Assessment of requests for medication-related follow-up after hospital discharge, and the relation to unplanned hospital revisits, in older patients: a multicentre retrospective chart review.

Aftercare Aged Continuity of patient care Electronic health records Hospitalisation Patient discharge Patient safety Patient transfer Pharmaceutical services Referral and consultation

Journal

BMC geriatrics
ISSN: 1471-2318
Titre abrégé: BMC Geriatr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968548

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
02 11 2021
Historique:
received: 07 06 2021
accepted: 15 10 2021
entrez: 2 11 2021
pubmed: 3 11 2021
medline: 24 11 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The discharge of older hospitalised patients is critical in terms of patient safety. Inadequate transfer of information about medications to the next healthcare provider is a known problem, but there is a lack of understanding of this problem in settings where shared electronic health records are used. The aims of this study were to evaluate the prevalence of patients for whom hospitals sent adequate requests for medication-related follow-up at discharge, the proportion of patients with unplanned hospital revisits because of inadequate follow-up requests, and the association between medication reviews performed during hospitalisation and adequate or inadequate follow-up requests. We conducted a retrospective chart review. The study population was randomly selected from a cluster-randomised crossover trial which included patients 65 years or older who had been admitted to three hospitals in Sweden with shared electronic health records between hospital and primary care. Each patient was assessed with respect to the adequacy of the request for follow-up. For patients where the hospitals sent inadequate requests, data about any unplanned hospital revisits were collected, and we assessed whether the inadequate requests had contributed to the revisits. The association between medication reviews and adequate or inadequate requests was analysed with a Chi-square test. A total of 699 patients were included. The patients' mean age was 80 years; an average of 10 medications each were prescribed on hospital admission. The hospitals sent an adequate request for 418 (60%) patients. Thirty-eight patients (14%) had a hospital revisit within six months of discharge which was related to an inadequate request. The proportion of adequate or inadequate requests did not differ between patients who had received a medication review during hospitalisation and those who had not (p = 0.83). The prevalence of patients for whom the hospitals sent adequate follow-up requests on discharge was low. More than one in every ten who had an inadequate request revisited hospital within six months of discharge for reasons related to the request. Medication reviews conducted during hospitalisation did not affect the proportion of adequate or inadequate requests sent. A communication gap still exists despite the usage of a shared electronic health record between primary and secondary care levels.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
The discharge of older hospitalised patients is critical in terms of patient safety. Inadequate transfer of information about medications to the next healthcare provider is a known problem, but there is a lack of understanding of this problem in settings where shared electronic health records are used. The aims of this study were to evaluate the prevalence of patients for whom hospitals sent adequate requests for medication-related follow-up at discharge, the proportion of patients with unplanned hospital revisits because of inadequate follow-up requests, and the association between medication reviews performed during hospitalisation and adequate or inadequate follow-up requests.
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective chart review. The study population was randomly selected from a cluster-randomised crossover trial which included patients 65 years or older who had been admitted to three hospitals in Sweden with shared electronic health records between hospital and primary care. Each patient was assessed with respect to the adequacy of the request for follow-up. For patients where the hospitals sent inadequate requests, data about any unplanned hospital revisits were collected, and we assessed whether the inadequate requests had contributed to the revisits. The association between medication reviews and adequate or inadequate requests was analysed with a Chi-square test.
RESULTS
A total of 699 patients were included. The patients' mean age was 80 years; an average of 10 medications each were prescribed on hospital admission. The hospitals sent an adequate request for 418 (60%) patients. Thirty-eight patients (14%) had a hospital revisit within six months of discharge which was related to an inadequate request. The proportion of adequate or inadequate requests did not differ between patients who had received a medication review during hospitalisation and those who had not (p = 0.83).
CONCLUSIONS
The prevalence of patients for whom the hospitals sent adequate follow-up requests on discharge was low. More than one in every ten who had an inadequate request revisited hospital within six months of discharge for reasons related to the request. Medication reviews conducted during hospitalisation did not affect the proportion of adequate or inadequate requests sent. A communication gap still exists despite the usage of a shared electronic health record between primary and secondary care levels.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34724895
doi: 10.1186/s12877-021-02564-5
pii: 10.1186/s12877-021-02564-5
pmc: PMC8561898
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Multicenter Study Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

618

Informations de copyright

© 2021. The Author(s).

