4.7 Review

Interventions to optimise prescribing in care homes: systematic review

期刊

AGE AND AGEING
卷 40, 期 2, 页码 150-162

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afq161

关键词

systematic review; nursing home; inappropriate prescribing; intervention trial; pharmacist; multi-disciplinary; elderly

资金

  1. Government of Malaysia
  2. London Deanery
  3. NIHR
  4. Dr Foster Intelligence
  5. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Method: databases searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts and the Cochrane Library from 1990. Search terms included were 'nursing home', 'residential home', 'inappropriate prescribing', 'education' and 'intervention'. Two independent reviewers undertook screening and methodological quality assessment, using the Downs and Black rating scale. Results: the search strategy retrieved 16 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Four intervention strategies were identified: staff education, multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meetings, pharmacist medication reviews and computerised clinical decision support systems (CDSSs). Complex educational programmes that focused on improving patients' behavioural management and drug prescribing were the most studied area, with six of eight studies highlighting an improvement in prescribing. Mixed results were found for pharmacist interventions. CDSSs were evaluated in two studies, with one showing a significant improvement in appropriate drug orders. Two of three studies examining MDT meetings found an overall improvement in appropriate prescribing. A meta-analysis could not be performed due to heterogeneity in the outcome measures. Conclusion: results are mixed and there is no one interventional strategy that has proved to be effective. Nevertheless, education including academic detailing seems to show most promise. A multi-faceted approach and clearer policy guidelines are likely to be required to improve prescribing for these vulnerable 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

4.7
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