A communication procedure between community pharmacists and primary care professionals resolves medication errors and other administrative issues.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to implement a communication procedure, with agreed-upon protocols, to resolve daily medication errors and other administrative issues that require communication between community pharmacists (CPs) and primary healthcare professionals (PHCPs). METHODS: A 6-month pilot study followed by a year-length principal study was carried out in the Donostialdea Integrated Healthcare Organisation (IHO). Afterwards, the project was extended to other IHOs. The CPs identified medication errors or other administrative issues that required communication with PHCPs, contacting the customer service staff by telephone for urgent problems and by email for non-urgent problems. KEY FINDINGS: In total, 49 community pharmacies participated in the study. A total of 1179 medication errors and other administrative issues were detected, and over 90% of problems were solved in less than 24 h (n = 1079, 91.5%). Email was the more frequently used communication method (n = 874, 74.1%), and the most prevalent problems were due to absent (n = 766, 65.0%) and expired (n = 226, 19.2%) electronic prescriptions. Most of the participants were satisfied with the programme. CONCLUSION: The present communication procedure between CPs and PHCPs is an efficient tool to resolve a variety of challenges that occur in community pharmacies.

Evaluación de una intervención formativa con revisión estructurada de la medicación en pacientes mayores polimedicados en Atención Primaria / Evaluation of an educational intervention and a structured review of polypharmacy in elderly patients in Primary Care

Antecedentes y objetivo: Diversas intervenciones han demostrado que reducen la polimedicación y la prescripción potencialmente inapropiada (PPI). El objetivo del estudio fue evaluar el número de fármacos y PPI antes y después de una intervención educativa sobre el médico de atención primaria (MAP), con identificación electrónica de la PPI y revisión estructurada de la medicación, en ancianos con polimedicación excesiva (≥10 fármacos). Material y métodos: Estudio de intervención antes-después, en la Comarca Guipúzcoa (Osakidetza), en una muestra aleatoria de mayores de 80 años con ≥10 fármacos, cuyos MAP recibieron formación. Variables principales: cambio en el número de fármacos y PPI, evaluados por historia clínica. Variables secundarias: descripción del balance beneficio-riesgo evaluado por el MAP, problemas de seguridad y decisión terapéutica. Resultados: De los 591 pacientes elegibles, se excluyó a 88 (41: sus MAP no asistieron a la formación, 47: fallecimiento/traslado/ingreso) y se incluyó a 503, con una edad media de 84,9 años; el 67,7% eran mujeres. El número medio de fármacos y de PPI por paciente disminuyó significativamente: −0,88 (IC 95%: −1,04 a −0,72) y −0,19 (IC 95%: −0,29 a −0,09), respectivamente (p<0,0001), con una reducción del 25,8% en el número de pacientes con polimedicación excesiva. Variables secundarias: se emplearon hojas de recogida de datos de 365 pacientes y de 4.168 prescripciones. El balance beneficio-riesgo fue favorable para el 75% de las prescripciones y la decisión terapéutica mayoritaria fue mantenerlas (83%). Se mantuvieron el 47,3% de las 911 prescripciones con balance desfavorable/incierto. Conclusiones: La intervención se asocia con una reducción en la polimedicación excesiva y de la PPI en condiciones de práctica clínica habitual

Background and objective: Several interventions have been shown to reduce polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescription (PIP). The objective of the study was to evaluate the number of drugs and PIP before and after an educational intervention with the Primary Care physician (PCP), with electronic identification of PIP and structured medication review, in elderly patients with excessive polypharmacy (≥10 drugs). Material and methods: A before-after intervention study was conducted in the Gipuzkoa district of Osakidetza (Basque Country Health System), in a random sample of patients older than 80 years taking ≥ 10 drugs, and whose PCP attended training sessions. Primary outcomes: change in the number of drugs and PIP, registered in computerised health records. Secondary outcomes: benefit/risk ratio assessed by the PCP, safety problems, and therapeutic decision. Results: Of the 591 eligible patients, 88 were excluded (41: PCP did not attend training sessions, 47: death/transfer/admission), including a total of 503 patients with mean age of 84.9 years, with 67.7% women. The mean number of drugs and PIP per patient decreased significantly, −0.88 (95% CI: −1.04 to −0.72) and −0.19 (95% CI: −0.29 to −0.09), respectively (p<.0001), with a 25.8% reduction in the number of patients with excessive polypharmacy. Secondary outcomes: data collection sheets of 365 patients and 4,168 prescriptions were collected. The benefit-risk ratio was favourable for 75% of the prescriptions, with the most frequent decision being to maintain them (83%). Among the 911 prescriptions with an unfavourable/uncertain benefit/risk ratio, 47.3% were maintained. Conclusions: The intervention is associated with a reduction in excessive polypharmacy and PPI under real-world conditions

[Evaluation of an educational intervention and a structured review of polypharmacy in elderly patients in Primary Care]. / Evaluación de una intervención formativa con revisión estructurada de la medicación en pacientes mayores polimedicados en Atención Primaria.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Several interventions have been shown to reduce polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescription (PIP). The objective of the study was to evaluate the number of drugs and PIP before and after an educational intervention with the Primary Care physician (PCP), with electronic identification of PIP and structured medication review, in elderly patients with excessive polypharmacy (≥10 drugs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A before-after intervention study was conducted in the Gipuzkoa district of Osakidetza (Basque Country Health System), in a random sample of patients older than 80 years taking ≥ 10 drugs, and whose PCP attended training sessions. Primary outcomes: change in the number of drugs and PIP, registered in computerised health records. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: benefit/risk ratio assessed by the PCP, safety problems, and therapeutic decision. RESULTS: Of the 591 eligible patients, 88 were excluded (41: PCP did not attend training sessions, 47: death/transfer/admission), including a total of 503 patients with mean age of 84.9 years, with 67.7% women. The mean number of drugs and PIP per patient decreased significantly, -0.88 (95% CI: -1.04 to -0.72) and -0.19 (95% CI: -0.29 to -0.09), respectively (p<.0001), with a 25.8% reduction in the number of patients with excessive polypharmacy. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: data collection sheets of 365 patients and 4,168 prescriptions were collected. The benefit-risk ratio was favourable for 75% of the prescriptions, with the most frequent decision being to maintain them (83%). Among the 911 prescriptions with an unfavourable/uncertain benefit/risk ratio, 47.3% were maintained. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention is associated with a reduction in excessive polypharmacy and PPI under real-world conditions.

