Clinical pharmacist interventions in elderly patients in primary care treated with polypharmacy and psychotropics : observational retrospective study

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matej Stuhec
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Clinical Pharmacist ◽  
Pharmacist Interventions

scholarly journals Clinical pharmacist interventions in elderly patients with mental disorders in primary care focused on psychotropics: a retrospective pre–post observational study

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 204512532110110
Author(s):  
Matej Stuhec ◽  
Lea Lah
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Clinical Pharmacist ◽  
Medication Review ◽  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Potentially Inappropriate Medications ◽  
Positive Effects

Background: Mental disorders pose a significant clinical burden and affect approximately one-third of older adults. Although studies have shown positive impacts of clinical pharmacist (CP) interventions within the general population, the long-term effects of such cooperation on geropsychiatric patients in primary care settings are not yet known. This study evaluated whether CP interventions have a long-term impact on the quality of medication prescribing in geropsychiatric patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective non-interventional observational pre–post study for the 2015–2017 period, involving patients aged 65 or above for whom a medication review was provided by a CP. The study included participants with mental disorders treated with polypharmacy, including at least one psychotropic. Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in elderly patients were determined with the Priscus list, and potential type X drug–drug interactions (pXDDIs) with Lexicomp®. Up-to-date treatment guidelines were used to evaluate patient pharmacotherapy, and patient medication was evaluated before the initial medication review and again 6 months later. Results: The study included 48 patients (79.4 years, SD = 8.13) receiving a total of 558 medications (155 for the treatment of mental disorders). The number of medications decreased by 9.5% after the medication review. The CP proposed 198 interventions related to psychotropics, of which 108 (55%) were accepted by the general practitioners. All accepted (99.1%) interventions except one were still maintained 6 months after the interventions had been proposed. They led to a significant decrease in the total number of medications, PIMs, and pXDDIs ( p < 0.05), and improved treatment guidelines adherence. Conclusions: CP interventions decreased the number of medications, PIMs, and pXDDIs, and almost all interventions were maintained 6 months later. These results provide evidence for the positive effects of CP interventions in a primary care setting. Additional research with a larger sample size and a randomized study design is needed.

scholarly journals 179 Evaluating a Clinical Pharmacist Service in a Residential Care Unit

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. iii1-iii16
Author(s):  
Claire Kavanagh ◽  
Eimear O'Dwyer ◽  
Róisín Purcell ◽  
Niamh McMahon ◽  
Morgan Crowe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Safety ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Residential Care ◽  
Clinical Pharmacist ◽  
Comparative Evaluation ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Pharmacist Interventions ◽  
Medication Reviews

Abstract Background This study assessed the pharmacist role in an 80 bed residential care unit by: Quantifying the number and type of pharmacist interventions made and their acceptance rate.Assessing impact of pharmacist interventions on patient care.Assessing staff attitudes towards the clinical pharmacist service. Methods This was a non-blinded, non-comparative evaluation of the existing clinical pharmacist service in the unit. All residents were included. All pharmacist interventions over a 10-week period were recorded, then graded according to the Eadon scale1 by a consultant gerontologist and an experienced pharmacist to assess their impact on patient care. Results There were 615 pharmacist interventions. The most common interventions were: Drug Therapy Review, 34% (n=209) Technical Prescription, 26.5% (n=163) Administration, 15.3% (n=94) Drug Interaction, 10.4% (n=64) Medication Reconciliation, 8.5% (n=52) 98% (n=596) of interventions were rated as having significance to patient care, of which: 48.4% (n=298) and 41.8% (n=257) of the interventions rated as ‘significant and resulting in an improvement in the standard of care’1% (n=6) and 0.5% (n=3) rated as ‘very significant and preventing harm’. There was a statistically significant agreement between the evaluators, κw = 0.231 (95% CI, 0.156 to 0.307), p < .0005. The strength of agreement was fair. Of interventions requiring acceptance by medical team (n=335), 89.9% (n=301) were accepted. 95% (n=36) of staff who responded agreed or strongly agreed that improved patient safety resulted from the pharmacist’s involvement in multidisciplinary medication reviews. Over 92% (n=35) agreed or strongly agreed that their experience of the pharmacist was positive. Conclusion The pharmacist has an important role in our residential care unit. Their involvement in the medicines optimisation process positively impacts patient outcomes and prevents harm. Staff perceived a positive impact of the clinical pharmacist service provided on patient care and patient safety.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document