Medication in older patients reviewed multiple ways (MORE) study

Abstract Background Polypharmacy in older patients can lead to potentially inappropriate prescribing. The risk of the latter calls for effective medication review to ensure proper medication usage and safety. Objective Provide insight on the similarities and differences of medication review done in multiple ways that may lead to future possibilities to optimize medication review. Setting This study was conducted in Zuyderland Medical Centre, the second largest teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Method This descriptive study compares the quantity and content of remarks identified by medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System. The content of remarks is categorized in seven categories of possible pharmacotherapeutic problems: ‘indication without medication’, ‘medication without indication’, ‘contra-indication/interaction/side-effect’, ‘dosage problem’, ‘double medication’, ‘incorrect medication’ and ‘therapeutic drug monitoring’. Main outcome measure Number and content of remarks on medication review. Results The Clinical Decision Support System (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p < 0.001) and outpatient pharmacist (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p = 0.045) both noted remarks in significantly more categories than the geriatricians. The Clinical Decision Support System provided more remarks on ‘double medication’, ‘dosage problem’ and ‘contraindication/interaction/side effects’ than the geriatrician (p < 0.050), while the geriatrician did on ‘medication without indication’ (p < 0.001). The Clinical Decision Support System noted significantly more remarks on ‘contraindication/interaction/side effects’ and ‘therapeutic drug monitoring’ than the outpatient pharmacist, whereas the outpatient pharmacist reported more on ‘indication without medication’ and ‘medication without indication’ than the Clinical Decision Support System (p ≤ 0.007). Conclusion Medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System provides different insights and should be combined to create a more comprehensive report on medication profiles. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Zwietering, N. A. [verfasserIn] Westra, D. [verfasserIn] Winkens, B. [verfasserIn] Cremers, H. [verfasserIn] van der Kuy, P. H. M. [verfasserIn] Hurkens, K. P. [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2019

Schlagwörter:	Clinical Decision Support System Elderly Medication review Netherlands Potentially inappropriate prescribing

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: Pharmacy world & science - Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V., 1979, 41(2019), 5 vom: 13. Juli, Seite 1262-1271
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:41 ; year:2019 ; number:5 ; day:13 ; month:07 ; pages:1262-1271

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1007/s11096-019-00879-3

Katalog-ID:	SPR016613953

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	SPR016613953
003	DE-627
005	20230519160315.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	201006s2019 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1007/s11096-019-00879-3 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR016613953
035			\|a (SPR)s11096-019-00879-3-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
082	0	4	\|a 610 \|q ASE
084			\|a 44.40 \|2 bkl
100	1		\|a Zwietering, N. A. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Medication in older patients reviewed multiple ways (MORE) study
264		1	\|c 2019
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Abstract Background Polypharmacy in older patients can lead to potentially inappropriate prescribing. The risk of the latter calls for effective medication review to ensure proper medication usage and safety. Objective Provide insight on the similarities and differences of medication review done in multiple ways that may lead to future possibilities to optimize medication review. Setting This study was conducted in Zuyderland Medical Centre, the second largest teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Method This descriptive study compares the quantity and content of remarks identified by medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System. The content of remarks is categorized in seven categories of possible pharmacotherapeutic problems: ‘indication without medication’, ‘medication without indication’, ‘contra-indication/interaction/side-effect’, ‘dosage problem’, ‘double medication’, ‘incorrect medication’ and ‘therapeutic drug monitoring’. Main outcome measure Number and content of remarks on medication review. Results The Clinical Decision Support System (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p < 0.001) and outpatient pharmacist (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p = 0.045) both noted remarks in significantly more categories than the geriatricians. The Clinical Decision Support System provided more remarks on ‘double medication’, ‘dosage problem’ and ‘contraindication/interaction/side effects’ than the geriatrician (p < 0.050), while the geriatrician did on ‘medication without indication’ (p < 0.001). The Clinical Decision Support System noted significantly more remarks on ‘contraindication/interaction/side effects’ and ‘therapeutic drug monitoring’ than the outpatient pharmacist, whereas the outpatient pharmacist reported more on ‘indication without medication’ and ‘medication without indication’ than the Clinical Decision Support System (p ≤ 0.007). Conclusion Medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System provides different insights and should be combined to create a more comprehensive report on medication profiles.
