Abstract
Introduction
Multimorbidity and polypharmacy are risk factors for drug-related hospital admissions (DRAs) in the ageing population. DRAs caused by medication errors (MEs) are considered potentially preventable. The STOPP/START criteria were developed to detect potential MEs in older people.
Objective
The aim of this study was to assess the detectability of MEs with a STOPP/START-based in-hospital medication review in older people with polypharmacy and multimorbidity prior to a potentially preventable DRA.
Methods
Hospitalised older patients (n = 963) with polypharmacy and multimorbidity from the intervention arm of the OPERAM trial received a STOPP/START-based in-hospital medication review by a pharmacotherapy team. Readmissions within 1 year after the in-hospital medication review were adjudicated for drug-relatedness. A retrospective assessment was performed to determine whether MEs identified at the first DRA were detectable during the in-hospital medication review.
Results
In total, 84 of 963 OPERAM intervention patients (8.7%) were readmitted with a potentially preventable DRA, of which 72 patients (n = 77 MEs) were eligible for analysis. About half (48%, n = 37/77) of the MEs were not present during the in-hospital medication review and therefore were not detectable at that time. The pharmacotherapy team recommended a change in medication regimen in 50% (n = 20/40) of present MEs, which corresponds to 26% (n = 20/77) of the total identified MEs at readmission. However, these recommendations were not implemented.
Conclusion
MEs identified at readmission were not addressed by a prior single in-hospital medication review because either these MEs occurred after the medication review (~50%), or no recommendation was given during the medication review (~25%), or the recommendation was not implemented (~25%). Future research should focus on optimisation of the timing and frequency of medication review and the implementation of proposed medication recommendations.
Registration
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02986425. December 8, 2016.
Funding
European Union HORIZON 2020, Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI), Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF)
Graphical abstract
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Older people with polypharmacy and multimorbidity are at risk of medication errors that can lead to potentially preventable drug-related hospital admissions (DRAs). |
A single, in-hospital medication review in the year prior to a potentially preventable DRA could not detect 50% of medication errors identified at readmission, because these medication errors occurred after the medication review. |
In the other 50% of medication errors, no recommendation to change medication regimen was given after clinical evaluation at the individual patient level or recommendations to change medication regimen were not implemented. |
1 Introduction
Reducing drug-related harm is a continuous challenge for health care professionals who aim to maintain a positive benefit–risk balance of pharmacotherapy to treat patients [1,2,3]. With ageing, the susceptibility to develop chronic diseases and multimorbidity—the co-existence of multiple chronic diseases in an individual—increases [4,5,6]. Multimorbidity impacts the quality of life and frequently results in polypharmacy [7, 8], usually defined as the concomitant use of five or more regularly prescribed medications [9, 10]. Multimorbidity and polypharmacy are both important risk factors for drug-related hospital admissions (DRAs) [11, 12]. A DRA is defined as “a hospitalisation due to an adverse drug event (ADE); harm due to an adverse drug reaction (ADR) or a medication error (ME) related to overuse, underuse, or misuse of prescription and non-prescription medications and which is the main reason for or contributes to hospital admission of a patient” [13]. DRAs caused by MEs are of particular interest, because they are potentially preventable [14,15,16,17].
Older people are four times more likely to be admitted due to drug-related problems than younger adults [18, 19]. It is estimated that DRAs account for 10–30% of all acute hospital admissions in older people, and about half of these are considered potentially preventable [19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. Similarly, the risk of drug-related readmissions is high in older people with an estimated incidence of 21% (IQR 14–23), although reported incidences vary greatly among studies due to heterogeneity in definitions and study populations [11, 12, 26]. Hence, effective strategies to reduce preventable DRAs in this population are urgently needed.
Several explicit screening tools have been developed to facilitate the detection of potential MEs in medication review in older people [27]. The Screening Tool of Older Person’s Prescriptions and the Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (STOPP/START) criteria are the most widely used explicit screening tools in Europe, and their use in older patients has proven to decrease potential medication overuse, underuse and misuse [27,28,29,30,31]. In addition, the use of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) demonstrated a reduction in potentially inappropriate medication in hospitalised older adults [32, 33]. A CDSS-assisted structured medication review with integrated STOPP/START algorithms may contribute to reducing MEs that lead to potentially preventable DRAs [34]. Hence, the STOPP/START criteria version 2 were converted to software algorithms to enable their incorporation into a CDSS [35, 36].
The effect of a CDSS-assisted STOPP/START-based medication review in hospitalised older people with polypharmacy and multimorbidity was recently investigated in the OPtimising thERapy to Prevent Avoidable Hospital Admissions in the Multimorbid Elderly (OPERAM) trial [37, 38]. The primary outcome of this multicentre, randomised controlled trial was the occurrence of a first DRA within 1 year after receiving an in-hospital medication review. Although pharmacotherapy optimisation reduced potentially inappropriate prescribing, the intervention did not significantly affect the primary outcome DRA nor was it detrimental to patient outcomes compared with usual care [38]. The presumed effect of reducing overuse, underuse and misuse with an in-hospital structured medication review on preventing DRAs in older people with multimorbidity and polypharmacy was not confirmed. A better understanding of the relationship between the occurrence of potentially preventable DRAs and the detectability of MEs linked to these DRAs during a single, in-hospital medication review may provide guidance on ways to improve the medication review process.
The aim of the present study was to assess the detectability of MEs with a STOPP/START-based in-hospital medication review in older people with polypharmacy and multimorbidity prior to a potentially preventable DRA.
