Application of the GheOP3S-tool in nursing home residents: acceptance and implementation of pharmacist recommendations.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Acta Clinica Belgica Pub Date : 2020-12-01 Epub Date: 2019-06-26 DOI:10.1080/17843286.2019.1634323
Katrien Foubert, Peter Muylaert, Els Mehuys, Annemie Somers, Mirko Petrovic, Koen Boussery
{"title":"Application of the GheOP<sup>3</sup>S-tool in nursing home residents: acceptance and implementation of pharmacist recommendations.","authors":"Katrien Foubert,&nbsp;Peter Muylaert,&nbsp;Els Mehuys,&nbsp;Annemie Somers,&nbsp;Mirko Petrovic,&nbsp;Koen Boussery","doi":"10.1080/17843286.2019.1634323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background and objective: The prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) among nursing home (NH) residents is high. This study aimed to investigate the acceptance and implementation of pharmacist recommendations based on a screening tool for PIP, the Ghent Older People’s Prescriptions community Pharmacy Screening (GheOP3S)-tool. Setting and method: Prospective observational study in NH residents (≥ 70 years, using ≥ 5 medications) with a 3-month follow-up period. A pharmacist screened the medication lists using the GheOP3S-tool and formulated recommendations to reduce PIP. The acceptance of recommendations discussed during face-to-face pharmacist-general practitioner (GP) meetings was recorded. Implementation was examined by comparing baseline and follow-up medication lists. A pre-post comparison of the number of chronic medications and GheOP3S-criteria; the anticholinergic and sedative burden quantified by the Drug Burden Index (DBI); and medication costs was performed. Results: Screening with the GheOP3S-tool resulted in 168 pharmacist recommendations for 50 NH residents, mainly to stop (78.0%) and to substitute (14.3%) medications. Ninety-three % (156/168) of recommendations were considered relevant. GPs acceptance rate was 44.9%. Fifty-four % of all accepted recommendations were implemented. At follow-up, the number of chronic medications (p = 0.007), and DBI scores (p = 0.004) significantly differed from baseline. There was no significant decrease in the number of GheOP3S-criteria (p = 0.075) and medication costs (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The acceptance and implementation of pharmacist recommendations were relatively low. Future studies should increase the involvement of patients and all health-care providers. Interdisciplinary collaboration with sufficient education for all disciplines and patients is essential.","PeriodicalId":48865,"journal":{"name":"Acta Clinica Belgica","volume":"75 6","pages":"388-396"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17843286.2019.1634323","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Clinica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17843286.2019.1634323","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/6/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background and objective: The prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) among nursing home (NH) residents is high. This study aimed to investigate the acceptance and implementation of pharmacist recommendations based on a screening tool for PIP, the Ghent Older People’s Prescriptions community Pharmacy Screening (GheOP3S)-tool. Setting and method: Prospective observational study in NH residents (≥ 70 years, using ≥ 5 medications) with a 3-month follow-up period. A pharmacist screened the medication lists using the GheOP3S-tool and formulated recommendations to reduce PIP. The acceptance of recommendations discussed during face-to-face pharmacist-general practitioner (GP) meetings was recorded. Implementation was examined by comparing baseline and follow-up medication lists. A pre-post comparison of the number of chronic medications and GheOP3S-criteria; the anticholinergic and sedative burden quantified by the Drug Burden Index (DBI); and medication costs was performed. Results: Screening with the GheOP3S-tool resulted in 168 pharmacist recommendations for 50 NH residents, mainly to stop (78.0%) and to substitute (14.3%) medications. Ninety-three % (156/168) of recommendations were considered relevant. GPs acceptance rate was 44.9%. Fifty-four % of all accepted recommendations were implemented. At follow-up, the number of chronic medications (p = 0.007), and DBI scores (p = 0.004) significantly differed from baseline. There was no significant decrease in the number of GheOP3S-criteria (p = 0.075) and medication costs (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The acceptance and implementation of pharmacist recommendations were relatively low. Future studies should increase the involvement of patients and all health-care providers. Interdisciplinary collaboration with sufficient education for all disciplines and patients is essential.
gheop3s工具在养老院居民中的应用:药师建议的接受与实施。
背景与目的:潜在不当处方(PIP)在养老院(NH)居民中的患病率很高。本研究旨在调查基于PIP筛选工具,根特老年人处方社区药房筛选(GheOP3S)工具的药剂师建议的接受和实施情况。背景和方法:前瞻性观察研究在NH居民(≥70岁,使用≥5种药物)中进行,随访3个月。药剂师使用gheop3s工具筛选药物清单,并制定减少PIP的建议。在面对面的药剂师-全科医生(GP)会议上讨论的建议的接受情况被记录下来。通过比较基线和随访药物清单来检查实施情况。慢性药物数量与gheop3s标准的前后比较用药物负担指数(DBI)量化抗胆碱能和镇静负担;并计算了药物费用。结果:使用gheop3s工具筛选50名NH居民,得到168名药剂师建议,主要是停药(78.0%)和替代药物(14.3%)。93%(156/168)的建议被认为是相关的。全科医生接受率为44.9%。所有接受的建议中有54%得到了实施。随访时,慢性药物使用次数(p = 0.007)和DBI评分(p = 0.004)与基线有显著差异。两组间gheop3s标准个数(p = 0.075)和用药费用(p > 0.05)均无显著差异。结论:药师推荐的接受度和执行度较低。未来的研究应增加患者和所有卫生保健提供者的参与。跨学科合作以及对所有学科和患者的充分教育是必不可少的。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信