650		4	\|a Clinical Decision Support System \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Elderly \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Medication review \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Netherlands \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Potentially inappropriate prescribing \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a Westra, D. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Winkens, B. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Cremers, H. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a van der Kuy, P. H. M. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Hurkens, K. P. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t Pharmacy world & science \|d Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V., 1979 \|g 41(2019), 5 vom: 13. Juli, Seite 1262-1271 \|w (DE-627)320474054 \|w (DE-600)2008911-9 \|x 1573-739X \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:41 \|g year:2019 \|g number:5 \|g day:13 \|g month:07 \|g pages:1262-1271
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-019-00879-3 \|z kostenfrei \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a SSG-OPC-PHA
912			\|a SSG-OPC-ASE
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_32
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_90
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_100
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_120
912			\|a GBV_ILN_138
912			\|a GBV_ILN_152
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_171
912			\|a GBV_ILN_187
912			\|a GBV_ILN_224
912			\|a GBV_ILN_250
912			\|a GBV_ILN_281
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_370
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_702
936	b	k	\|a 44.40 \|q ASE
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 41 \|j 2019 \|e 5 \|b 13 \|c 07 \|h 1262-1271

Indexfelder

author_variant	n a z na naz d w dw b w bw h c hc d k p h m v dkphm dkphmv k p h kp kph
matchkey_str	article:1573739X:2019----::eiainnleptetrveemli
hierarchy_sort_str	2019
bklnumber	44.40
publishDate	2019
allfields	10.1007/s11096-019-00879-3 doi (DE-627)SPR016613953 (SPR)s11096-019-00879-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE 44.40 bkl Zwietering, N. A. verfasserin aut Medication in older patients reviewed multiple ways (MORE) study 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Polypharmacy in older patients can lead to potentially inappropriate prescribing. The risk of the latter calls for effective medication review to ensure proper medication usage and safety. Objective Provide insight on the similarities and differences of medication review done in multiple ways that may lead to future possibilities to optimize medication review. Setting This study was conducted in Zuyderland Medical Centre, the second largest teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Method This descriptive study compares the quantity and content of remarks identified by medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System. The content of remarks is categorized in seven categories of possible pharmacotherapeutic problems: ‘indication without medication’, ‘medication without indication’, ‘contra-indication/interaction/side-effect’, ‘dosage problem’, ‘double medication’, ‘incorrect medication’ and ‘therapeutic drug monitoring’. Main outcome measure Number and content of remarks on medication review. Results The Clinical Decision Support System (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p < 0.001) and outpatient pharmacist (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p = 0.045) both noted remarks in significantly more categories than the geriatricians. The Clinical Decision Support System provided more remarks on ‘double medication’, ‘dosage problem’ and ‘contraindication/interaction/side effects’ than the geriatrician (p < 0.050), while the geriatrician did on ‘medication without indication’ (p < 0.001). The Clinical Decision Support System noted significantly more remarks on ‘contraindication/interaction/side effects’ and ‘therapeutic drug monitoring’ than the outpatient pharmacist, whereas the outpatient pharmacist reported more on ‘indication without medication’ and ‘medication without indication’ than the Clinical Decision Support System (p ≤ 0.007). Conclusion Medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System provides different insights and should be combined to create a more comprehensive report on medication profiles. Clinical Decision Support System (dpeaa)DE-He213 Elderly (dpeaa)DE-He213 Medication review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Netherlands (dpeaa)DE-He213 Potentially inappropriate prescribing (dpeaa)DE-He213 Westra, D. verfasserin aut Winkens, B. verfasserin aut Cremers, H. verfasserin aut van der Kuy, P. H. M. verfasserin aut Hurkens, K. P. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Pharmacy world & science Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V., 1979 41(2019), 5 vom: 13. Juli, Seite 1262-1271 (DE-627)320474054 (DE-600)2008911-9 1573-739X nnns volume:41 year:2019 number:5 day:13 month:07 pages:1262-1271 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-019-00879-3 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OPC-PHA SSG-OPC-ASE GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 44.40 ASE AR 41 2019 5 13 07 1262-1271