2 Methods
2.1 Setting, Design and Study Population
This study was embedded within the OPERAM trial [37, 38]. OPERAM was a large (n = 2008) cluster-randomised controlled trial intended to investigate the effect of a structured medication review on the occurrence of DRAs in older people with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. In-hospital patients were recruited from four hospitals in Switzerland, Belgium, Ireland and the Netherlands. Inclusion criteria were older age (≥ 70 years), multimorbidity (defined as ≥ 3 chronic conditions) and polypharmacy (defined as the use of ≥ 5 regular medications for > 30 days prior to admission) [37, 38]. The two exclusion criteria were (i) patients admitted to palliative care within 24 hours after index hospitalisation and (ii) patients undergoing a structured medication review other than the trial intervention or having received a medication review in the 2 months preceding the index hospitalisation to reduce the risk of contamination bias.
Patients included in the OPERAM trial were randomised at index hospitalisation to receive usual pharmaceutical care (control group, n = 1045) or a structured in-hospital medication review (intervention group, n = 963). Readmissions occurring after discharge from the index hospitalisation were adjudicated for drug-relatedness consecutively until a first DRA was confirmed or until the 1-year follow-up period ended [37, 38]. This substudy relies on data available from the in-hospital medication review in OPERAM intervention patients with a first potentially preventable DRA. The OPERAM trial was approved by the participating hospitals’ medical ethics committees and registered under trial registration number NCT02986425.
2.2 In-Hospital Medication Review at Index Hospitalisation
The in-hospital structured medication review was assisted by a CDSS with integrated STOPP/START criteria (version 2) [35, 36]. In addition to the detection of potential drug overuse, underuse and misuse based on STOPP/START algorithms, the CDSS generated signals for potential ADRs, clinically relevant drug–drug interactions and dose adjustments based on a patient’s renal function [39]. A detailed description of the CDSS used in the OPERAM trial and its interface can be found in the Electronic Supplementary Material 1 (ESM1).
A pharmacotherapy team consisting of a trained physician and a trained pharmacist for each trial site performed the in-hospital medication review according to the Systematic Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing (STRIP) method [40]. The pharmacotherapy teams had full access to the patient’s medical record and evaluated all CDSS-generated signals for clinical applicability based on the patient’s actual medical status. Pharmacotherapy optimisation recommendations were presented in a patient-specific feedback report, and the pharmacotherapy teams discussed the report contents with the attending physician and the patient. A second report of in-hospital medication changes and deferred recommendations (e.g. tapering off the use of benzodiazepines) was sent to the GP after discharge. A detailed description of the OPERAM intervention has been previously published [39].
2.3 Drug-Related Hospital Admission (DRA) Adjudication Process at Readmission
All OPERAM patients received follow-up calls at 2, 6 and 12 months after enrolment. The patients or their proxies were asked to report any hospital readmissions since discharge from the index hospitalisation [37]. In case of a hospital readmission, all relevant medical information (e.g. admission and discharge letters, laboratory values, recent medication lists) were obtained from the hospital of readmission and anonymised prior to the DRA adjudication process. Data on readmissions and outcomes of the DRA adjudication process were recorded in an electronic case report form (eCRF).
Within the OPERAM trial, all hospital readmissions were screened for potential ADEs through a standardised adjudication process, previously published by Thevelin et al. [14], to establish the primary endpoint (DRA). The DRA adjudication guide can be found in ESM2. DRA adjudication was performed by blinded adjudication teams consisting of senior physician–pharmacist pairs per trial site. DRAs related to MEs (i.e., overuse, underuse or misuse of drugs) were considered potentially preventable as opposed to DRAs caused by non-preventable ADRs. The DRA adjudication process allowed for identifying multiple MEs per patient. Overuse was defined as the use of a prescribed drug without a clinical indication, the use of double medication, or the use of a drug beyond the recommended duration. Underuse was defined as the lack of use of an indicated drug according to evidence-based clinical guidelines, adherence issues or the discontinuation of a drug before the recommended prescription period was completed (e.g. antibiotics). Misuse included inappropriate dosing, inadequate therapy monitoring and the presence of clinically relevant drug–disease, or drug–drug interactions of indicated drugs [14]. Figure 1 presents a graphical illustration of the relationship between the in-hospital medication review at index hospitalisation and the DRA adjudication process at readmission.
2.4 Detectability of Medication Errors (MEs)
The MEs identified at hospital readmission by the DRA adjudication teams were used as the primary source for conducting this substudy. The relationship between the identified MEs and the detectability of these MEs at the time of the in-hospital medication review during index hospitalisation was retrospectively explored based on three screening questions:
-
➀
Was the ME present at the time of the in-hospital medication review?
MEs were considered present if the inappropriate prescription (i.e., a drug omission identified as underuse or a prescribed drug identified as overuse/misuse) and the medical condition related to the ME were both present during the in-hospital medication review. MEs that were not present during the in-hospital medication review were considered not detectable.
-
➁
Was the ME detected by STOPP/START?
MEs were considered detected if a STOPP/START signal was generated by the CDSS during the in-hospital medication review, regardless of whether this signal resulted in a change in medication regimen recommended by the pharmacotherapy teams.
-
➂
Was a change in medication regimen recommended by the pharmacotherapy teams?
Recommendations for changes in medication regimen by the pharmacotherapy teams were based on the acceptance of STOPP/START signals; if no STOPP/START signal was generated, such recommendations were based on expert opinion (i.e., non-STOPP/START-based recommendation).
Three theoretical examples of ME detectability at the time of the in-hospital medication review are outlined in the Text Box.
