Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Feb 12;2:CD009095. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009095.pub3.

Interventions to optimise prescribing for older people in care homes.

Author information

1
School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK, LS2 9JT.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

There is a substantial body of evidence that prescribing for care home residents is suboptimal and requires improvement. Consequently, there is a need to identify effective interventions to optimise prescribing and resident outcomes in this context. This is an update of a previously published review (Alldred 2013).

OBJECTIVES:

The objective of the review was to determine the effect of interventions to optimise overall prescribing for older people living in care homes.

SEARCH METHODS:

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Specialised Register), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL to May 2015. We also searched clinical trial registries for relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

We included randomised controlled trials evaluating interventions aimed at optimising prescribing for older people (aged 65 years or older) living in institutionalised care facilities. Studies were included if they measured one or more of the following primary outcomes: adverse drug events; hospital admissions; mortality; or secondary outcomes, quality of life (using validated instrument); medication-related problems; medication appropriateness (using validated instrument); medicine costs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We presented a narrative summary of results.

MAIN RESULTS:

The 12 included studies involved 10,953 residents in 355 (range 1 to 85) care homes in ten countries. Nine studies were cluster-randomised controlled trials and three studies were patient-randomised controlled trials. The interventions evaluated were diverse and often multifaceted. Medication review was a component of ten studies. Four studies involved multidisciplinary case-conferencing, five studies involved an educational element for health and care professionals and one study evaluated the use of clinical decision support technology. We did not combine the results in a meta-analysis due to heterogeneity across studies. Interventions to optimise prescribing may lead to fewer days in hospital (one study out of eight; low certainty evidence), a slower decline in health-related quality of life (one study out of two; low certainty evidence), the identification and resolution of medication-related problems (seven studies; low certainty evidence), and may lead to improved medication appropriateness (five studies out of five studies; low certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether the intervention improves/reduces medicine costs (five studies; very low certainty evidence) and it may make little or no difference on adverse drug events (two studies; low certainty evidence) or mortality (six studies; low certainty evidence). The risk of bias across studies was heterogeneous.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

We could not draw robust conclusions from the evidence due to variability in design, interventions, outcomes and results. The interventions implemented in the studies in this review led to the identification and resolution of medication-related problems and improvements in medication appropriateness, however evidence of a consistent effect on resident-related outcomes was not found. There is a need for high-quality cluster-randomised controlled trials testing clinical decision support systems and multidisciplinary interventions that measure well-defined, important resident-related outcomes.

PMID:
26866421
DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD009095.pub3
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wiley Icon for White Rose Research Online
Loading ...
Support Center