spelling	10.1007/s11096-019-00879-3 doi (DE-627)SPR016613953 (SPR)s11096-019-00879-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE 44.40 bkl Zwietering, N. A. verfasserin aut Medication in older patients reviewed multiple ways (MORE) study 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Polypharmacy in older patients can lead to potentially inappropriate prescribing. The risk of the latter calls for effective medication review to ensure proper medication usage and safety. Objective Provide insight on the similarities and differences of medication review done in multiple ways that may lead to future possibilities to optimize medication review. Setting This study was conducted in Zuyderland Medical Centre, the second largest teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Method This descriptive study compares the quantity and content of remarks identified by medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System. The content of remarks is categorized in seven categories of possible pharmacotherapeutic problems: ‘indication without medication’, ‘medication without indication’, ‘contra-indication/interaction/side-effect’, ‘dosage problem’, ‘double medication’, ‘incorrect medication’ and ‘therapeutic drug monitoring’. Main outcome measure Number and content of remarks on medication review. Results The Clinical Decision Support System (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p < 0.001) and outpatient pharmacist (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p = 0.045) both noted remarks in significantly more categories than the geriatricians. The Clinical Decision Support System provided more remarks on ‘double medication’, ‘dosage problem’ and ‘contraindication/interaction/side effects’ than the geriatrician (p < 0.050), while the geriatrician did on ‘medication without indication’ (p < 0.001). The Clinical Decision Support System noted significantly more remarks on ‘contraindication/interaction/side effects’ and ‘therapeutic drug monitoring’ than the outpatient pharmacist, whereas the outpatient pharmacist reported more on ‘indication without medication’ and ‘medication without indication’ than the Clinical Decision Support System (p ≤ 0.007). Conclusion Medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System provides different insights and should be combined to create a more comprehensive report on medication profiles. Clinical Decision Support System (dpeaa)DE-He213 Elderly (dpeaa)DE-He213 Medication review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Netherlands (dpeaa)DE-He213 Potentially inappropriate prescribing (dpeaa)DE-He213 Westra, D. verfasserin aut Winkens, B. verfasserin aut Cremers, H. verfasserin aut van der Kuy, P. H. M. verfasserin aut Hurkens, K. P. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Pharmacy world & science Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V., 1979 41(2019), 5 vom: 13. Juli, Seite 1262-1271 (DE-627)320474054 (DE-600)2008911-9 1573-739X nnns volume:41 year:2019 number:5 day:13 month:07 pages:1262-1271 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-019-00879-3 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OPC-PHA SSG-OPC-ASE GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 44.40 ASE AR 41 2019 5 13 07 1262-1271
allfields_unstemmed	10.1007/s11096-019-00879-3 doi (DE-627)SPR016613953 (SPR)s11096-019-00879-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE 44.40 bkl Zwietering, N. A. verfasserin aut Medication in older patients reviewed multiple ways (MORE) study 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Polypharmacy in older patients can lead to potentially inappropriate prescribing. The risk of the latter calls for effective medication review to ensure proper medication usage and safety. Objective Provide insight on the similarities and differences of medication review done in multiple ways that may lead to future possibilities to optimize medication review. Setting This study was conducted in Zuyderland Medical Centre, the second largest teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Method This descriptive study compares the quantity and content of remarks identified by medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System. The content of remarks is categorized in seven categories of possible pharmacotherapeutic problems: ‘indication without medication’, ‘medication without indication’, ‘contra-indication/interaction/side-effect’, ‘dosage problem’, ‘double medication’, ‘incorrect medication’ and ‘therapeutic drug monitoring’. Main outcome measure Number and content of remarks on medication review. Results The Clinical Decision Support System (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p < 0.001) and outpatient pharmacist (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p = 0.045) both noted remarks in significantly more categories than the geriatricians. The Clinical Decision Support System provided more remarks on ‘double medication’, ‘dosage problem’ and ‘contraindication/interaction/side effects’ than the geriatrician (p < 0.050), while the geriatrician did on ‘medication without indication’ (p < 0.001). The Clinical Decision Support System noted significantly more remarks on ‘contraindication/interaction/side effects’ and ‘therapeutic drug monitoring’ than the outpatient pharmacist, whereas the outpatient pharmacist reported more on ‘indication without medication’ and ‘medication without indication’ than the Clinical Decision Support System (p ≤ 0.007). Conclusion Medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System provides different insights and should be combined to create a more comprehensive report on medication profiles. Clinical Decision Support System (dpeaa)DE-He213 Elderly (dpeaa)DE-He213 Medication review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Netherlands (dpeaa)DE-He213 Potentially inappropriate prescribing (dpeaa)DE-He213 Westra, D. verfasserin aut Winkens, B. verfasserin aut Cremers, H. verfasserin aut van der Kuy, P. H. M. verfasserin aut Hurkens, K. P. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Pharmacy world & science Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V., 1979 41(2019), 5 vom: 13. Juli, Seite 1262-1271 (DE-627)320474054 (DE-600)2008911-9 1573-739X nnns volume:41 year:2019 number:5 day:13 month:07 pages:1262-1271 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-019-00879-3 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OPC-PHA SSG-OPC-ASE GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 44.40 ASE AR 41 2019 5 13 07 1262-1271
allfieldsGer	10.1007/s11096-019-00879-3 doi (DE-627)SPR016613953 (SPR)s11096-019-00879-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE 44.40 bkl Zwietering, N. A. verfasserin aut Medication in older patients reviewed multiple ways (MORE) study 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Polypharmacy in older patients can lead to potentially inappropriate prescribing. The risk of the latter calls for effective medication review to ensure proper medication usage and safety. Objective Provide insight on the similarities and differences of medication review done in multiple ways that may lead to future possibilities to optimize medication review. Setting This study was conducted in Zuyderland Medical Centre, the second largest teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Method This descriptive study compares the quantity and content of remarks identified by medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System. The content of remarks is categorized in seven categories of possible pharmacotherapeutic problems: ‘indication without medication’, ‘medication without indication’, ‘contra-indication/interaction/side-effect’, ‘dosage problem’, ‘double medication’, ‘incorrect medication’ and ‘therapeutic drug monitoring’. Main outcome measure Number and content of remarks on medication review. Results The Clinical Decision Support System (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p < 0.001) and outpatient pharmacist (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p = 0.045) both noted remarks in significantly more categories than the geriatricians. The Clinical Decision Support System provided more remarks on ‘double medication’, ‘dosage problem’ and ‘contraindication/interaction/side effects’ than the geriatrician (p < 0.050), while the geriatrician did on ‘medication without indication’ (p < 0.001). The Clinical Decision Support System noted significantly more remarks on ‘contraindication/interaction/side effects’ and ‘therapeutic drug monitoring’ than the outpatient pharmacist, whereas the outpatient pharmacist reported more on ‘indication without medication’ and ‘medication without indication’ than the Clinical Decision Support System (p ≤ 0.007). Conclusion Medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System provides different insights and should be combined to create a more comprehensive report on medication profiles. Clinical Decision Support System (dpeaa)DE-He213 Elderly (dpeaa)DE-He213 Medication review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Netherlands (dpeaa)DE-He213 Potentially inappropriate prescribing (dpeaa)DE-He213 Westra, D. verfasserin aut Winkens, B. verfasserin aut Cremers, H. verfasserin aut van der Kuy, P. H. M. verfasserin aut Hurkens, K. P. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Pharmacy world & science Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V., 1979 41(2019), 5 vom: 13. Juli, Seite 1262-1271 (DE-627)320474054 (DE-600)2008911-9 1573-739X nnns volume:41 year:2019 number:5 day:13 month:07 pages:1262-1271 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-019-00879-3 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OPC-PHA SSG-OPC-ASE GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 44.40 ASE AR 41 2019 5 13 07 1262-1271
allfieldsSound	10.1007/s11096-019-00879-3 doi (DE-627)SPR016613953 (SPR)s11096-019-00879-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE 44.40 bkl Zwietering, N. A. verfasserin aut Medication in older patients reviewed multiple ways (MORE) study 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Polypharmacy in older patients can lead to potentially inappropriate prescribing. The risk of the latter calls for effective medication review to ensure proper medication usage and safety. Objective Provide insight on the similarities and differences of medication review done in multiple ways that may lead to future possibilities to optimize medication review. Setting This study was conducted in Zuyderland Medical Centre, the second largest teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Method This descriptive