2.6 Outcomes
The primary outcome of this study was the detectability of MEs identified at readmission with a STOPP/START-based in-hospital medication review at the time of the index hospitalisation prior to a potentially preventable DRA. The outcome included (i) the proportion of MEs that were present and therefore detectable during the in-hospital medication review. The total number of MEs was used as the denominator. The total number of MEs identified at readmission was defined by the DRA adjudication teams; (ii) the proportion of MEs that were detected by STOPP/START during the in-hospital medication review. The number of present MEs was used as the denominator; (iii) the proportion of MEs that resulted in a recommendation by the pharmacotherapy team to change medication regimen. The number of present MEs was used as the denominator. The numerator included both STOPP/START-based and non-STOPP/START-based recommendations.
As a secondary outcome, the time between the occurrence of a first potentially preventable DRA and the presence of MEs during the in-hospital medication review was evaluated.
2.7 Data Collection and Analysis
Baseline patient characteristics (e.g. age, gender, number of co-morbidities, number of medications, renal function) were prospectively collected at index hospitalisation for all OPERAM intervention patients and captured in an eCRF. Data on CDSS-generated signals and changes in medication regimens recommended by the pharmacotherapy teams were saved within the CDSS and available for analysis. Data on medical conditions were captured at index hospitalisation and at readmission. This data included diagnoses, laboratory values (e.g. renal function, sodium/potassium levels), measurements (e.g. blood pressure) and patient-reported information (e.g. pain score measured by EQ-VAS [41], drug adherence measured by MMAS-8 [42]). Data on drug use was initially registered at index hospitalisation and updated during follow-up calls within the OPERAM trial. The results of the DRA adjudication process at readmission were extracted from the eCRF for all OPERAM intervention patients.
Patient data from the index hospitalisation on medical conditions, drug use, CDSS-generated signals and pharmacotherapy teams’ recommendations were registered in an electronic data capture tool (Castor v.2021.5.5) and initially reviewed by a researcher (JI, final year pharmacy master student). Subsequently, all data and the proposed answers to the three screening questions were again reviewed and validated by a second researcher (BS, hospital pharmacist, clinical pharmacologist). If MEs identified at rehospitalisation needed additional information for detectability assessment, the physician from the DRA adjudication team who had initially identified the ME was consulted to provide this information. For instance, the ME ‘underuse of analgesics in uncontrolled pain’ required additional information on the type and dosage of the underused analgesic drug. The additional information was provided using the same documents that were available at DRA adjudication.
Descriptive data analysis on baseline characteristics and MEs was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics v.26.0.0.1. The time between the occurrence of a potentially preventable DRA and the presence of MEs during the in-hospital medication review was visualised using GraphPad Prism 9.
3 Results
3.1 Study Population
One fifth of OPERAM intervention patients (n = 211, 21.9%, N = 963) experienced their first DRA within the year following the in-hospital medication review. A total of 84 DRAs in 963 intervention patients (8.7%) were adjudicated as potentially preventable and were related to 92 MEs.
Fifteen MEs in twelve OPERAM intervention patients were excluded from analysis of this substudy due to missing data (no intervention performed, n = 6; missing data on medical conditions at the time of the in-hospital medication review, n = 6; missing data on generated STOPP/START signals, n = 3). A total of 77 MEs occurring in 72 patients experiencing their first potentially preventable DRA were analysed (Fig. 2). In 22 of these 77 MEs (28.7%), a DRA adjudication member was consulted by the primary researchers for further specification of the ME to finalise the assessment of ME detectability at the time of the in-hospital medication review.
The median age of participants was 80 years (interquartile range [IQR] 76–86) at the time of the in-hospital medication review. Participants had a median of 14 (IQR 9–19) comorbidities and were prescribed a median of 10 (IQR 8–14) medications. Participants had a median estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 51 mL/min/1.73m2 (IQR 36–66). Other baseline characteristics of the study population at the time of the in-hospital medication review are illustrated in Table 1.
3.2 Frequency and Type of Medication Errors Identified at Readmission
Potentially preventable DRAs were caused by one ME in 68 out of 72 patients (94.4%), two MEs in three patients (4.2%) and three MEs in one patient (1.4%). MEs were adjudicated as the main cause for admission in 68.8% of cases and as a contributory cause in 31.2% of cases. Underuse was the most frequently identified ME type (49.3%), followed by overuse (36.4%) and misuse (14.3%). The top three clinical presentations of potentially preventable DRAs were heart failure exacerbation (26.0%), fall or fracture (20.8%) and bleeding (10.4%). A detailed overview of the frequency, type and detectability of MEs is provided in Table 2.
3.3 Detectability of MEs at Index Hospitalisation (Screening Question 1)
Over half of the total identified MEs at readmission (52.0%, n = 40/77) were present at the time of the in-hospital medication review at index hospitalisation. In the remaining 48.0% (n = 37/77) of cases, the ME was not present and therefore not detectable during the in-hospital medication review; in these cases, either the inappropriate prescription (51.4%, n = 19/37) or the medical condition (48.6%, n = 18/37) related to the ME were not present (Fig. 3).
3.4 Detection of Present MEs by STOPP/START (Screening Question 2)
The STOPP/START tool detected 60.0% (n = 24/40) of MEs that were present during the in-hospital medication review (Fig. 3). Present MEs related to non-neuropathic pain (n = 2), acute renal impairment (n = 2), hyperglycaemia (n = 2) and tremor (n = 2) were in no case detected by the STOPP/START tool (Table 2).
