Loading…

Impact of Computer‐Based and Pharmacist‐Assisted Medication Review Initiated in the Emergency Department

OBJECTIVES Whether early medication reconciliation and integration can reduce polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) in the emergency department (ED) remains unclear. Polypharmacy and PIM have been recognized as significant causes of adverse drug events in older adults. Therefor...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (JAGS) 2019-11, Vol.67 (11), p.2298-2304
Main Authors: Liu, Ying‐Ling, Chu, Li‐Ling, Su, Hui‐Chen, Tsai, Kang‐Ting, Kao, Pei‐Hsin, Chen, Jung‐Fang, Hsieh, Hsing‐Chun, Lin, Hung‐Jung, Hsu, Chien‐Chin, Huang, Chien‐Cheng
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:OBJECTIVES Whether early medication reconciliation and integration can reduce polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) in the emergency department (ED) remains unclear. Polypharmacy and PIM have been recognized as significant causes of adverse drug events in older adults. Therefore, this pilot study was conducted to delineate this issue. DESIGN An interventional study. SETTING A medical center in Taiwan. PARTICIPANTS Older ED patients (aged ≥65 years) awaiting hospitalization between December 1, 2017, and October 31, 2018 were recruited in this study. A multidisciplinary team and a computer‐based and pharmacist‐assisted medication reconciliation and integration system were implemented. MEASUREMENTS The reduced proportions of major polypharmacy (≥10 medications) and PIM at hospital discharge were compared with those on admission to the ED between pre‐ and post‐intervention periods. RESULTS A total of 911 patients (pre‐intervention = 243 vs post‐intervention = 668) were recruited. The proportions of major polypharmacy and PIM were lower in the post‐intervention than in the pre‐intervention period (−79.4% vs −65.3%; P 
ISSN:0002-8614
1532-5415
DOI:10.1111/jgs.16078