Identifying, highlighting and reducing polypharmacy in a UK hospice inpatient unit using improvement Science methods.

BMJ quality improvement reports Pub Date : 2017-03-10 eCollection Date: 2017-01-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjquality.u211783.w5035
Alison Phippen, Jennie Pickard, Douglas Steinke, Matt Cope, Dai Roberts
{"title":"Identifying, highlighting and reducing polypharmacy in a UK hospice inpatient unit using improvement Science methods.","authors":"Alison Phippen,&nbsp;Jennie Pickard,&nbsp;Douglas Steinke,&nbsp;Matt Cope,&nbsp;Dai Roberts","doi":"10.1136/bmjquality.u211783.w5035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Polypharmacy, the concurrent use of multiple medications by one individual is a growing global issue driven by an ageing population and increasing prevalence of multi-morbidity[1]. Polypharmacy can be problematic: interactions between medications, reduced adherence to medication, burden of medication to patients, administration time, increased risk of errors and increased cost. Quality improvement methods were applied to identify and highlight polypharmacy patients with the aim of reducing their average number of regular tablets/capsules per day by 25%. The project was delivered within a UK based 27 bedded hospice inpatient unit. A series of PDSA cycles studied interventions focusing on the identification of patients with polypharmacy, the highlighting of these patients to prescribers for review and the views of patients about their medication. For the purposes of the study, polypharmacy was defined as greater than ten regular medicines and/or greater than twenty regular tablets/capsules each day. The interventions tested included patients on regular paracetamol and strong opioids being offered a trial without regular paracetamol, a constipation guide promoting the use of combination laxatives, education of prescribers around dose strengths, checklist of recommendations was placed in case notes and a sticker was used on the medicine chart to highlight patients in need of polypharmacy review. The introduction of a trial without paracetamol and a laxative guide led to reductions in polypharmacy. The sticker and checklist were successful interventions for highlighting patients with polypharmacy. Quality improvement methods were used to plan, try, test and implement simple interventions for patients on the hospice inpatient unit. This has led to a 25% reduction in the average regular tablet/capsules burden , a 16% reduction in the average number of regular medications and a 30% reduction in the average volume of liquid medication per patient without an increase in the use of 'as required' medication or length of stay.</p>","PeriodicalId":91218,"journal":{"name":"BMJ quality improvement reports","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/bmjquality.u211783.w5035","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ quality improvement reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjquality.u211783.w5035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

Polypharmacy, the concurrent use of multiple medications by one individual is a growing global issue driven by an ageing population and increasing prevalence of multi-morbidity[1]. Polypharmacy can be problematic: interactions between medications, reduced adherence to medication, burden of medication to patients, administration time, increased risk of errors and increased cost. Quality improvement methods were applied to identify and highlight polypharmacy patients with the aim of reducing their average number of regular tablets/capsules per day by 25%. The project was delivered within a UK based 27 bedded hospice inpatient unit. A series of PDSA cycles studied interventions focusing on the identification of patients with polypharmacy, the highlighting of these patients to prescribers for review and the views of patients about their medication. For the purposes of the study, polypharmacy was defined as greater than ten regular medicines and/or greater than twenty regular tablets/capsules each day. The interventions tested included patients on regular paracetamol and strong opioids being offered a trial without regular paracetamol, a constipation guide promoting the use of combination laxatives, education of prescribers around dose strengths, checklist of recommendations was placed in case notes and a sticker was used on the medicine chart to highlight patients in need of polypharmacy review. The introduction of a trial without paracetamol and a laxative guide led to reductions in polypharmacy. The sticker and checklist were successful interventions for highlighting patients with polypharmacy. Quality improvement methods were used to plan, try, test and implement simple interventions for patients on the hospice inpatient unit. This has led to a 25% reduction in the average regular tablet/capsules burden , a 16% reduction in the average number of regular medications and a 30% reduction in the average volume of liquid medication per patient without an increase in the use of 'as required' medication or length of stay.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

识别,突出和减少在英国安宁疗护住院单位使用改进的科学方法的多药。
由于人口老龄化和多重发病率的增加,一个人同时使用多种药物是一个日益严重的全球性问题[1]。多种用药可能存在问题:药物之间的相互作用、药物依从性降低、患者的药物负担、给药时间、错误风险增加和成本增加。采用质量改进方法识别和突出多药患者,目的是将其平均每日常规片剂/胶囊数量减少25%。该项目是在英国27张床位的临终关怀住院病房内交付的。一系列PDSA周期研究了干预措施,重点是识别多药患者,突出这些患者给处方医师审查,以及患者对其药物的看法。为了研究的目的,多药被定义为每天服用超过10种常规药物和/或超过20种常规片剂/胶囊。测试的干预措施包括服用常规扑热息痛和强阿片类药物的患者,在不服用常规扑热息痛的情况下进行试验,提供便秘指南,促进使用联合泻药,对处方医生进行剂量强度的教育,在病例记录中放置建议清单,并在药物图表上使用标签,以突出需要多种药物审查的患者。没有扑热息痛和泻药指导的试验的引入导致了多药治疗的减少。标签和检查表是突出多药患者的成功干预措施。本研究采用品质改善方法,为安宁疗护住院部的病人计划、尝试、测试及实施简单的干预措施。这导致常规片剂/胶囊的平均负担减少了25%,常规药物的平均数量减少了16%,每位患者的平均液体药物量减少了30%,而“按需”使用药物或住院时间没有增加。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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