3.5 Recommendations by the Pharmacotherapy Team (Screening Question 3)
In 54.2% (n = 13/24) of MEs detected by STOPP/START, the signal resulted in a recommendation to change the patient’s medication regimen. In the other 45.8% (n = 11/24), the pharmacotherapy team decided that a change in medication regimen was not clinically applicable based on the patient’s medical status at the time of the in-hospital medication review (Fig. 3). These rejected signals did not result in a recommendation to be discussed with the attending physician and patient or deferred to the GP. The pharmacotherapy team recommended a change in medication in 43.7% (n = 7/16) of present MEs that were not detected by STOPP/START (i.e., non-STOPP/START recommendation) (Fig. 3). Overall, the pharmacotherapy team recommended a change in medication regimen in 50% (n = 20/40) of present MEs (Fig. 3).
3.6 Time to First Potentially Preventable DRA
Of 72 first potentially preventable DRAs, 33.3% (n = 24) occurred in the period between discharge and 2 months, whereas 29.2% (n = 21) occurred 2–6 months after the in-hospital medication review and 37.5% (n = 27) occurred 6–12 months after the in-hospital medication review. The cumulative incidence of MEs over time stratified for present and not present MEs during the in-hospital medication review is shown in Fig. 4. No clear time relationship was observed between the occurrence of a potentially preventable DRA and the presence of MEs during the in-hospital medication review.
4 Discussion
4.1 Main Findings
About half of MEs (48%) were not present during an in-hospital medication review in the year prior to a potentially preventable DRA and were therefore not detectable at that time. Of the MEs that were present during the in-hospital medication review, 60% were detected by CDSS-generated STOPP/START signals, however, only about half of these signals (54%) were considered clinically applicable and resulted in a recommendation. Overall, the pharmacotherapy teams recommended a change in medication regimen in 50% of present MEs; however, these proposed recommendations were not implemented. Underuse was the most frequently identified ME type (49%), followed by overuse (36%) and misuse (14%) of drugs.
Uitvlugt et al. investigated the prevalence, preventability and type of MEs in adults (≥18 years) readmitted to a Dutch non-academic hospital [44]. One in six readmissions (16%, N = 1111) were drug-related, of which 40% were considered potentially preventable. Although the study population significantly differed from the OPERAM population (e.g. adult patients vs patients aged ≥70 years in OPERAM), the proportion of DRAs that were considered potentially preventable was similar (OPERAM intervention patients: 39.8%, n = 84/211; OPERAM control patients: 42.7%, n = 100/234) [38, 44]. In both studies, underuse was the most frequently reported ME type, and cardiovascular events and diuretics were most frequently associated with MEs.
Based on the results of the current study’s sub-analysis of OPERAM intervention patients, three strategies were identified that may improve DRA prevention in older people with multimorbidity and polypharmacy.
4.2 Timing of Medication Review
The finding that about half of MEs were not present during the in-hospital medication review provides evidence that the detection of MEs is highly time dependent. Multimorbid older people with polypharmacy are susceptible to changes in (the severity of) medical conditions and pharmacotherapy over time [45]. The effect of a single medication review over a 1-year period is therefore difficult to measure. A longitudinal approach to medication review is likely to be more effective than a single, cross-sectional intervention. This theory is supported by the finding that there was no difference between MEs present and not present during in-hospital medication review and the occurrence of potentially preventable DRAs over time (Fig. 4). One third of all potentially preventable DRAs occurred within the 2 months after hospital discharge. The cumulative incidence of newly developed MEs was also highest during this period. Previous studies have confirmed that MEs frequently occur in transition from hospital to primary care, often due to unintentional medication discrepancies [46, 47]. Performing a medication review shortly after hospital discharge could therefore have a large impact on reducing MEs [11, 12, 26].
In about half (n = 11/24) of present MEs, the pharmacotherapy teams decided that a medication change based on STOPP/START criteria was not applicable at the moment of the in-hospital medication review. Explicit screening tools, such as STOPP/START, provide population-based criteria to assist with medication review in older people. However, additional clinical consideration by health care professionals is necessary. A previous sub-analysis of OPERAM intervention patients found that about 40% of CDSS-generated STOPP/START signals are of clinical relevance in a hospital setting according to the pharmacotherapy teams [48, 49]. Although recommendations to change medication regimen could also be deferred to the GP, the decision to accept or ignore STOPP/START signals during an in-hospital medication review is likely to be influenced by a patient’s acute condition. This further highlights the need for regular medication review across health care settings.
4.3 ME Detection by STOPP/START
CDSS-generated STOPP/START signals detected 60% of present MEs during medication review. STOPP/START version 2 lists 114 explicit criteria and is not definitive in detecting all MEs that may occur in older people [17, 50]; many other explicit screening tools have been developed to facilitate the detection of potentially inappropriate drug use in older people with limited overlap between the tools [51, 52]. However, the STOPP/START criteria are unique among validated explicit screening tools in targeting underuse, which was the most prevalent ME type in our study. The goal of explicit screening tool development is to achieve a high sensitivity and specificity in detecting MEs associated with negative clinical outcomes in older patients. Refining the STOPP/START criteria may further improve the performance of the tool when applied to clinical practice [48].
One approach to improve detection of MEs by software-based STOPP/START signals could be to clarify textual definitions in the current version of STOPP/START. Lack of clarity of essential elements has made it challenging to convert these explicit criteria into algorithms suitable for software implementation [35, 53]. For example, two MEs not detected by STOPP/START were related to the underuse of analgesics in uncontrolled pain. The START criteria for pain management include ambiguous elements that are difficult to translate into algorithms (e.g. START H1—“high-potency opioids in moderate-severe pain, where paracetamol, NSAIDs or low-potency opioids are not appropriate to the pain severity or have been ineffective”). Making the essential elements of the criteria as specific as possible (e.g. replacing the term ‘moderate-severe pain’ with ‘a VAS-score ≥5’) could potentially enhance detection of MEs by software-generated STOPP/START signals [53].
