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.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Manon Van Damme for her contribution in the data collection and all participating GPs and head nurses employed in the nursing home.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.