Systematic Review Examining the Effectiveness of Professional, Organisational and Structural Interventions in Primary Care to Reduce Medication-Related Hospitalisations and Deaths.

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Hanan Khalil, Brian G Bell, Richard N Keers, Penny J Lewis, Megan Foreman, Amelia Taylor, Barbara Iyen, Aziz Sheikh, Darren M Ashcroft, Anthony J Avery
{"title":"Systematic Review Examining the Effectiveness of Professional, Organisational and Structural Interventions in Primary Care to Reduce Medication-Related Hospitalisations and Deaths.","authors":"Hanan Khalil, Brian G Bell, Richard N Keers, Penny J Lewis, Megan Foreman, Amelia Taylor, Barbara Iyen, Aziz Sheikh, Darren M Ashcroft, Anthony J Avery","doi":"10.1007/s40264-025-01619-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Medication-related adverse events in primary care are a leading cause of hospital admissions and mortality, commonly resulting from medication errors. Previous reviews have assessed interventions broadly across healthcare settings, but few have focused specifically on interventions targeting medication errors in primary care.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the effectiveness of professional, organisational, and structural interventions in primary care settings in reducing medication-related hospital admissions, emergency department (ED) visits, and mortality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review using the Cochrane methodology of systematic reviews and PRISMA guidelines for reporting. A comprehensive search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and trial registries up to October 2024 was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials conducted in primary care that assessed the impact of interventions on hospital admissions, ED visits, and mortality were included. Cochrane Risk of bias assessments and random-effects meta-analyses were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Interventions were classified according to the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care criteria into Professional, Organisational and Structural. Sixty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Professional interventions, including educational training and clinical decision tools, showed little to no effect on primary outcomes (risk ratio [RR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94-7.00 for hospital admissions; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98-1.02 for mortality; very-low to low certainty evidence). Organisational interventions, such as pharmacist-led medication reviews and multidisciplinary care models reduced the number of hospital admissions (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70-0.95; low-certainty evidence), but had uncertain effects on ED visits and mortality. Structural interventions, such as system-level support and quality monitoring, showed a reduction in hospital admissions (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.97; moderate-certainty evidence), but evidence for other outcomes showed limited or very-low certainty.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Organisational and structural interventions in primary care may reduce medication-related hospital admissions and may help inform clinical practice through implementation of multidisciplinary care models and system-level quality monitoring approaches. However, the overall certainty of evidence is low to very low, highlighting the need for high-quality trials to better inform clinical practice and policy.</p>","PeriodicalId":11382,"journal":{"name":"Drug Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-025-01619-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Medication-related adverse events in primary care are a leading cause of hospital admissions and mortality, commonly resulting from medication errors. Previous reviews have assessed interventions broadly across healthcare settings, but few have focused specifically on interventions targeting medication errors in primary care.

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of professional, organisational, and structural interventions in primary care settings in reducing medication-related hospital admissions, emergency department (ED) visits, and mortality.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review using the Cochrane methodology of systematic reviews and PRISMA guidelines for reporting. A comprehensive search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and trial registries up to October 2024 was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials conducted in primary care that assessed the impact of interventions on hospital admissions, ED visits, and mortality were included. Cochrane Risk of bias assessments and random-effects meta-analyses were performed.

Results: Interventions were classified according to the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care criteria into Professional, Organisational and Structural. Sixty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Professional interventions, including educational training and clinical decision tools, showed little to no effect on primary outcomes (risk ratio [RR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94-7.00 for hospital admissions; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98-1.02 for mortality; very-low to low certainty evidence). Organisational interventions, such as pharmacist-led medication reviews and multidisciplinary care models reduced the number of hospital admissions (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70-0.95; low-certainty evidence), but had uncertain effects on ED visits and mortality. Structural interventions, such as system-level support and quality monitoring, showed a reduction in hospital admissions (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.97; moderate-certainty evidence), but evidence for other outcomes showed limited or very-low certainty.

Conclusion: Organisational and structural interventions in primary care may reduce medication-related hospital admissions and may help inform clinical practice through implementation of multidisciplinary care models and system-level quality monitoring approaches. However, the overall certainty of evidence is low to very low, highlighting the need for high-quality trials to better inform clinical practice and policy.

系统评价:检查初级保健专业、组织和结构干预措施的有效性,以减少与药物有关的住院和死亡。
背景:初级保健中的药物相关不良事件是住院和死亡的主要原因,通常由药物错误引起。以前的综述广泛地评估了医疗保健机构的干预措施,但很少有专门针对初级保健中药物错误的干预措施。目的:评估专业、组织和结构干预措施在初级保健机构减少药物相关住院、急诊(ED)就诊和死亡率方面的有效性。方法:我们使用Cochrane系统评价方法和PRISMA报告指南进行了系统评价。对截至2024年10月的CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL和试验登记进行了全面检索。在初级保健中进行的随机对照试验评估了干预措施对住院率、急诊科就诊率和死亡率的影响。进行Cochrane偏倚风险评估和随机效应荟萃分析。结果:干预措施按照Cochrane有效实践和护理组织标准分为专业、组织和结构。62项研究符合纳入标准。包括教育培训和临床决策工具在内的专业干预措施对主要结局几乎没有影响(入院风险比[RR] 1.01, 95%可信区间[CI] 0.94-7.00;死亡率风险比[RR] 1.00, 95%可信区间[CI] 0.98-1.02;极低至低确定性证据)。有组织的干预措施,如药剂师主导的药物审查和多学科护理模式减少了住院人数(RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70-0.95;低确定性证据),但对急诊科就诊和死亡率的影响不确定。结构性干预措施,如系统级支持和质量监测,显示住院率降低(RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.97;中等确定性证据),但其他结果的证据显示有限或非常低的确定性。结论:初级保健的组织和结构干预可以减少药物相关的住院率,并可以通过实施多学科护理模式和系统级质量监测方法帮助告知临床实践。然而,证据的总体确定性低到非常低,这突出表明需要进行高质量的试验,以便更好地为临床实践和政策提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Drug Safety
Drug Safety 医学-毒理学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
112
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Drug Safety is the official journal of the International Society of Pharmacovigilance. The journal includes: Overviews of contentious or emerging issues. Comprehensive narrative reviews that provide an authoritative source of information on epidemiology, clinical features, prevention and management of adverse effects of individual drugs and drug classes. In-depth benefit-risk assessment of adverse effect and efficacy data for a drug in a defined therapeutic area. Systematic reviews (with or without meta-analyses) that collate empirical evidence to answer a specific research question, using explicit, systematic methods as outlined by the PRISMA statement. Original research articles reporting the results of well-designed studies in disciplines such as pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacovigilance, pharmacology and toxicology, and pharmacogenomics. Editorials and commentaries on topical issues. Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in Drug Safety Drugs may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信