Finally, some MEs require an implicit screening approach. For example, MEs related to noncompliance are difficult to identify using explicit screening tools, especially in hospital settings where long-term dispensing data from community pharmacies are not readily available. Although noncompliance was identified by the DRA adjudication teams in only three cases (all related to underuse of diuretics in heart failure exacerbation), the aforementioned study by Uitvlugt et al. reported that one third of all potentially preventable DRAs were related to non-adherence [44], emphasising the relevance of adherence monitoring in older patients to avoid harm.
4.4 Implementation of Recommendations
A change in medication regimen was recommended by the pharmacotherapy teams in one half of present MEs; however, these proposed recommendations were not implemented. Recommendations can be either intentionally or unintentionally non-implemented and many factors affect actual implementation. Reasons for intentional non-implementation of recommendations was studied in the Dutch cohort of OPERAM intervention patients, which revealed that around 40% of all recommendations provided by the pharmacotherapy teams were disagreed upon by either the attending physician, the patient or both [54]. The main reason for disagreement was patients’ reluctance to discontinue or initiate medication. Trusted patient–physician relationships are one of the key facilitators for successful shared decision making, as found in another multicentre mixed-methods interview study among OPERAM patients (n = 48) [55]. Therefore, whether the acute hospital setting is the most appropriate setting to conduct medication reviews from a patient’s perspective could be questioned. Future improvements in the shared decision-making process may result in a higher uptake of pharmacotherapy optimisation recommendations disagreed upon by the patient [56, 57]. Physician-related factors also contributed to non-implementation, including attending physicians’ reluctance to take responsibility for suggested medication changes that were beyond their area of expertise [54]. Another study found that the attending physician’s implementation of STOPP/START recommendations were significantly higher if the recommendation was discussed by a physician rather than a pharmacist [58]. Although the pharmacotherapy analysis within OPERAM was performed jointly by a pharmacist and a physician, the discussion of recommendations with attending physicians and patients was not always conducted by both professionals of the pharmacotherapy team.
In addition to initial non-implementation of proposed recommendations, the persistence of medication changes across health settings could be an issue as well. For example, Van der Linden et al. found that more than one-quarter of drugs that were discontinued due to an ADR in hospitalised older patients were re-prescribed after hospital discharge [59]. Another study found that about 20% of medications that were discontinued based on STOPP criteria were re-prescribed within 6 months after discharge from geriatric units; more than half of those resumptions occurred within a month after discharge [60]. Improvements in medication reconciliation across health care settings could address these unintentional re-prescriptions [61, 62]. Data to distinguish between non-implementation and non-persistence of recommended drug changes were not available within the OPERAM trial.
4.5 Strengths and Limitations
This study was embedded within a large European multicentre trial, which contributes to the external validity of the study [38]. However, despite OPERAM having few exclusion criteria, it should be noted that the population included in this substudy was relatively functionally independent with a considerably high Barthel Index (median 90; IQR 70–100), which was comparable to the baseline characteristics of participants in the main OPERAM trial. In addition, only a small proportion of nursing home residents were included. Hence, our findings may not be generalisable to frailer populations. Although DRA adjudication remains partially subjective and variability between teams of adjudicators cannot be completely ruled out, the adjudication process was performed by skilled senior clinicians (blinded for the allocation group) using a standardised DRA adjudication guide that has proven to effectively identify DRAs in older people [14, 63]. The presence of MEs during in-hospital medication review was retrospectively assessed for those MEs identified by the DRA adjudication teams at readmission. However, information on drug use, laboratory values, medical conditions and acceptance of STOPP/START signals was prospectively collected at the time of the in-hospital medication review. Therefore, this information can be considered of high quality.
This study has several limitations. First, the sample of MEs described in the study was rather small and heterogeneous, which impedes the drawing of firm conclusions. Second, data to assess ME detectability were not available for OPERAM control patients with a potentially preventable DRA, because no in-hospital medication review was performed. Therefore, the study results could not be compared with a control group. Third, the reasons for not recommending medication changes by the pharmacotherapy teams for MEs present at the time of the medication review were not available. However, decisions of the pharmacotherapy teams were made after careful evaluation of a patient’s medical record at the time of the medication review and therefore considered appropriate. Re-evaluation of these decisions would introduce information bias. Nonetheless, it is possible that present MEs not detected by STOPP/START and in which no medication change was recommended, were missed by the pharmacotherapy teams during the in-hospital medication review. Finally, a relatively large proportion of MEs were excluded from analysis due to missing data, but the reasons for the missing data were unrelated to the study outcome. Therefore, these omissions are unlikely to have affected the findings.
5 Conclusion
Overall, MEs identified at readmission were not addressed by a prior single in-hospital medication review because either these MEs occurred after the medication review (~50%), or no recommendation was given during the medication review (~25%) or the recommendation was not implemented (~25%). Future research should focus on optimisation of the timing and frequency of medication review and the implementation of proposed medication recommendations.
References
SIMPATHY-consortium. Polypharmacy Management by 2030: a patient safety challenge. 2017. https://ec.europa.eu/chafea/health/newsroom/news/documents/polypharmacy-handbook-second-edition_en.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2022.
World Health Organization. WHO global patient safety challenge: medication without harm 2017. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-HIS-SDS-2017.6. Accessed 3 Aug 2022.
World Health Organization. WHO Technical Report; Medication Safety in Polypharmacy. 2019. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-UHC-SDS-2019.11. Accessed 6 Jun 2022.
Barnett K, Mercer SW, Norbury M, Watt G, Wyke S, Guthrie B. Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2012;380:37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60240-2.
