Frequency and impact of medication reviews for people aged 65 years or above in UK primary care: an observational study using electronic health records.

General Practice Medication Review Older Adults Polypharmacy Routinely Collected Health Data

Journal

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

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
14 Jul 2023
Historique:
received: 28 03 2023
accepted: 30 06 2023
medline: 17 7 2023
pubmed: 14 7 2023
entrez: 13 7 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Medication reviews in primary care provide an opportunity to review and discuss the safety and appropriateness of a person's medicines. However, there is limited evidence about access to and the impact of routine medication reviews for older adults in the general population, particularly in the UK. We aimed to quantify the proportion of people aged 65 years and over with a medication review recorded in 2019 and describe changes in the numbers and types of medicines prescribed following a review. We used anonymised primary care electronic health records from the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD GOLD) to define a population of people aged 65 years or over in 2019. We counted people with a medication review record in 2019 and used Cox regression to estimate associations between demographic characteristics, diagnoses, and prescribed medicines and having a medication review. We used linear regression to compare the number of medicines prescribed as repeat prescriptions in the three months before and after a medication review. Specifically, we compared the 'prescription count' - the maximum number of different medicines with overlapping prescriptions people had in each period. Of 591,726 people prescribed one or more medicines at baseline, 305,526 (51.6%) had a recorded medication review in 2019. Living in a care home (hazard ratio 1.51, 95% confidence interval 1.40-1.62), medication review in the previous year (1.83, 1.69-1.98), and baseline prescription count (e.g. 5-9 vs 1 medicine 1.41, 1.37-1.46) were strongly associated with having a medication review in 2019. Overall, the prescription count tended to increase after a review (mean change 0.13 medicines, 95% CI 0.12-0.14). Although medication reviews were commonly recorded for people aged 65 years or over, there was little change overall in the numbers and types of medicines prescribed following a review. This study did not examine whether the prescriptions were appropriate or other metrics, such as dose or medicine changes within the same class. However, by examining the impact of medication reviews before the introduction of structured medication review requirements in England in 2020, it provides a useful benchmark which these new reviews can be compared with.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Medication reviews in primary care provide an opportunity to review and discuss the safety and appropriateness of a person's medicines. However, there is limited evidence about access to and the impact of routine medication reviews for older adults in the general population, particularly in the UK. We aimed to quantify the proportion of people aged 65 years and over with a medication review recorded in 2019 and describe changes in the numbers and types of medicines prescribed following a review.
METHODS METHODS
We used anonymised primary care electronic health records from the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD GOLD) to define a population of people aged 65 years or over in 2019. We counted people with a medication review record in 2019 and used Cox regression to estimate associations between demographic characteristics, diagnoses, and prescribed medicines and having a medication review. We used linear regression to compare the number of medicines prescribed as repeat prescriptions in the three months before and after a medication review. Specifically, we compared the 'prescription count' - the maximum number of different medicines with overlapping prescriptions people had in each period.
RESULTS RESULTS
Of 591,726 people prescribed one or more medicines at baseline, 305,526 (51.6%) had a recorded medication review in 2019. Living in a care home (hazard ratio 1.51, 95% confidence interval 1.40-1.62), medication review in the previous year (1.83, 1.69-1.98), and baseline prescription count (e.g. 5-9 vs 1 medicine 1.41, 1.37-1.46) were strongly associated with having a medication review in 2019. Overall, the prescription count tended to increase after a review (mean change 0.13 medicines, 95% CI 0.12-0.14).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Although medication reviews were commonly recorded for people aged 65 years or over, there was little change overall in the numbers and types of medicines prescribed following a review. This study did not examine whether the prescriptions were appropriate or other metrics, such as dose or medicine changes within the same class. However, by examining the impact of medication reviews before the introduction of structured medication review requirements in England in 2020, it provides a useful benchmark which these new reviews can be compared with.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37442984
doi: 10.1186/s12877-023-04143-2
pii: 10.1186/s12877-023-04143-2
pmc: PMC10347807
doi:

