BackgroundInappropriate prescribing in Sri Lankan older adults, contributes to adverse drug events, hospital admissions and increased healthcare expenditure. Although international tools exist to assess prescribing appropriateness in older adults, their direct application in Sri Lanka is limited by differences in clinical practices, resource constraints and variability in medicine availability.ObjectiveWe aimed to develop and validate country-specific prescription appropriateness criteria for Sri Lankan older adults, focusing on prevalent diseases.MethodsA literature review was conducted to develop a preliminary list of criteria, which was scrutinised by three internal reviewers. The criteria were then validated using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM). A multidisciplinary Sri Lankan panel (medical specialists, hospital pharmacists and pharmacy academics) completed three rounds of ratings involving 15, 11 and 7 panellists, respectively.ResultsThe preliminary list contained 38 criteria; all were rated appropriate in round one, with clarity amendments suggested for seven criteria. Two additional criteria were proposed and accepted, producing a final set of 40 criteria. The criteria most frequently addressed medicines used for cardiovascular disease and diabetes mellitus, with additional focus on pain, musculoskeletal and bone health, asthma and neuropsychiatric disorders. Criteria not commonly included in international tools covered gabapentinoid prescribing for pain with renal dose adjustment, corticosteroid-associated glycaemic monitoring with antihyperglycaemic dose adjustment and blood monitoring requirements for methotrexate therapy.ConclusionsThese criteria provide a context-specific framework to support safer prescribing for older adults in Sri Lanka. Their integration into clinical practice and pharmacist-led medication reviews could reduce medication-related problems and improve outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medicine use is common in older people, resulting in harm increased by lack of patient-centred care. Hospital clinical pharmacy services may reduce such harm, particularly prevalent at transitions of care. An implementation program to achieve such services can be a complex long-term process.OBJECTIVES:To describe an implementation program and discuss its application in the development of a patient-centred discharge medicine review service; to assess service impact on older patients and their caregivers.METHOD:An implementation program was begun in 2006. To assess program effectiveness, 100 patients were recruited for follow-up after discharge from a private hospital between July 2019 and March 2020. There were no exclusion criteria other than age less than 65 years. Medicine review and education were provided for each patient/caregiver by a clinical pharmacist, including recommendations for future management, written in lay language. Patients were asked to consult their general practitioner to discuss those recommendations important to them. Patients were followed-up after discharge.RESULTS:Of 368 recommendations made, 351 (95%) were actioned by patients, resulting in 284 (77% of those actioned) being implemented, and 206 regularly taken medicines (19.7 % of all regular medicines) deprescribed.CONCLUSION:Implementation of a patient-centred medicine review discharge service resulted in patient-reported reduction in potentially inappropriate medicine use and hospital funding of this service. This study was registered retrospectively on 12th July 2022 with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21156862, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN21156862 .

IntroductionMinimal trauma fractures (MTFs) often occur in older patients with osteoporosis and may be precipitated by falls risk-increasing drugs. One category of falls risk-increasing drugs of concern are those with sedative/anticholinergic properties. Collaborative medication management services such as Australia’s Home Medicine Review (HMR) can reduce patients’ intake of sedative/anticholinergics and improve continuity of care. This paper describes a protocol for an randomised controlled trial to determine the efficacy of an HMR service for patients who have sustained MTF.Method and analysisEligible participants are as follows: ≥65 years of age, using ≥5 medicines including at least one falls risk-increasing drug, who have sustained an MTF and under treatment in one of eight Osteoporosis Refracture Prevention clinics in Australia. Consenting participants will be randomised to control (standard care) or intervention groups. For the intervention group, medical specialists will refer to a pharmacist for HMR focused on reducing falls risk predominately through making recommendations to reduce falls risk medicines, and adherence to antiosteoporosis medicines. Twelve months from treatment allocation, comparisons between groups will be made. The main outcome measure is participants’ cumulative exposure to sedative and anticholinergics, using the Drug Burden Index. Secondary outcomes include medication adherence, emergency department visits, hospitalisations, falls and mortality. Economic evaluation will compare the intervention strategy with standard care.Ethics and disseminationApproval was obtained via the New South Wales Research Ethics and Governance Information System (approval number: 2021/ETH12003) with site-specific approvals granted through Human Research Ethics Committees for each research site. Study outcomes will be published in peer-reviewed journals. It will provide robust insight into effectiveness of a pharmacist-based intervention on medicine-related falls risk for patients with osteoporosis. We anticipate that this study will take 2 years to fully accrue including follow-up.Trial registration numberACTRN12622000261718.

