Developing indicators for medication-related readmissions based on a Delphi consensus study

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy Pub Date : 2024-02-27 DOI:10.1016/j.sapharm.2024.02.012
Nicole Schönenberger , Anne-Laure Blanc , Balthasar L. Hug , Manuel Haschke , Aljoscha N. Goetschi , Ursina Wernli , Carla Meyer-Massetti
{"title":"Developing indicators for medication-related readmissions based on a Delphi consensus study","authors":"Nicole Schönenberger ,&nbsp;Anne-Laure Blanc ,&nbsp;Balthasar L. Hug ,&nbsp;Manuel Haschke ,&nbsp;Aljoscha N. Goetschi ,&nbsp;Ursina Wernli ,&nbsp;Carla Meyer-Massetti","doi":"10.1016/j.sapharm.2024.02.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Medication-related readmissions challenge healthcare systems by burdening patients, increasing costs and straining resources. However, to date, there has been no consensus study on indicators for medication-related readmissions.</p></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>This Delphi study aimed to develop a consensus-based set of indicators for detecting patients at risk of medication-related readmission.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>An expert panel of clinical pharmacists, physicians and nursing experts participated in a two-round Delphi study. In round 1, 31 indicators taken from the literature were rated for relevance on a scale from 1 to 9, with a median rating of 7 or higher suggesting relevance. The RAND/UCLA method was used to determine consensus. In round 2, indicators lacking consensus were re-rated together with a series of new indicators generated by the experts. Additional details were sought for some indicators. The main outcomes were the relevance of, consensus on, and completeness of the proposed indicators for identifying risks of 30-day medication-related readmission.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Thirty-eight experts participated in round 1. Consensus was found for all the indicators, with 25 included and 6 excluded. Thirty-four experts participated in round 2. Consensus was found for all 5 newly suggested indicators, and 4 were included. The expert panel prioritized the following indicators: (1) insufficient communication between different healthcare providers, (2) polypharmacy (≥7 medications), (3) low rates of medication adherence (twice-weekly mistakes or missing administration), (4) complex medication regimens (≥3 doses, ≥2 dosage forms and ≥2 administration routes per day), and (5) multimorbidity (≥3 chronic conditions). The final set comprised 29 indicators.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The indicator set developed for flagging potential medication-related readmissions could guide priorities for clinical pharmacy services at hospital discharge, improving patient outcomes and resource use. A validation study of these indicators is planned.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48126,"journal":{"name":"Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1551741124000597/pdfft?md5=e843020a0475113f062a1de4c49ef543&pid=1-s2.0-S1551741124000597-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1551741124000597","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Medication-related readmissions challenge healthcare systems by burdening patients, increasing costs and straining resources. However, to date, there has been no consensus study on indicators for medication-related readmissions.

Objectives

This Delphi study aimed to develop a consensus-based set of indicators for detecting patients at risk of medication-related readmission.

Methods

An expert panel of clinical pharmacists, physicians and nursing experts participated in a two-round Delphi study. In round 1, 31 indicators taken from the literature were rated for relevance on a scale from 1 to 9, with a median rating of 7 or higher suggesting relevance. The RAND/UCLA method was used to determine consensus. In round 2, indicators lacking consensus were re-rated together with a series of new indicators generated by the experts. Additional details were sought for some indicators. The main outcomes were the relevance of, consensus on, and completeness of the proposed indicators for identifying risks of 30-day medication-related readmission.

Results

Thirty-eight experts participated in round 1. Consensus was found for all the indicators, with 25 included and 6 excluded. Thirty-four experts participated in round 2. Consensus was found for all 5 newly suggested indicators, and 4 were included. The expert panel prioritized the following indicators: (1) insufficient communication between different healthcare providers, (2) polypharmacy (≥7 medications), (3) low rates of medication adherence (twice-weekly mistakes or missing administration), (4) complex medication regimens (≥3 doses, ≥2 dosage forms and ≥2 administration routes per day), and (5) multimorbidity (≥3 chronic conditions). The final set comprised 29 indicators.

Conclusions

The indicator set developed for flagging potential medication-related readmissions could guide priorities for clinical pharmacy services at hospital discharge, improving patient outcomes and resource use. A validation study of these indicators is planned.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
根据德尔菲共识研究制定药物相关再入院指标。
背景:与用药相关的再入院会给患者造成负担、增加成本并使资源紧张,从而对医疗保健系统构成挑战。然而,迄今为止,尚未就药物相关再入院指标达成共识:本德尔菲研究旨在制定一套基于共识的指标,用于检测有药物相关再入院风险的患者:由临床药剂师、医生和护理专家组成的专家小组参与了两轮德尔菲研究。在第一轮研究中,对文献中的 31 项指标进行了相关性评分,评分范围为 1 到 9 分,中位数为 7 分或更高,表明指标具有相关性。采用兰德/加州大学洛杉矶分校的方法来确定共识。在第 2 轮中,对未达成共识的指标进行了重新评级,同时专家们还提出了一系列新指标。对一些指标还要求提供更多细节。主要结果是建议的指标对识别 30 天用药相关再入院风险的相关性、共识性和完整性:38 位专家参加了第一轮讨论,并就所有指标达成共识,其中 25 项指标被纳入,6 项指标被排除。34 位专家参加了第二轮讨论。所有 5 项新建议的指标均已达成共识,其中 4 项被纳入。专家组对以下指标进行了优先排序:(1) 不同医疗服务提供者之间沟通不足;(2) 多重用药(≥7 种药物);(3) 用药依从性低(每周两次用药错误或缺失);(4) 用药方案复杂(每天≥3 种剂量、≥2 种剂型和≥2 种给药途径);(5) 多病(≥3 种慢性病)。最后一套指标包括 29 个指标:结论:为标记潜在的药物相关再入院而开发的指标集可指导出院时临床药学服务的优先次序,从而改善患者预后和资源使用。计划对这些指标进行验证研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy
Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
10.30%
发文量
225
审稿时长
47 days
期刊介绍: Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy (RSAP) is a quarterly publication featuring original scientific reports and comprehensive review articles in the social and administrative pharmaceutical sciences. Topics of interest include outcomes evaluation of products, programs, or services; pharmacoepidemiology; medication adherence; direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medications; disease state management; health systems reform; drug marketing; medication distribution systems such as e-prescribing; web-based pharmaceutical/medical services; drug commerce and re-importation; and health professions workforce issues.
期刊最新文献
The association between patient self-reported experiences with medication discharge counselling and hospital readmissions: A cross-sectional analysis of a population-based survey. Enhancing older Veterans' care: Insights from medication reviews and deprescribing interventions. Development and evaluation of a model to identify publications on the clinical impact of pharmacist interventions. A graphical model to make explicit pharmacist clinical reasoning during medication review. Developing and validating development goals towards transforming a global framework for pharmacy practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1