study compares the quantity and content of remarks identified by medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System. The content of remarks is categorized in seven categories of possible pharmacotherapeutic problems: ‘indication without medication’, ‘medication without indication’, ‘contra-indication/interaction/side-effect’, ‘dosage problem’, ‘double medication’, ‘incorrect medication’ and ‘therapeutic drug monitoring’. Main outcome measure Number and content of remarks on medication review. Results The Clinical Decision Support System (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p < 0.001) and outpatient pharmacist (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p = 0.045) both noted remarks in significantly more categories than the geriatricians. The Clinical Decision Support System provided more remarks on ‘double medication’, ‘dosage problem’ and ‘contraindication/interaction/side effects’ than the geriatrician (p < 0.050), while the geriatrician did on ‘medication without indication’ (p < 0.001). The Clinical Decision Support System noted significantly more remarks on ‘contraindication/interaction/side effects’ and ‘therapeutic drug monitoring’ than the outpatient pharmacist, whereas the outpatient pharmacist reported more on ‘indication without medication’ and ‘medication without indication’ than the Clinical Decision Support System (p ≤ 0.007). Conclusion Medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System provides different insights and should be combined to create a more comprehensive report on medication profiles. Clinical Decision Support System (dpeaa)DE-He213 Elderly (dpeaa)DE-He213 Medication review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Netherlands (dpeaa)DE-He213 Potentially inappropriate prescribing (dpeaa)DE-He213 Westra, D. verfasserin aut Winkens, B. verfasserin aut Cremers, H. verfasserin aut van der Kuy, P. H. M. verfasserin aut Hurkens, K. P. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Pharmacy world & science Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V., 1979 41(2019), 5 vom: 13. Juli, Seite 1262-1271 (DE-627)320474054 (DE-600)2008911-9 1573-739X nnns volume:41 year:2019 number:5 day:13 month:07 pages:1262-1271 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-019-00879-3 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OPC-PHA SSG-OPC-ASE GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 44.40 ASE AR 41 2019 5 13 07 1262-1271
language	English
source	Enthalten in Pharmacy world & science 41(2019), 5 vom: 13. Juli, Seite 1262-1271 volume:41 year:2019 number:5 day:13 month:07 pages:1262-1271
sourceStr	Enthalten in Pharmacy world & science 41(2019), 5 vom: 13. Juli, Seite 1262-1271 volume:41 year:2019 number:5 day:13 month:07 pages:1262-1271
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Clinical Decision Support System Elderly Medication review Netherlands Potentially inappropriate prescribing
dewey-raw	610
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Pharmacy world & science
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Zwietering, N. A. @@aut@@ Westra, D. @@aut@@ Winkens, B. @@aut@@ Cremers, H. @@aut@@ van der Kuy, P. H. M. @@aut@@ Hurkens, K. P. @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2019-07-13T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	320474054
dewey-sort	3610
id	SPR016613953
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR016613953</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519160315.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201006s2019 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s11096-019-00879-3</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR016613953</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s11096-019-00879-3-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.40</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zwietering, N. A.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medication in older patients reviewed multiple ways (MORE) study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Background Polypharmacy in older patients can lead to potentially inappropriate prescribing. The risk of the latter calls for effective medication review to ensure proper medication usage and safety. Objective Provide insight on the similarities and differences of medication review done in multiple ways that may lead to future possibilities to optimize medication review. Setting This study was conducted in Zuyderland Medical Centre, the second largest teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Method This descriptive study compares the quantity and content of remarks identified by medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System. The content of remarks is categorized in seven categories of possible pharmacotherapeutic problems: ‘indication without medication’, ‘medication without indication’, ‘contra-indication/interaction/side-effect’, ‘dosage problem’, ‘double medication’, ‘incorrect medication’ and ‘therapeutic drug monitoring’. Main outcome measure Number and content of remarks on medication review. Results The Clinical Decision Support System (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p < 0.001) and outpatient pharmacist (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p = 0.045) both noted remarks in significantly more