Références

BMC Fam Pract. 2018 Jul 25;19(1):127
pubmed: 30045692
Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Aug;80(2):233-40
pubmed: 19945814
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Mar 12;19(1):158
pubmed: 30866908
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021 Jun;69(6):1646-1658
pubmed: 33576506
Drugs Real World Outcomes. 2020 Mar;7(1):53-62
pubmed: 31834621
Postgrad Med J. 2021 Mar 31;:
pubmed: 33790035
Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2019 Jun 16;10:2042098619858049
pubmed: 31244989
J Hosp Med. 2013 Aug;8(8):436-43
pubmed: 23526813
J Gen Intern Med. 2009 Mar;24(3):381-6
pubmed: 19101774
BMJ Qual Improv Rep. 2012 Oct 24;1(1):
pubmed: 26734149
BMJ Qual Saf. 2011 Sep;20(9):773-8
pubmed: 21515695
J Gen Intern Med. 2002 Mar;17(3):186-92
pubmed: 11929504
Intern Med J. 2014 Nov;44(11):1124-7
pubmed: 25367726
BMJ Qual Improv Rep. 2015 Sep 02;4(1):
pubmed: 26734391
Clin Interv Aging. 2014 Dec 01;9:2079-86
pubmed: 25489239
Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2004 Feb;42(2):103-9
pubmed: 15180171
BMC Fam Pract. 2018 Oct 12;19(1):168
pubmed: 30309316
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2017 Jun;73(6):759-770
pubmed: 28251277
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Apr 1;4(4):e216303
pubmed: 33929523
Pharm World Sci. 2005 Apr;27(2):116-20
pubmed: 15999922
Int J Clin Pharm. 2018 Oct;40(5):1199-1208
pubmed: 30073611
Intern Med J. 2006 Apr;36(4):221-5
pubmed: 16640738
Int J Clin Pharm. 2018 Dec;40(6):1614-1620
pubmed: 30291577
JAMA. 2007 Feb 28;297(8):831-41
pubmed: 17327525
Health Expect. 2021 Jun;24(3):892-904
pubmed: 33761170
JAMA. 2013 Nov 27;310(20):2191-4
pubmed: 24141714
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Nov 3;20(1):1002
pubmed: 33143713
J Eval Clin Pract. 2013 Feb;19(1):185-91
pubmed: 22212455
Arch Intern Med. 2005 Sep 12;165(16):1842-7
pubmed: 16157827
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015 Jan;8(1):109-11
pubmed: 25587092
BJGP Open. 2020 Jun 23;4(2):
pubmed: 32398346
Arch Intern Med. 2009 May 11;169(9):894-900
pubmed: 19433702
JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Mar 1;178(3):375-382
pubmed: 29379953
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Oct 11;18(1):770
pubmed: 30305104
J Clin Pharm Ther. 2020 Oct;45(5):1021-1029
pubmed: 32171028
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018 Mar;66(3):602-608
pubmed: 29468640
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2011 May 20;131(9-10):942-5
pubmed: 21606990
BMJ Qual Saf. 2012 Dec;21 Suppl 1:i39-49
pubmed: 23118410
J Hosp Med. 2010 Sep;5(7):385-91
pubmed: 20578045
J Pharm Pract. 2016 Apr;29(2):132-7
pubmed: 25312264
Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2016 Aug 22;12:1277-83
pubmed: 27578981
Br J Gen Pract. 2018 Aug;68(673):e576-e585
pubmed: 29914879

Auteurs

Henrik Cam (H)

Hospital Pharmacy Department, Uppsala University Hospital, SE-751 85, Uppsala, Sweden. henrik.cam@farmaci.uu.se.
Department of Pharmacy, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. henrik.cam@farmaci.uu.se.

Thomas Gerardus Hendrik Kempen (TGH)

Department of Pharmacy, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Academic Primary Health Care Centre, Region Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden.

Helena Eriksson (H)

Department of Pharmacy, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Kanar Abdulreda (K)

Department of Pharmacy, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Kristin Franzon (K)

Geriatric Department, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden.
Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Ulrika Gillespie (U)

Hospital Pharmacy Department, Uppsala University Hospital, SE-751 85, Uppsala, Sweden.
Department of Pharmacy, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH