Abstract
Abstract
Background
Hip fracture patients face a patient safety threat due to medication discrepancies and adverse drug reactions when they have a combination of high age, polypharmacy and several care transitions. Consequently, optimised pharmacotherapy through medication reviews and seamless communication of medication information between care settings is necessary. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the impact on medication management and pharmacotherapy. The secondary aim was to evaluate implementation of the novel Patient Pathway Pharmacist intervention for hip fracture patients.
Methods
Hip fracture patients were included in this nonrandomised controlled trial, comparing a prospective intervention group (n = 58) with pre-intervention controls who received standard care (n = 50). The Patient Pathway Pharmacist intervention consisted of the steps: (A) medication reconciliation at admission to hospital, (B) medication review during hospitalisation, (C) recommendation for the medication information in the hospital discharge summary, (D) medication reconciliation at admission to rehabilitation, and (E) medication reconciliation and (F) review after hospital discharge. The primary outcome measure was quality score of the medication information in the discharge summary (range 0–14). Secondary outcomes were potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) at discharge, proportion receiving pharmacotherapy according to guidelines (e.g. prophylactic laxatives and osteoporosis pharmacotherapy), and all-cause readmission and mortality.
Results
The quality score of the discharge summaries was significantly higher for the intervention patients (12.3 vs. 7.2, p < 0.001). The intervention group had significantly less PIMs at discharge (− 0.44 (95% confidence interval − 0.72, − 0.15), p = 0.003), and a higher proportion received prophylactic laxative (72 vs. 35%, p < 0.001) and osteoporosis pharmacotherapy (96 vs. 16%, p < 0.001). There were no differences in readmission or mortality 30 and 90 days post-discharge. The intervention steps were delivered to all patients (step A, B, E, F = 100% of patients), except step (C) medication information at discharge (86% of patients) and step (D) medication reconciliation at admission to rehabilitation (98% of patients).
Conclusion
The intervention steps were successfully implemented for hip fracture patients and contributed to patient safety through a higher quality medication information in the discharge summary, fewer PIMs and optimised pharmacotherapy.
Trial registration: NCT03695081.
Funder
Vestfold Hospital Trust, Norway
Hospital Pharmacies Enterprise, South Eastern Norway, Norway
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,Surgery
Reference87 articles.
1. Kjærvik C, Gjertsen J-E, Stensland E, Saltyte-Benth J, Soereide O. Modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors in hip fracture mortality in Norway, 2014 to 2018. Bone Joint J. 2022;104-B(7):884–93.
2. Sernbo I, Johnell O. Consequences of a hip fracture: a prospective study over 1 year. Osteoporos Int. 1993;3(3):148–53.
3. Wu A-M, Bisignano C, James SL, Abady GG, Abedi A, Abu-Gharbieh E, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of bone fractures in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2021;2(9):e580–92.
4. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Ageing 2019: Highlights. (ST/ESA/SER.A/430). [Internet] 2019; p. 5. Available from: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/ageing/WorldPopulationAgeing2019-Highlights.pdf. Accessed 11 Mar 2021.
5. Kannus P, Parkkari J, Sievänen H, Heinonen A, Vuori I, Järvinen M. Epidemiology of hip fractures. Bone. 1996;18(1):S57–63.