categories than the geriatricians. The Clinical Decision Support System provided more remarks on ‘double medication’, ‘dosage problem’ and ‘contraindication/interaction/side effects’ than the geriatrician (p < 0.050), while the geriatrician did on ‘medication without indication’ (p < 0.001). The Clinical Decision Support System noted significantly more remarks on ‘contraindication/interaction/side effects’ and ‘therapeutic drug monitoring’ than the outpatient pharmacist, whereas the outpatient pharmacist reported more on ‘indication without medication’ and ‘medication without indication’ than the Clinical Decision Support System (p ≤ 0.007). Conclusion Medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System provides different insights and should be combined to create a more comprehensive report on medication profiles.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Clinical Decision Support System</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Elderly</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Medication review</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Netherlands</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Potentially inappropriate prescribing</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Westra, D.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Winkens, B.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Cremers, H.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">van der Kuy, P. H. M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hurkens, K. P.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Pharmacy world & science</subfield><subfield code="d">Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V., 1979</subfield><subfield code="g">41(2019), 5 vom: 13. Juli, Seite 1262-1271</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)320474054</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2008911-9</subfield><subfield code="x">1573-739X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:41</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">number:5</subfield><subfield code="g">day:13</subfield><subfield code="g">month:07</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:1262-1271</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-019-00879-3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OPC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OPC-ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_138</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_171</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_187</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_250</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_281</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.40</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">41</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="e">5</subfield><subfield code="b">13</subfield><subfield code="c">07</subfield><subfield code="h">1262-1271</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Zwietering, N. A.
spellingShingle	Zwietering, N. A. ddc 610 bkl 44.40 misc Clinical Decision Support System misc Elderly misc Medication review misc Netherlands misc Potentially inappropriate prescribing Medication in older patients reviewed multiple ways (MORE) study
authorStr	Zwietering, N. A.
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)320474054
format	electronic Article
dewey-ones	610 - Medicine & health
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1573-739X
topic_title	610 ASE 44.40 bkl Medication in older patients reviewed multiple ways (MORE) study Clinical Decision Support System (dpeaa)DE-He213 Elderly (dpeaa)DE-He213 Medication review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Netherlands (dpeaa)DE-He213 Potentially inappropriate prescribing (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	ddc 610 bkl 44.40 misc Clinical Decision Support System misc Elderly misc Medication review misc Netherlands misc Potentially inappropriate prescribing
topic_unstemmed	ddc 610 bkl 44.40 misc Clinical Decision Support System misc Elderly misc Medication review misc Netherlands misc Potentially inappropriate prescribing
topic_browse	ddc 610 bkl 44.40 misc Clinical Decision Support System misc Elderly misc Medication review misc Netherlands misc Potentially inappropriate prescribing
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Pharmacy world & science
hierarchy_parent_id	320474054
dewey-tens	610 - Medicine & health
hierarchy_top_title	Pharmacy world & science
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)320474054 (DE-600)2008911-9
title	Medication in older patients reviewed multiple ways (MORE) study
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR016613953 (SPR)s11096-019-00879-3-e
title_full	Medication in older patients reviewed multiple ways (MORE) study
author_sort	Zwietering, N. A.
journal	Pharmacy world & science
journalStr	Pharmacy world & science
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
dewey-hundreds	600 - Technology
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2019
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	1262
author_browse	Zwietering, N. A. Westra, D. Winkens, B. Cremers, H. van der Kuy, P. H. M. Hurkens, K. P.
container_volume	41
class	610 ASE 44.40 bkl
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Zwietering, N. A.
