Electronic tools to facilitate medication review in nursing homes: a pilot study.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Acta Clinica Belgica Pub Date : 2026-06-01 Epub Date: 2026-03-08 DOI:10.1080/17843286.2026.2641098
Marie Carrein, Andreas Capiau, Els Mehuys, Mirko Petrovic, Annemie Somers, Koen Boussery
{"title":"Electronic tools to facilitate medication review in nursing homes: a pilot study.","authors":"Marie Carrein, Andreas Capiau, Els Mehuys, Mirko Petrovic, Annemie Somers, Koen Boussery","doi":"10.1080/17843286.2026.2641098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Medication reviews (MRs) in nursing homes (NHs) are valuable but time-consuming. Electronic screening tools can assist community pharmacists by detecting potential drug-related problems (pDRPs). This study aimed to evaluate the implementation of electronic tools (GheOP³S-tool and EBMeDS®CMR) to facilitate MR in NH residents and to explore the overall clinical and economic impact of this MR process.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A pilot study was conducted in one NH (January-July 2024). For each included resident (life expectancy of ≥3 months, excluding short-stays and general practitioner (GP) refusals), a 3-step MR was performed: 1) medication record analysis by a pharmacist using GheOP<sup>3</sup>S-tool and EBMeDS®CMR, and additional implicit screening, 2) interdisciplinary meeting (with pharmacist, GP, nurse) to discuss pDRPs and interventions, and 3) 3-month follow-up. Primary outcomes included the number, type, and resolution rate of pDRPs per screening method. Secondary outcomes were changes in medication use (number, fall risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs), Drug Burden Index (DBI)), and medication costs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-four residents were included (mean age 84.7 ± 8.9 years, 66.7% female). The electronic tools detected 508 pDRPs: 41.7% only by GheOP³S-tool, 29.5% only by EBMeDS®CMR, and 28.7% by both. The pharmacist appended 252 pDRPs. Of the 603 recommendations formulated, 48.4% were accepted and 37.5% implemented. The overall resolution rate was 40.1%. At follow-up, significant reductions were observed in number of medications, FRIDs, DBI, and medication costs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>GheOP³S-tool and EBMeDS®CMR detected a considerable proportion of complementary pDRPs. A substantial part of pDRPs was appended by the pharmacist, highlighting the importance of combining explicit and implicit screening.</p>","PeriodicalId":48865,"journal":{"name":"Acta Clinica Belgica","volume":" ","pages":"269-279"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Clinica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17843286.2026.2641098","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Medication reviews (MRs) in nursing homes (NHs) are valuable but time-consuming. Electronic screening tools can assist community pharmacists by detecting potential drug-related problems (pDRPs). This study aimed to evaluate the implementation of electronic tools (GheOP³S-tool and EBMeDS®CMR) to facilitate MR in NH residents and to explore the overall clinical and economic impact of this MR process.

Methods: A pilot study was conducted in one NH (January-July 2024). For each included resident (life expectancy of ≥3 months, excluding short-stays and general practitioner (GP) refusals), a 3-step MR was performed: 1) medication record analysis by a pharmacist using GheOP3S-tool and EBMeDS®CMR, and additional implicit screening, 2) interdisciplinary meeting (with pharmacist, GP, nurse) to discuss pDRPs and interventions, and 3) 3-month follow-up. Primary outcomes included the number, type, and resolution rate of pDRPs per screening method. Secondary outcomes were changes in medication use (number, fall risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs), Drug Burden Index (DBI)), and medication costs.

Results: Fifty-four residents were included (mean age 84.7 ± 8.9 years, 66.7% female). The electronic tools detected 508 pDRPs: 41.7% only by GheOP³S-tool, 29.5% only by EBMeDS®CMR, and 28.7% by both. The pharmacist appended 252 pDRPs. Of the 603 recommendations formulated, 48.4% were accepted and 37.5% implemented. The overall resolution rate was 40.1%. At follow-up, significant reductions were observed in number of medications, FRIDs, DBI, and medication costs.

Conclusion: GheOP³S-tool and EBMeDS®CMR detected a considerable proportion of complementary pDRPs. A substantial part of pDRPs was appended by the pharmacist, highlighting the importance of combining explicit and implicit screening.

促进疗养院药物审查的电子工具:一项试点研究。
目的:药物审查(MRs)在养老院(NHs)是有价值的,但耗时。电子筛选工具可以帮助社区药剂师发现潜在的药物相关问题(pDRPs)。本研究旨在评估电子工具(GheOP³S-tool和ebmed®CMR)的实施情况,以促进NH居民的MR,并探索该MR过程的整体临床和经济影响。方法:于2024年1月- 7月在1个NH进行初步研究。对于每个纳入的住院患者(预期寿命≥3个月,不包括短期住院和全科医生(GP)拒绝),进行3步磁共振:1)药剂师使用gheop3s -工具和EBMeDS®CMR进行用药记录分析,并进行额外的隐性筛查;2)跨学科会议(与药剂师、GP、护士)讨论pdrp和干预措施;3)3个月随访。主要结果包括每种筛选方法的pdrp的数量、类型和分辨率。次要结局是药物使用的变化(数量、增加跌倒风险的药物(frid)、药物负担指数(DBI))和药物费用。结果:共纳入54名住院医师,平均年龄84.7±8.9岁,女性占66.7%。电子工具检测到508个pDRPs: GheOP³S-tool仅为41.7%,EBMeDS®CMR仅为29.5%,两者均为28.7%。药剂师附了252个pdrp。在拟定的603项建议中,有48.4%获接纳,37.5%获落实。总分辨率为40.1%。在随访中,观察到药物数量、frid、DBI和药物费用显著降低。结论:GheOP³S-tool和EBMeDS®CMR检测到相当比例的互补pDRPs。药剂师补充了pdrp的大部分内容,强调了显性和隐性筛查相结合的重要性。
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
Acta Clinica Belgica
Acta Clinica Belgica MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: Acta Clinica Belgica: International Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Medicine primarily publishes papers on clinical medicine, clinical chemistry, pathology and molecular biology, provided they describe results which contribute to our understanding of clinical problems or describe new methods applicable to clinical investigation. Readership includes physicians, pathologists, pharmacists and physicians working in non-academic and academic hospitals, practicing internal medicine and its subspecialties.
×
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
小红书