The Australian Team Approach to Polypharmacy Evaluation and Reduction (AusTAPER) hospital study: effect of a collaborative medication review on the number of current regular medicines for older hospital inpatients.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Internal Medicine Journal Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-29 DOI:10.1111/imj.16510
Christopher Etherton-Beer, Amy Page, Deirdre Criddle, George Somers, Lynne Parkinson, Rhonda Clifford, Dee Mangin
{"title":"The Australian Team Approach to Polypharmacy Evaluation and Reduction (AusTAPER) hospital study: effect of a collaborative medication review on the number of current regular medicines for older hospital inpatients.","authors":"Christopher Etherton-Beer, Amy Page, Deirdre Criddle, George Somers, Lynne Parkinson, Rhonda Clifford, Dee Mangin","doi":"10.1111/imj.16510","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Potentially harmful polypharmacy is a growing public health concern. This article aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a structured Team Approach to Polypharmacy Evaluation and Reduction (AusTAPER) framework.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We recruited patients at metropolitan hospitals for a randomised controlled trial with 12 months of follow-up. The intervention included a comprehensive medicines history, multidisciplinary meeting and medicines review prior to discharge, with engagement with the participants' general practitioner extending after discharge. The primary outcome was the change in the number of regular medicines used at 12 months from baseline. A cost consequence was performed to estimate costs per participant during the study period.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 98 participants enrolled in the study. The number of regular medicines was significantly reduced from baseline in both groups (-1.7 ± 4.3, t = 2.38, P = 0.02 in the control group vs -2.7 ± 3.6, t = 4.48, P = 0.0001 in the intervention group), although there was no statistical difference detected between the two groups (1.0 (SE 0.9), t = 1.03, P = 0.31). The intervention was estimated to cost AU$644.17 and was associated with cost savings of AU$552.53 per participant in sustained reduced medicines cost. Health outcomes and healthcare costs were similar in both groups.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Medicines were significantly reduced in both groups, with a trend to a larger reduction in medicines at 12 months in the intervention group. The intervention cost was approximately offset by sustained reduced medicines cost, although these results should be regarded cautiously because of the absence of significance in the differences in outcomes between groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":13625,"journal":{"name":"Internal Medicine Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internal Medicine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.16510","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: Potentially harmful polypharmacy is a growing public health concern. This article aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a structured Team Approach to Polypharmacy Evaluation and Reduction (AusTAPER) framework.

Methods: We recruited patients at metropolitan hospitals for a randomised controlled trial with 12 months of follow-up. The intervention included a comprehensive medicines history, multidisciplinary meeting and medicines review prior to discharge, with engagement with the participants' general practitioner extending after discharge. The primary outcome was the change in the number of regular medicines used at 12 months from baseline. A cost consequence was performed to estimate costs per participant during the study period.

Results: There were 98 participants enrolled in the study. The number of regular medicines was significantly reduced from baseline in both groups (-1.7 ± 4.3, t = 2.38, P = 0.02 in the control group vs -2.7 ± 3.6, t = 4.48, P = 0.0001 in the intervention group), although there was no statistical difference detected between the two groups (1.0 (SE 0.9), t = 1.03, P = 0.31). The intervention was estimated to cost AU$644.17 and was associated with cost savings of AU$552.53 per participant in sustained reduced medicines cost. Health outcomes and healthcare costs were similar in both groups.

Discussion: Medicines were significantly reduced in both groups, with a trend to a larger reduction in medicines at 12 months in the intervention group. The intervention cost was approximately offset by sustained reduced medicines cost, although these results should be regarded cautiously because of the absence of significance in the differences in outcomes between groups.

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
澳大利亚多药评估与减少团队方法(AusTAPER)医院研究:合作用药审查对老年住院患者当前常规药物数量的影响。
背景和目的:潜在有害的多药滥用是一个日益严重的公共卫生问题。本文旨在评估结构化团队评估和减少多种药物使用方法(AusTAPER)框架的有效性:方法:我们在大都市医院招募患者,进行为期 12 个月的随机对照试验。干预措施包括出院前的全面用药史、多学科会议和用药审查,出院后与参与者的全科医生保持联系。主要结果是 12 个月后常规用药数量与基线相比的变化。研究还对每位参与者在研究期间的成本进行了估算:结果:共有 98 人参加了这项研究。与基线相比,两组的常规用药量均有显著减少(对照组为-1.7 ± 4.3,t = 2.38,P = 0.02;干预组为-2.7 ± 3.6,t = 4.48,P = 0.0001),但两组之间未发现统计学差异(1.0 (SE 0.9),t = 1.03,P = 0.31)。据估计,干预措施的成本为 644.17 澳元,每位参与者在持续降低药品成本方面可节省 552.53 澳元。两组的健康结果和医疗成本相似:讨论:两组患者的用药量均有明显减少,干预组在 12 个月内的用药量减少幅度更大。干预成本大约被持续减少的药品成本所抵消,但由于组间结果差异不明显,因此应谨慎看待这些结果。
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
Internal Medicine Journal
Internal Medicine Journal 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
600
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Internal Medicine Journal is the official journal of the Adult Medicine Division of The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP). Its purpose is to publish high-quality internationally competitive peer-reviewed original medical research, both laboratory and clinical, relating to the study and research of human disease. Papers will be considered from all areas of medical practice and science. The Journal also has a major role in continuing medical education and publishes review articles relevant to physician education.
期刊最新文献
Early coronary angiography in NSTEMI: a regional Victorian perspective. Real-world experience of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with solid tumours in the Top End of the Northern Territory, Australia from 2016 to 2021: a retrospective observational cohort study. Impact of hospital-administered extended-release naltrexone on readmission rates for patients with alcohol use disorder. The impact of obesity on body surface area adjusted estimated glomerular filtration rate in patients with chronic kidney disease. Recent temporal trends, characteristics and outcomes of patients with non-COVID-19 community-acquired pneumonia at two tertiary hospitals in Australia: an observational study.
×
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