Johnston MC, Crilly M, Black C, Prescott GJ, Mercer SW. Defining and measuring multimorbidity: a systematic review of systematic reviews. Eur J Public Health. 2019;29(1):182–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cky098.
de Bezerra Souza DL, Oliveras-Fabregas A, Espelt A, Bosque-Prous M, de Camargo CM, Teixidó-Compañó E, et al. Multimorbidity and its associated factors among adults aged 50 and over: A cross-sectional study in 17 European countries. PLoS ONE. 2021;16:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246623.
Moen J, Antonov K, Larsson CA, Lindblad U, Nilsson JLG, Råstam L, et al. Factors associated with multiple medication use in different age groups. Ann Pharmacother. 2009;43(12):1978–85. https://doi.org/10.1345/aph.1M354.
Fortin M, Lapointe L, Hudon C, Vanasse A, Ntetu AL, Maltais D. Multimorbidity and quality of life in primary care: a systematic review. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004;20(2):51. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-2-51.
Masnoon N, Shakib S, Kalisch-Ellett L, Caughey GE. What is polypharmacy? A systematic review of definitions. BMC Geriatr. 2017;17:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-017-0621-2.
Mehta RS, Kochar BD, Kennelty K, Ernst ME, Chan AT. Emerging approaches to polypharmacy among older adults. Nat Aging. 2021;1:347–56. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43587-021-00045-3.
Linkens AEM, Milosevic V, van der Kuy PHM, Damen-Hendriks VH, MestresGonzalvo C, Hurkens KPGM. Medication-related hospital admissions and readmissions in older patients: an overview of literature. Int J Clin Pharm. 2020;42:1243–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-020-01040-1.
Pereira F, Verloo H, Zhivko T, Di Giovanni S, Meyer-Massetti C, Von Gunten A, et al. Risk of 30-day hospital readmission associated with medical conditions and drug regimens of polymedicated, older inpatients discharged home: a registry-based cohort study. BMJ Open. 2021;11:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052755.
Beuscart J, Knol W, Cullinan S, Schneider C, Dalleur O, Boland B, et al. International core outcome set for clinical trials of medication review in multi-morbid older patients with polypharmacy. BMC Med. 2018;21:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1007-9.
Thevelin S, Spinewine A, Beuscart JB, Boland B, Marien S, Vaillant F, et al. Development of a standardized chart review method to identify drug-related hospital admissions in older people. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.13716.
Klarin I, Wimo A, Fastbom J. The association of inappropriate drug use with hospitalisation and mortality. Drugs Aging. 2005;22:69–82. https://doi.org/10.2165/00002512-200522010-00005.
van der Stelt CAK, Windsant-van V, den Tweel AMA, Egberts ACG, van den Bemt PMLA, Leendertse AJ, Hermens WAJJ, et al. The association between potentially inappropriate prescribing and medication-related hospital admissions in older patients: a nested case control study. Drug Saf. 2016;39:79–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-015-0361-1.
Thevelin S, El ML, Marien S, Boland B, Henrard S, Dalleur O. Potentially inappropriate prescribing and related hospital admissions in geriatric patients: a comparative analysis between the STOPP and START criteria versions 1 and 2. Drugs Aging. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-018-00635-8.
Beijer HJM, De Blaey CJ. Hospitalisations caused by adverse drug reactions (ADR): a meta-analysis of observational studies. Pharm World Sci. 2002;24:46–54. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015570104121.
Lghoul-Oulad Saïd F, Hek K, Flinterman LE, Herings RMC, Warlé-van Herwaarden MF, de Bie S, et al. Prevalence and incidence rate of hospital admissions related to medication between 2008 and 2013 in The Netherlands. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2020;29:1659–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.5122.
Chan M, Nicklason F, Vial JH. Adverse drug events as a cause of hospital admission in the elderly. Intern Med J. 2001;31:199–205. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1445-5994.2001.00044.x.
Somers A, Robays H, Vander Stichele R, Van Maele G, Bogaert M, Petrovic M. Contribution of drug related problems to hospital admission in the elderly. J Nutr Heal Aging. 2010;14:477–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-009-0237-0.
Oscanoa TJ, Lizaraso F, Carvajal A. Hospital admissions due to adverse drug reactions in the elderly A meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2017;73:759–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-017-2225-3.
Hohl CM, Dankoff J, Colacone A, Afilalo M. Polypharmacy, adverse drug-related events, and potential adverse drug interactions in elderly patients presenting to an emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2001;38:666–71. https://doi.org/10.1067/mem.2001.119456.
Leendertse AJ, Egberts ACG, Stoker LJ, Van Den Bemt PMLA. Frequency of and risk factors for preventable medication-related hospital admissions in the Netherlands. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:1890–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2008.3.
Rogers S, Wilson D, Wan S, Griffin M, Rai G, Farrell J. Medication-related admissions in older people. Drugs Aging. 2009;26:951–61. https://doi.org/10.2165/11316750-000000000-00000.
El Morabet N, Uitvlugt EB, van den Bemt BJF, van den Bemt PMLA, Janssen MJA, Karapinar-Çarkit F. Prevalence and preventability of drug-related hospital readmissions: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018;66:602–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15244.
Curtin D, Gallagher PF, O’Mahony D. Explicit criteria as clinical tools to minimize inappropriate medication use and its consequences. Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2019;10:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042098619829431.
O’Mahony D, O’Sullivan D, Byrne S, O’Connor MN, Ryan C, Gallagher P. STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 2. Age Ageing. 2015;44:213–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afu145.