Background: More than 20 different types of classification systems for drug-related problems (DRPs) and their causes have been developed. Classification is necessary to describe and assess clinical, organizational, and economic impacts of DRPs through documentation of collected data. However, many researchers have judged classification systems incomplete when describing their data, and have modified them or developed their own. This variability between systems has made study comparisons difficult. Objectives: To perform a category-by-category comparison of the content of selected DRP classification systems to construct an aggregated cause-of-DRP classification system containing the content of all systems. Method: DRP classification systems were identified after a literature review, with 7 chosen based on their use in varied health care settings, geographical diversity, frequency of use, and method of development. These systems were critically analyzed, and the content of each category was compared and aggregated where appropriate. A hierarchy of categories was constructed to include all content from all systems. Any modifications that previous studies may have made to the 7 systems were also cross-referenced to ensure that no concepts were missing from the newly aggregated system. Clinical examples to optimize application, and instructions for when or when not to use categories, were developed. Interrater agreement for classification of the causes of DRPs from 10 medication reviews was performed between 3 clinical pharmacists and the authors’ gold standard. Results: We found variation in developmental methods, category descriptions, number and types of categories, and validation methods between the 7 selected systems, together with intermingling of categories identified as causes of DRPs with DRPs themselves. A hierarchical classification system was constructed consisting of 9 cause-of-DRP categories, 33 subcategories, and 58 sub-subcategories, for which interrater agreements were 82.5%, 74.6%, and 58.8%, respectively. Conclusion: An aggregated classification system was constructed through a unique and transparent developmental process that may provide the most comprehensive description of causes of DRPs to date. This may facilitate teaching of pharmaceutical care, comparisons of clinical practice, and measurement of the effectiveness of pharmaceutical care interventions.

Background Older people are at increased risk of drug-related problems (DRPs) caused by inappropriate use or underuse of medications which may be increased during care transitions. Objective To examine the effects of applying a validated prescribing appropriateness criteria-set during medication review in a cohort of older (≥65 years) Australians at the time of discharge from hospital. Setting Private hospital and homes of older patients in Sydney, Australia. Methods Cognitively well English speaking patients aged 65 years or over taking five or more medications were recruited. A prescribing appropriateness criteria-set and SF-36 health-related quality of life health (HRQoL) survey were applied to all patients at discharge. Patients were then randomly assigned to receive either usual care (control, n = 91) or discharge medication counselling and a medication review by a clinical pharmacist (intervention, n = 92). Medication review recommendations were sent to the general practitioners of intervention group patients. All patients were followed up at 3 months post discharge, where the prescribing appropriateness criteria-set was reapplied and HRQoL survey repeated. Main outcome measures change in the number of prescribing appropriateness criteria met; change in HRQoL; number and causes of DRPS identified by medication review; intervention patient medication recommendation implementation rates. Results There was no significant difference in the number of criteria applicable and met in intervention patients, compared to control patients, between follow-up and discharge (0.09 ≤ p ≤ 0.97). While the difference between groups was positive at follow-up for SF-36 scores, the only domain that reached statistical significance was that for vitality ( p = 0.04). Eighty-eight intervention patient medication reviews identified 750 causes of DRPs (8.5 ± 2.7 per patient). No causes of DRPs were identified in four patients. Of these causes, 76.4 % (573/750) were identified by application of the prescribing appropriateness criteria-set. GPs implemented a relatively low number (42.4 %, 318/750) of recommendations. Conclusion Application of a prescribing appropriateness criteria-set during medication review in intervention patients did not increase the number of criteria met, nor result in a significant improvement in HRQoL. Higher recommendation implementation rates may require additional facilitators, including a higher quality of collaboration.

To evaluate pharmacist-encountered medication-related problems (MRPs) among the participants of the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE).This was a retrospective analysis of proprietary pharmacy records detailing pharmacist encounters with PACE clinical staff.A national provider of pharmacy services to more than 75 PACE organizations. In total, 1057 PACE participants at 69 PACE sites across the United States with documented pharmacist encounters between March and May 2018.MRPs were classified using the Hepler-Strand taxonomy, and pharmacists’ recommendations made to prescribers to resolve these MRPs were classified using a modified Hoth taxonomy. In addition, pharmacists’ communication methods and prescribers’ responses were analyzed.Overall, 2004 MRPs were encountered. The most frequent MRPs identified were related to medication safety concerns, including drug interactions (720, 35.9%), adverse drug reactions (ADRs, 356, 17.8%), high doses (270, 13.5%), and unindicated drugs (252, 12.6%). Drug interactions frequently involved competitive inhibition, 3 or more drugs, opioids, anticoagulants, antiplatelets, and antidepressants. Deprescribe medication (561, 24.8%), start alternative therapy (553, 24.4%), change doses (457, 20.2%), and monitor (243, 10.7%) were the top 4 types of recommendations made by pharmacists. Among 1730 responses obtained from PACE prescribers, 78.1% (n = 1351) of pharmacists’ recommendations were accepted. Compared with electronic communication, telephonic communication was associated with more acceptance and less prescriber nonresponse (χ2 = 78.5, P < 0.001).Pharmacists identified a substantial number of MRPs in PACE, especially those related to medication safety such as drug interactions and ADRs. In this practice setting, significant collaboration occured between pharmacists and PACE prescribers, as evidenced by the rate of prescribers’ acceptance of pharmacists’ recommendations. Further research is needed to fully evaluate the economic, clinical, and humanistic outcomes associated with pharmacists’ encounters in PACE.

