 15.7%; P < .01) and bi-sensory impairment (16.2% vs 7.5%) compared with those without delirium. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, the presence of bi-sensory impairment was associated with delirium in Model 1 [odds ratio (OR) 1.5, confidence interval (CI) 1.2-2.1; P = .00] and in Model 2 (OR 1.4; CI 1.1-1.9; P = .02), whereas the presence of visual and hearing impairment alone was not associated with delirium either in Model 1 (OR 0.8; CI 0.6-1.2, P = .36; OR 1.1; CI 0.8-1.4; P = .42) or in Model 2 (OR 0.8, CI 0.6-1.2, P = .27; OR 1.1, CI 0.8-1.4, P = .63). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our findings support the importance of routine screening and specific interventions by a multidisciplinary team to implement optimal management of sensory impairments and hence prevention and the management of the patients with delirium.

Multimorbidity patterns in chronic older patients, potentially inappropriate prescribing and adverse drug reactions: protocol of the multicentre prospective cohort study MoPIM.

INTRODUCTION: Multimorbidity is a major challenge for current healthcare systems and professionals. From the different approaches that have been proposed to analyse this issue, the hypothesis of the existence of association patterns of different chronic conditions is gaining visibility. In addition, multimorbidity can be associated to polypharmacy, which can lead to a higher risk of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) and consequently to adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The general objective of this novel study is to identify the association between PIP, multimorbidity patterns, polypharmacy and the presence of ADRs in older patients admitted for exacerbation of chronic diseases. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The MoPIM (morbidity, potentially inappropriate medication) study is a multicentre prospective cohort study of an estimated sample of 800 older (≥65 years) patients admitted to five general hospitals in Spain due to an exacerbation of a chronic disease. Patients referred to home hospitalisation, admitted due to an acute process or with a fatal outcome expected at the time of admission are excluded. Sociodemographic data, chronic morbidities and geriatric syndromes, number of chronic prescribed medications, PIP at admission to hospital and on discharge, according to the newest screening tool of older screening tool of older person's potentially inappropriate prescriptions/screening tool to alert doctors to right treatment criteria, and ADRs during hospitalisation are being collected. Multimorbidity patterns will be identified using cluster analyses techniques, and the frequency of polypharmacy, PIP and ADRs will be calculated. Finally, the possible relationship between those indicators will be identified through bivariate and multivariate analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The project has been approved by the clinical research ethics committees of each centre: Comité Ético de investigación Clínica del Parc Taulí, Comitè Ètic d'Investigació Clínica Osona per a la Recerca i Educació Sanitàries (FORES), Comité de Ètica de la Investigación con Medicamentos (CEIm)-Parc de Salut MAR, Comité Ético de Investigación Clínica de Euskadi, Comité de Ética de Investigación del Hospital Universitario de Canarias. The results will be actively and mainly disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and communications in scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02830425.

[Changes in the incidence of falls in an intermediate and long-term care center]. / Evolución de la incidencia de caídas en un centro hospitalario de media y larga estancia.

INTRODUCTION: The characteristics of falls in older patients admitted to an institution in 2 different periods. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a prospective study of falls among inpatients admitted to an intermediate and long-term care center. Age, sex, Barthel index, main diagnoses, medication at the time of the fall, place, the shift when the fall occurred, lighting, characteristics of the floor, the use of walking aids and/or restraints, the kind of shoes worn, and activity at the moment of the fall were registered. During the first 2-year study period (period A), there were 332 beds (intermediate care and rehabilitation unit, long-term care unit, palliative care unit, psychogeriatric unit and assisted residential home). During the second 2-year period (period B), the palliative and intermediate care units were moved to another center (255 beds remaining). RESULTS: Period A: there were 647 falls in 227 patients; the total number of patients admitted was 1387 (accumulated incidence of falls: 46.6%). Period B: there were 539 falls in 191 patients; the total number of patients admitted was 908 (accumulated incidence of falls: 59.3%). Significant differences between the two periods were found in age (79.8+/-10.6 versus 81.3 10.2) (p<0.02), the percentage of women (55.2% versus 66.4%) (p<0.001), neurological diagnoses (26.7% versus 36.1%) (p< 0.001), antidepressants (12.6% versus 16.4%), neuroleptics (10.3% versus 15.2%) (p<0.001), falls in the bedroom (39.7% versus 41.6%) (p<0.001), falls when moving from bed to chair (41.3% versus 30.8%) (p<0.001), and the use of walking aids (65.8% versus 40.5%) (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: a) the incidence of falls increased in the second period of the study; b) in period A, risk factors for falls related to rehabilitation (moving from bed to chair, use of walking aids) were more frequent. In period B, risk factors related to the characteristics of psychogeriatric patients were predominant (neurological illness, use of psychotropic drugs, and c) the difference in the incidence of falls between the two study periods may be related to the distinct characteristics of the patients (case mix).