doi_str_mv	10.1007/s11096-019-00879-3
dewey-full	610
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	medication in older patients reviewed multiple ways (more) study
title_auth	Medication in older patients reviewed multiple ways (MORE) study
abstract	Abstract Background Polypharmacy in older patients can lead to potentially inappropriate prescribing. The risk of the latter calls for effective medication review to ensure proper medication usage and safety. Objective Provide insight on the similarities and differences of medication review done in multiple ways that may lead to future possibilities to optimize medication review. Setting This study was conducted in Zuyderland Medical Centre, the second largest teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Method This descriptive study compares the quantity and content of remarks identified by medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System. The content of remarks is categorized in seven categories of possible pharmacotherapeutic problems: ‘indication without medication’, ‘medication without indication’, ‘contra-indication/interaction/side-effect’, ‘dosage problem’, ‘double medication’, ‘incorrect medication’ and ‘therapeutic drug monitoring’. Main outcome measure Number and content of remarks on medication review. Results The Clinical Decision Support System (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p < 0.001) and outpatient pharmacist (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p = 0.045) both noted remarks in significantly more categories than the geriatricians. The Clinical Decision Support System provided more remarks on ‘double medication’, ‘dosage problem’ and ‘contraindication/interaction/side effects’ than the geriatrician (p < 0.050), while the geriatrician did on ‘medication without indication’ (p < 0.001). The Clinical Decision Support System noted significantly more remarks on ‘contraindication/interaction/side effects’ and ‘therapeutic drug monitoring’ than the outpatient pharmacist, whereas the outpatient pharmacist reported more on ‘indication without medication’ and ‘medication without indication’ than the Clinical Decision Support System (p ≤ 0.007). Conclusion Medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System provides different insights and should be combined to create a more comprehensive report on medication profiles.
abstractGer	Abstract Background Polypharmacy in older patients can lead to potentially inappropriate prescribing. The risk of the latter calls for effective medication review to ensure proper medication usage and safety. Objective Provide insight on the similarities and differences of medication review done in multiple ways that may lead to future possibilities to optimize medication review. Setting This study was conducted in Zuyderland Medical Centre, the second largest teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Method This descriptive study compares the quantity and content of remarks identified by medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System. The content of remarks is categorized in seven categories of possible pharmacotherapeutic problems: ‘indication without medication’, ‘medication without indication’, ‘contra-indication/interaction/side-effect’, ‘dosage problem’, ‘double medication’, ‘incorrect medication’ and ‘therapeutic drug monitoring’. Main outcome measure Number and content of remarks on medication review. Results The Clinical Decision Support System (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p < 0.001) and outpatient pharmacist (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p = 0.045) both noted remarks in significantly more categories than the geriatricians. The Clinical Decision Support System provided more remarks on ‘double medication’, ‘dosage problem’ and ‘contraindication/interaction/side effects’ than the geriatrician (p < 0.050), while the geriatrician did on ‘medication without indication’ (p < 0.001). The Clinical Decision Support System noted significantly more remarks on ‘contraindication/interaction/side effects’ and ‘therapeutic drug monitoring’ than the outpatient pharmacist, whereas the outpatient pharmacist reported more on ‘indication without medication’ and ‘medication without indication’ than the Clinical Decision Support System (p ≤ 0.007). Conclusion Medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System provides different insights and should be combined to create a more comprehensive report on medication profiles.