Desprescripción de tratamientos de larga duración con bisfosfonatos para la osteoporosis en atención primaria en el País Vasco / Deprescribing long-term treatments with bisphosphonates for osteoporosis in primary care in the Basque Country (Spain)

Objetivo: Evaluar el impacto de una intervención multifactorial para promover la desprescripción de tratamientos con bisfosfonatos de duración superior a 5 años (BF5a) en la Comarca Gipuzkoa y compararlo con la intervención estándar en el resto de las organizaciones de servicios (OS) de Osakidetza. Métodos: Estudio de evaluación del impacto de dos intervenciones con medida de resultados antes y después, con un seguimiento de 8 meses. Se incluyeron todos los pacientes de Osakidetza que en julio de 2013 tenían un tratamiento activo con BF5a (prescripción electrónica). La intervención estándar (9 OS) consistió en el envío de un documento de consenso sobre desprescripción de BF5a y en facilitar los identificadores de pacientes con BF5a para su revisión por el médico de atención primaria. La intervención multifactorial (Comarca Gipuzkoa) incluyó, además, un consenso local con los especialistas de referencia y sesiones de formación en los centros de salud. Resultados: Se incluyeron 18.725 pacientes, el 94,7% mujeres. Con la intervención estándar, los porcentajes de desprescripción oscilaron entre el 26,4% (C. Bilbao) y el 49,4% (C. Araba), siendo del 37,2% en su conjunto. Con la intervención multifactorial la desprescripción fue del 44,6%, un 7,4% superior a la estándar (p <0,0001; intervalo de confianza del 95% [IC95%]: 5,4-9,4). Los desplazamientos a otros tratamientos fueron menos frecuentes con la intervención multifactorial, con una diferencia del 3,7% (p <0.0001; IC95%: −2,2 a −5,2). Conclusiones: Las intervenciones estándar y multifactorial son muy efectivas para disminuir los tratamientos innecesarios con bisfosfonatos. La intervención multifactorial es más efectiva que la estándar, aunque más compleja de llevar a cabo (AU)

Objective: To evaluate the impact of a multifactorial intervention to promote bisphosphonate deprescription after over 5 years of use (BF5y) in a health care organisation (HCO) in Gipuzkoa (Spain) and to compare it with the standard intervention in other HCOs in the Basque Health Service-Osakidetza. Methods: An 8-month follow-up study (results from before and after) to assess the impact of two interventions. All patients from Osakidetza receiving BF5y treatment (electronic prescription) in July 2013 were included. The standard intervention (9 HCOs) consisted of mailing a consensus statement on BF5y deprescribing and facilitating patient identifiers with BF5y prescription for review by the primary care physician. The multifactorial intervention (Gipuzkoa) also included a local consensus with leading specialists and training sessions in health centres. Results: 18,725 patients were included; 94.7% were women. Standard intervention deprescribing rates ranged from 26.4% (Bilbao) to 49.4% (Araba), being 37.2% overall. The multifactorial intervention deprescribing rate was 44.6%, 7.4% (p <0.0001; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 5.4-9.4) higher than standard intervention. Changes to other treatments were less common with the multifactorial intervention, with a difference of 3.7% (p <0.0001; 95%CI: −2.2 to −5.2). Conclusions: Standard and multifactorial interventions are very effective in reducing unnecessary treatments with bisphosphonates. The multifactorial intervention is more effective than the standard one, although more complex to implement (AU)

[Deprescribing long-term treatments with bisphosphonates for osteoporosis in primary care in the Basque Country (Spain)]. / Desprescripción de tratamientos de larga duración con bisfosfonatos para la osteoporosis en atención primaria en el País Vasco.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a multifactorial intervention to promote bisphosphonate deprescription after over 5 years of use (BF5y) in a health care organisation (HCO) in Gipuzkoa (Spain) and to compare it with the standard intervention in other HCOs in the Basque Health Service-Osakidetza. METHODS: An 8-month follow-up study (results from before and after) to assess the impact of two interventions. All patients from Osakidetza receiving BF5y treatment (electronic prescription) in July 2013 were included. The standard intervention (9 HCOs) consisted of mailing a consensus statement on BF5y deprescribing and facilitating patient identifiers with BF5y prescription for review by the primary care physician. The multifactorial intervention (Gipuzkoa) also included a local consensus with leading specialists and training sessions in health centres. RESULTS: 18,725 patients were included; 94.7% were women. Standard intervention deprescribing rates ranged from 26.4% (Bilbao) to 49.4% (Araba), being 37.2% overall. The multifactorial intervention deprescribing rate was 44.6%, 7.4% (p <0.0001; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 5.4-9.4) higher than standard intervention. Changes to other treatments were less common with the multifactorial intervention, with a difference of 3.7% (p <0.0001; 95%CI: -2.2 to -5.2). CONCLUSIONS: Standard and multifactorial interventions are very effective in reducing unnecessary treatments with bisphosphonates. The multifactorial intervention is more effective than the standard one, although more complex to implement.