Hurkens K P G M, Mestres-Gonzalvo C, de Wit H A J M, van der Kuy P H M, Janknegt R, Verhey F, Schols J M G A, Stehouwer C D A, Winkens B, Mulder W
Kim P.G.M. Hurkens, Department of Internal Medicine, section of Geriatric Medicine, Academic Medical Centre, PO box 22660, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Email:
J Nutr Health Aging. 2016 Jan;20(1):71-6. doi: 10.1007/s12603-016-0678-1.
To establish the quality of medication reviews performed by nursing home physicians, general practitioners and pharmacists.
15 Pharmacists, 13 general practitioners and 18 nursing home physicians performed a medication review for three cases (A, B and C), at three evaluation moments. First, they received the medication list. Secondly, they also received laboratory results and reason for admission and finally, we added medical history. Remarks were divided into 6 categories, i.e. indication without medication, medication without indication, contraindications/ interactions, dosage problems, double medication and wrong medication. Remarks were compared to the remarks made by our expert panel and scored according to our grading model as appropriate (0 to +3) or missed or potentially harmful (-1). For each medication error category, the percentage of participants who made this error was computed.
After the first evaluation moment, the overall estimated mean percentage score was -1.7% for case A, 3.9% for case B, and 8.7% for case C. After the second review, this score was 15.0% for case A, 19.8% for case B, and 22.2% for case C. This further increased to 30.0% for case A, 36.7% for case B and 44% for case C at the final evaluation. The absence of medication where there was an indication (indication without medication) was frequently missed and did not improve after adding the extra information regarding laboratory results, reason for admission and finally medical history.
Increasing clinical information helps physicians and pharmacists to improve their medication reviews, however, additional information was still related with a high margin of error. Detection of certain errors becomes easier with additional information, whereas other errors remain undetected. To achieve a high standard of medication review, we have to change the way medication reviews should be performed.
评估疗养院医生、全科医生和药剂师所开展的用药评估质量。
15名药剂师、13名全科医生和18名疗养院医生针对三个病例(病例A、病例B和病例C)在三个评估阶段开展用药评估。首先,他们收到用药清单。其次,他们还收到实验室检查结果和入院原因,最后,我们补充了病史信息。评语分为6类,即有适应证但未用药、无适应证用药、禁忌证/相互作用、剂量问题、重复用药和用药错误。将评语与我们专家小组给出的评语进行比较,并根据我们的分级模型进行适当评分(0至 +3)或漏评或潜在有害(-1)。计算每种用药错误类型的参与者犯错百分比。
在第一个评估阶段后,病例A的总体估计平均百分比评分为 -1.7%,病例B为3.9%,病例C为8.7%。在第二次评估后,病例A的该评分为15.0%,病例B为19.8%,病例C为22.2%。在最终评估时,病例A进一步增至30.0%,病例B为36.7%,病例C为44%。有适应证但未用药的情况经常被漏评,在补充有关实验室检查结果、入院原因以及最终病史的额外信息后仍未改善。
增加临床信息有助于医生和药剂师改进他们的用药评估,然而,额外信息仍与高误差率相关。某些错误借助额外信息更容易被发现,而其他错误仍未被察觉。为达到高标准的用药评估,我们必须改变进行用药评估的方式。