Types de publication

Observational Study Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

435

Subventions

Organisme : NIHR School for Primary Care Research
ID : 587
Organisme : NIHR School for Primary Care Research
ID : 587
Organisme : NIHR School for Primary Care Research
ID : 587
Organisme : NIHR School for Primary Care Research
ID : 587
Organisme : NIHR School for Primary Care Research
ID : 587
Organisme : NIHR School for Primary Care Research
ID : 587
Organisme : NIHR School for Primary Care Research
ID : 587
Organisme : NIHR School for Primary Care Research
ID : 587
Organisme : NIHR School for Primary Care Research
ID : 587
Organisme : NIHR School for Primary Care Research
ID : 587
Organisme : NIHR School for Primary Care Research
ID : 587
Organisme : NIHR School for Primary Care Research
ID : 587
Organisme : NIHR School for Primary Care Research
ID : 587
Organisme : NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre
ID : PSTRC-2016-003
Organisme : NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre
ID : PSTRC-2016-003

Informations de copyright

© 2023. The Author(s).

Références

PLoS One. 2014 Jun 18;9(6):e99825
pubmed: 24941260
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2018 Sep - Oct;78:213-220
pubmed: 30015057
Br J Gen Pract. 2019 Mar;69(680):e190-e198
pubmed: 30745357
Int J Epidemiol. 2015 Jun;44(3):827-36
pubmed: 26050254
BMC Prim Care. 2022 Nov 22;23(1):293
pubmed: 36418986
Br J Gen Pract. 2023 Feb 23;73(728):e211-e219
pubmed: 36823047
PLoS One. 2019 Feb 12;14(2):e0212046
pubmed: 30753214
Scand J Prim Health Care. 2021 Dec;39(4):419-428
pubmed: 34549673
BMC Fam Pract. 2017 Jan 17;18(1):5
pubmed: 28095780
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019 Dec 1;26(12):1545-1559
pubmed: 31329239
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2022 Oct;31(10):1056-1074
pubmed: 35780391
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2021 Sep;75(9):854-859
pubmed: 33500324
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2022 Jul;88(7):3360-3369
pubmed: 35184324
PLoS Med. 2022 Jan 5;19(1):e1003862
pubmed: 34986166
Medicine (Baltimore). 2021 Dec 3;100(48):e28023
pubmed: 35049214
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2020 Feb;21(2):181-187
pubmed: 31926797
BMJ Open. 2020 Sep 6;10(9):e036158
pubmed: 32895268
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2018 Jul;27(7):781-788
pubmed: 29667263

Auteurs

Rebecca M Joseph (RM)

Centre for Academic Primary Care, Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
National Institute for Health and Care Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.

Roger D Knaggs (RD)

School of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Carol A C Coupland (CAC)

Centre for Academic Primary Care, Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
National Institute for Health and Care Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.

Amelia Taylor (A)

Centre for Academic Primary Care, Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Yana Vinogradova (Y)

Centre for Academic Primary Care, Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Debbie Butler (D)

National Institute for Health and Care Research MindTech MedTech Co-operative, The Institute of Mental Health, Mental Health and Clinical Neurosciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Louisa Gerrard (L)

National Institute for Health and Care Research MindTech MedTech Co-operative, The Institute of Mental Health, Mental Health and Clinical Neurosciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

David Waldram (D)

National Institute for Health and Care Research MindTech MedTech Co-operative, The Institute of Mental Health, Mental Health and Clinical Neurosciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Barbara Iyen (B)

Centre for Academic Primary Care, Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Ralph K Akyea (RK)

Centre for Academic Primary Care, Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Darren M Ashcroft (DM)

Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Anthony J Avery (AJ)

Centre for Academic Primary Care, Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
National Institute for Health and Care Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Ruth H Jack (RH)

Centre for Academic Primary Care, Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. ruth.jack@nottingham.ac.uk.
National Institute for Health and Care Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK. ruth.jack@nottingham.ac.uk.

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