4.3 Article

A medication review and deprescribing method for hospitalised older patients receiving multiple medications

期刊

INTERNAL MEDICINE JOURNAL
卷 46, 期 1, 页码 35-42

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/imj.12906

关键词

medication; review; older patient; deprescribing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundPrescribing of multiple medications in older patients poses risk of adverse drug events. AimTo determine whether a structured approach to deprescribing - identifying and discontinuing unnecessary medications - in the inpatient setting is feasible and reduces medication burden. MethodsProspective pilot study of a convenience sample of patients aged 65years admitted acutely to general medicine units in a tertiary hospital and receiving eight or more regular medications on presentation. The intervention comprised an education programme and a paper-based or computerised proforma listing clinical and medication data linked with a five-step decision support tool for selecting drugs eligible for discontinuation, which were then ceased or were being weaned by the time of discharge. ResultsAmong 50 patients of median age 82.5years and six co-morbidities, 186 of 542 (34.3%) regular medications were discontinued, representing a significant decrease in the median (interquartile range) number of medications per patient at discharge compared with presentation (7 (5-9) vs 10 (9-12), P<0.001). Medication lists were reduced by at least two medications in 84% of patients, and by four or more in 50%. Statins, gastric acid suppressive agents, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor antagonists and inhaled bronchodilators were the most frequently ceased medications. Of 39 patients in whom follow-up status at a median of 78days was ascertained, only 5 of 413 (1.2%) ceased medications were recommenced among three patients because of symptom relapse. ConclusionA standardised method of medication review and deprescribing may significantly reduce medication burden in a cohort of older hospitalised patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据