For over 20 years, researchers wanting to record, discuss and compare drug-related problems (DRPs) have had the task of choosing between a multiplicity of classification systems offering a variable number of categories identified as causes of DRPs and DRPs.

General practitioners manage complex medicine regimens and multiple comorbidities in older people. While medicine use usually leads to benefits for older people, the process of prescribing medicines is becoming increasingly complex. The quality use of medicines (QUM) is one of the four central objectives of Australia's National Medicines Policy. The National Strategy for the Quality Use of Medicines, launched in 2002, outlines key approaches and principles to achieve QUM.

OBJECTIVE:To further develop and validate previously published national prescribing appropriateness criteria to assist in identifying drug-related problems (DRPs) for commonly occurring medications and medical conditions in older (≥65 years old) Australians. DESIGN:RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. PARTICIPANTS:A panel of medication management experts were identified consisting of geriatricians/pharmacologists, clinical pharmacists and disease management advisors to organisations that produce Australian evidence-based therapeutic publications. This resulted in a round-one panel of 15 members, and a round-two panel of 12 members. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:Agreement on all criteria. RESULTS:Forty-eight prescribing criteria were rated. In the first rating round via email, there was disagreement regarding 17 of the criteria according to median panel ratings. During a face-to-face second round meeting, discussion resulted in retention of 25 criteria after amendments, agreement for 14 criteria with no changes required and deletion of 9 criteria. Two new criteria were added, resulting in a final validated list of 41 prescribing appropriateness criteria. Agreement after round two was reached for all 41 criteria, measured by median panel ratings and the amount of dispersion of panel ratings, based on the interpercentile range. CONCLUSIONS:A set of 41 Australian prescribing appropriateness criteria were validated by an expert panel. Use of these criteria, together with clinical judgement and other medication review processes such as patient interview, is intended to assist in improving patient care by efficiently detecting potential DRPs related to commonly occurring medicines and medical conditions in older Australians. These criteria may also contribute to the medication management education of healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVE:Drug-related problems (DRPs) are common in older people, resulting in a disproportionate number of serious medication adverse events. Pharmacist-led interventions have been shown to be effective in identifying and reducing DRPs such as medication interactions, omission of recommended medications and use of ineffective medications. In 2008 we proposed a prescribing indicators tool to assist in identifying DRPs as part of the Australian medication review process. The objective was to apply the proposed prescribing indicators tool to a cohort of older Australians, to assess its use in detecting potential DRPs.METHODS:The prescribing indicators tool was applied in a cross-sectional observational study to 126 older (aged ≥65 years) English-speaking Australians taking five or more medications, as they were being discharged from a small private hospital into the community. Indicators were unmet when prescribing did not adhere to indicator tool guidelines.KEY FINDINGS:We found a high incidence of under-treatment, and use of inappropriate medications. There were on average 18 applicable indicators per patient, with each patient having on average seven unmet indicators.CONCLUSION:The use of a prescribing indicators tool for commonly used medications and common medical conditions in older Australians may contribute to the efficient identification of DRPs.

BACKGROUND:Evidence-practice gaps, adverse medication-related incidents and unplanned medical admissions to hospital are common in elderly Australians. Many prescribing indicator tools designed to address some of these problems have been reported in the literature, the most common of which is the Beers list of inappropriate medications in the elderly. However, many of these tools are not appropriate for the Australian healthcare environment without modification and validation, and there appears to be a need for a tool based on Australian data.OBJECTIVE:To develop a list of prescribing indicators for elderly (aged >65 years) Australians based on the most frequent medications prescribed to Australians, and the most frequent medical conditions for which elderly Australians consult medical practitioners.METHOD:The most common reasons for elderly Australians to seek or receive healthcare were cross-referenced with the 50 highest-volume Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme medications prescribed to Australians in 2006 to develop prescribing indicators in the elderly using Australian medication and medical condition information resources.RESULTS:Forty-eight prescribing indicators were identified, consisting mainly of optimum as well as inappropriate medication choices for a large number of common medical conditions in the elderly.CONCLUSION:A prescribing indicators tool was developed. This tool is envisaged as forming an important part of the medication review process, which is aimed at addressing the common problem of adverse medication-related events in elderly Australians.