abstract_unstemmed	Abstract Background Polypharmacy in older patients can lead to potentially inappropriate prescribing. The risk of the latter calls for effective medication review to ensure proper medication usage and safety. Objective Provide insight on the similarities and differences of medication review done in multiple ways that may lead to future possibilities to optimize medication review. Setting This study was conducted in Zuyderland Medical Centre, the second largest teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Method This descriptive study compares the quantity and content of remarks identified by medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System. The content of remarks is categorized in seven categories of possible pharmacotherapeutic problems: ‘indication without medication’, ‘medication without indication’, ‘contra-indication/interaction/side-effect’, ‘dosage problem’, ‘double medication’, ‘incorrect medication’ and ‘therapeutic drug monitoring’. Main outcome measure Number and content of remarks on medication review. Results The Clinical Decision Support System (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p < 0.001) and outpatient pharmacist (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p = 0.045) both noted remarks in significantly more categories than the geriatricians. The Clinical Decision Support System provided more remarks on ‘double medication’, ‘dosage problem’ and ‘contraindication/interaction/side effects’ than the geriatrician (p < 0.050), while the geriatrician did on ‘medication without indication’ (p < 0.001). The Clinical Decision Support System noted significantly more remarks on ‘contraindication/interaction/side effects’ and ‘therapeutic drug monitoring’ than the outpatient pharmacist, whereas the outpatient pharmacist reported more on ‘indication without medication’ and ‘medication without indication’ than the Clinical Decision Support System (p ≤ 0.007). Conclusion Medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System provides different insights and should be combined to create a more comprehensive report on medication profiles.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OPC-PHA SSG-OPC-ASE GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702
container_issue	5
title_short	Medication in older patients reviewed multiple ways (MORE) study
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-019-00879-3
remote_bool	true
author2	Westra, D. Winkens, B. Cremers, H. van der Kuy, P. H. M. Hurkens, K. P.
author2Str	Westra, D. Winkens, B. Cremers, H. van der Kuy, P. H. M. Hurkens, K. P.
ppnlink	320474054
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1007/s11096-019-00879-3
up_date	2024-07-04T00:01:40.907Z
_version_	1803604512903004160
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR016613953</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519160315.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201006s2019 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s11096-019-00879-3</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR016613953</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s11096-019-00879-3-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.40</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zwietering, N. A.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medication in older patients reviewed multiple ways (MORE) study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Background Polypharmacy in older patients can lead to potentially inappropriate prescribing. The risk of the latter calls for effective medication review to ensure proper medication usage and safety. Objective Provide insight on the similarities and differences of medication review done in multiple ways that may lead to future possibilities to optimize medication review. Setting This study was conducted in Zuyderland Medical Centre, the second largest teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Method This descriptive study compares the quantity and content of remarks identified by medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System. The content of remarks is categorized in seven categories of possible pharmacotherapeutic problems: ‘indication without medication’, ‘medication without indication’, ‘contra-indication/interaction/side-effect’, ‘dosage problem’, ‘double medication’, ‘incorrect medication’ and ‘therapeutic drug monitoring’. Main outcome measure Number and content of remarks on medication review. Results The Clinical Decision Support System (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p < 0.001) and outpatient pharmacist (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 0.9 ± 0.9, p = 0.045) both noted remarks in significantly more categories than the geriatricians. The Clinical Decision Support System provided more remarks on ‘double medication’, ‘dosage problem’ and ‘contraindication/interaction/side effects’ than the geriatrician (p < 0.050), while the geriatrician did on ‘medication without indication’ (p < 0.001). The Clinical Decision Support System noted significantly more remarks on ‘contraindication/interaction/side effects’ and ‘therapeutic drug monitoring’ than the outpatient pharmacist, whereas the outpatient pharmacist reported more on ‘indication without medication’ and ‘medication without indication’ than the Clinical Decision Support System (p ≤ 0.007). Conclusion Medication review performed by a geriatrician, outpatient pharmacist, and Clinical Decision Support System provides different insights and should be combined to create a more comprehensive report on medication profiles.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Clinical Decision Support System</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Elderly</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Medication review</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Netherlands</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Potentially inappropriate prescribing</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Westra, D.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Winkens, B.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Cremers, H.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">van der Kuy, P. H. M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hurkens, K. P.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Pharmacy world & science</subfield><subfield code="d">Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V., 1979</subfield><subfield code="g">41(2019), 5 vom: 13. Juli, Seite 1262-1271</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)320474054</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2008911-9</subfield><subfield code="x">1573-739X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:41</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">number:5</subfield><subfield code="g">day:13</subfield><subfield code="g">month:07</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:1262-1271</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-019-00879-3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OPC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OPC-ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_138</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_171</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_187</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_250</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_281</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.40</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">41</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="e">5</subfield><subfield code="b">13</subfield><subfield code="c">07</subfield><subfield code="h">1262-1271</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.399951

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Medication in older patients reviewed multiple ways (MORE) study

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?