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.
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.