O’Mahony D. STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate medications/potential prescribing omissions in older people: origin and progress. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2020;13:15–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512433.2020.1697676.
Hill-Taylor B, Walsh KA, Stewart SA, Hayden J, Byrne S, Sketris IS. Effectiveness of the STOPP/START (Screening Tool of Older Persons’ potentially inappropriate Prescriptions/Screening Tool to Alert doctors to the Right Treatment) criteria: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2016;41:158–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpt.12372.
Alshammari H, Al-Saeed E, Ahmed Z, Aslanpour Z. Reviewing potentially inappropriate medication in hospitalized patients over 65 using explicit criteria: a systematic literature review. Drug Healthc Patient Saf. 2021;13:183–210. https://doi.org/10.2147/DHPS.S303101.
Monteiro L, Maricoto T, Solha I, Ribeiro-Vaz I, Martins C, Monteiro-Soares M. Reducing potentially inappropriate prescriptions for older patients using computerized decision support tools: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2019. https://doi.org/10.2196/15385.
Dalton K, O’Brien G, O’Mahony D, Byrne S. Computerised interventions designed to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing in hospitalised older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age Ageing. 2018;47:670–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afy086.
Christensen M, Lundh A. Medication review in hospitalised patients to reduce morbidity and mortality (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008986.pub3.
Huibers CJA, Sallevelt BTGM, de Groot DA, Boer MJ, van Campen JPCM, Davids CJ, et al. Conversion of STOPP/START version 2 into coded algorithms for software implementation: A multidisciplinary consensus procedure. Int J Med Inform. 2019;125:110–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.12.010.
Shen Z, Meulendijk M, Spruit M. A federated information architecture for multinational clinical trials: Stripa revisited. 24th Eur Conf Inf Syst ECIS 2016. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2016_prototypes/2/. Accessed 3 Aug 2022.
Adam L, Moutzouri E, Baumgartner C, Loewe AL, Feller M, M’Rabet-Bensalah K, et al. Rationale and design of OPtimising thERapy to prevent avoidable hospital admissions in Multimorbid older people (OPERAM): a cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2019;9:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026769.
Blum MR, Sallevelt BTGM, Spinewine A, Mahony DO, Feller M, Baumgartner C, et al. Optimizing therapy to prevent avoidable hospital admissions in multimorbid older adults (OPERAM): cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2021;374: n1585. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1585.
Crowley EK, Sallevelt BTGM, Huibers CJA, Murphy KD, Spruit M, Shen Z, et al. Intervention protocol: OPtimising thERapy to prevent avoidable hospital admission in the multi-morbid elderly (OPERAM): a structured medication review with support of a computerised decision support system. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-5056-3.
Drenth-van Maanen AC, Leendertse AJ, Jansen PAF, Knol W, Keijsers CJPW, Meulendijk MC, et al. The systematic tool to reduce inappropriate prescribing (STRIP): combining implicit and explicit prescribing tools to improve appropriate prescribing. J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24:317–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12787.
Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002.
Morisky DE, Ang A, Krousel-Wood M, Ward HJ. Predictive validity of a medication adherence measure in an outpatient setting. J Clin Hypertens. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-7176.2008.07572.x.
Barthel D, Mahoney F. Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61–5.
Uitvlugt EB, Janssen MJA, Siegert CEH, Kneepkens EL, van den Bemt BJF, van den Bemt PMLA, et al. Medication-related hospital readmissions within 30 days of discharge: prevalence, preventability, type of medication errors and risk factors. Front Pharmacol. 2021;12:1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.567424.
Violan C, Foguet-Boreu Q, Flores-Mateo G, Salisbury C, Blom J, Freitag M, et al. Prevalence, determinants and patterns of multimorbidity in primary care: a systematic review of observational studies. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:3–11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102149.
Pippins JR, Gandhi TK, Hamann C, Ndumele CD, Labonville SA, Diedrichsen EK, et al. Classifying and predicting errors of inpatient medication reconciliation. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23:1414–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0687-9.
Vira T, Colquhoun M, Etchells E. Reconcilable differences: correcting medication errors at hospital admission and discharge. Qual Saf Heal Care. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2005.015347.
Sallevelt BTGM, Huibers CJA, Heij JMJO, Egberts TCG, van Puijenbroek EP, Shen Z, et al. Frequency and acceptance of clinical decision support system-generated STOPP/START signals for hospitalised older patients with polypharmacy and multimorbidity. Drugs Aging. 2021;39:59–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-021-00904-z.
Dalton K, Curtin D, O’Mahony D, Byrne S. Computer-generated STOPP/START recommendations for hospitalised older adults: evaluation of the relationship between clinical relevance and rate of implementation in the SENATOR trial. Age Ageing. 2020;49:615–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afaa062.
Verdoorn S, Kwint HF, Faber A, Gussekloo J, Bouvy ML. Majority of drug-related problems identified during medication review are not associated with STOPP/START criteria. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;71:1255–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-015-1908-x.
Motter FR, Fritzen JS, Hilmer SN, Paniz ÉV, Paniz VMV. Potentially inappropriate medication in the elderly: a systematic review of validated explicit criteria. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2018;74(6):679–700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-018-2446-0.
Perpétuo C, Plácido AI, Rodrigues D, Aperta J, Piñeiro-Lamas M, Figueiras A, et al. Prescription of potentially inappropriate medication in older inpatients of an internal medicine ward: concordance and overlap among the EU(7)-PIM list and beers and STOPP criteria. Front Pharmacol. 2021;12:1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.676020.
Sallevelt BTGM, Huibers CJA, Knol W, Van PE, Egberts T, Wilting I. Evaluation of clarity of the STOPP/START criteria for clinical applicability in prescribing for older people: a quality appraisal study. BMJ Open. 2020;10:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033721.
Huibers CJA, Sallevelt BTGM, Heij JMJ, O’Mahony D, Rodondi N, Dalleur O, et al. Hospital physicians’ and older patients’ agreement with individualised STOPP/START-based medication optimisation recommendations in a clinical trial setting. Eur Geriatr Med. 2022;13:541–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41999-022-00633-5.
Thevelin S, Pétein C, Metry B, Adam L, van Herksen A, Murphy K, et al. Experience of hospital-initiated medication changes in older people with multimorbidity: a multicentre mixed-methods study embedded in the OPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in Multimorbid older people (OPERAM) trial. BMJ Qual Saf. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014372.
Galazzi A, Lusignani M, Chiarelli MT, Mannucci PM, Franchi C, Tettamanti M, et al. Attitudes towards polypharmacy and medication withdrawal among older inpatients in Italy. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38:454–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-016-0279-4.
Coronado-Vázquez V, Gómez-Salgado J, delos Monteros JCE, Ayuso-Murillo D, Ruiz-Frutos C. Shared decision-making in chronic patients with polypharmacy: An interventional study for assessing medication appropriateness. J Clin Med. 2019;8:1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8060904.
Dalton K, O’Mahony D, O’Sullivan D, O’Connor MN, Byrne S. Prescriber implementation of STOPP/START recommendations for hospitalised older adults: a comparison of a pharmacist approach and a physician approach. Drugs Aging. 2019;36:279–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-018-0627-2.
Van Der Linden CMJ, Kerskes MCH, Bijl AMH, Maas HAAM, Egberts ACG, Jansen PAF. Represcription after adverse drug reaction in the elderly: a descriptive study. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(15):1666–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.15.1666.
Debacq C, Bourgueil J, Aidoud A, Bleuet J, Mennecart M, Dardaine-Giraud V, et al. Persistence of effect of medication review on potentially inappropriate prescriptions in older patients following hospital discharge. Drugs Aging. 2021;38:243–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-020-00830-6.
Schnipper JL, Reyes Nieva H, Mallouk M, Mixon A, Rennke S, Chu E, et al. Effects of a refined evidence-based toolkit and mentored implementation on medication reconciliation at 18 hospitals: Results of the MARQUIS2 study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2020-012709.
Ciapponi A, Fernandez Nievas SE, Seijo M, Rodríguez MB, Vietto V, García-Perdomo HA, et al. Reducing medication errors for adults in hospital settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009985.pub2.
Zerah L, Henrard S, Thevelin S, Feller M, Meyer-masseti C, Knol W, et al. Performance of a trigger tool for detecting drug-related hospital admissions in older people: analysis from the OPERAM trial. Ageing. 2022;51:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afab196.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
This work is part of the project “OPERAM: OPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in the Multimorbid elderly” supported by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the grant agreement No 634238, and by the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI) under contract number 15.0137. The OPERAM project was also partially funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF 320030_188549). The work of Katharina Tabea Jungo was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), grant No NFP74 407440_167465. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the European Commission and the Swiss government. The funder of the study had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation or writing of the report.
Competing interests
Bastiaan T.G.M. Sallevelt, Toine C.G. Egberts, Corlina J.A. Huibers, Jimmy Ietswaart, A. Clara Drenth-van Maanen, Emma Jennings, Cian O’Mahony, Katharina Tabea Jungo, Martin Feller, Nicolas Rodondi, François-Xavier Sibille, Anne Spinewine, Eugène van Puijenbroek, Ingeborg Wilting and Wilma Knol have no conflicts of interest related to the content of this article.
Ethical approval
The OPERAM trial was approved by the independent research ethics committees at each participating site (lead ethics committee: Cantonal Ethics Committee Bern, Switzerland, ID 2016-01200; Medical Research Ethics Committee Utrecht, Netherlands, ID 15-522/D; Comité d’Ethique Hospitalo-Facultaire Saint-Luc-UCL: 2016/20JUL/347–Belgian registration No: B403201629175; Cork University Teaching Hospitals Clinical Ethics Committee, Cork, Republic of Ireland; ID ECM 4 (o) 07/02/17), and Swissmedic as the responsible regulatory authority.
Consent to participate
Written informed consent was obtained from the patients or their legal representatives before enrolment in the OPERAM trial.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Availability of data and material
Data for this study will be made available to others in the scientific community upon request after publication. Data will be made available for scientific purposes for researchers whose proposed use of the data has been approved by a publication committee.
Code availability statement
The codes used to convert the Screening Tool of Older Person’s Prescriptions (STOPP) / Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (START) criteria version 2 into algorithms for use in clinical decision support systems have been previously published by Huibers CJA, Sallevelt BTGM, de Groot DA, et al [35]. The code that supports the findings of this study will be made available for scientific purposes for researchers whose proposed use of the data has been approved by a publication committee.
Authors’ contributions
Authorship eligibility is based on the ICMJE authorship criteria. The authors certify that they have participated in the aspects of conception and design (BS, CH, TE, EvP, IW, WK), acquisition and interpretation of data (all authors), drafting the article (BS, JI, TE, EvP, IW, WK) and revising it critically for important intellectual content (all authors). All authors have approved the final article.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Sallevelt, B.T.G.M., Egberts, T.C.G., Huibers, C.J.A. et al. Detectability of Medication Errors With a STOPP/START-Based Medication Review in Older People Prior to a Potentially Preventable Drug-Related Hospital Admission. Drug Saf 45, 1501–1516 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-022-01237-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-022-01237-5