Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Study Protocol
  • Open access
  • Published:

Evaluation of a pharmacist-led intervention to reduce drug-related problems in patients included in a home healthcare program: study protocol for a pragmatic randomized clinical trial

BMC Geriatrics volume 24, Article number: 170 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

ATDOM is the Catalan home healthcare program at primary care level. Patients in the home care program are usually frail, elderly people with multiple comorbidities. They are often polymedicated, leading to a high risk of drug-related problems (DRPs). Our hypothesis is that the pharmacist-led individualized review of the pharmacotherapeutic plans of ATDOM patients will be effective in improving the quality of treatments by reducing DRPs in terms of indication, adequacy, effectiveness, and safety.

Methods

Aim: To compare the effectiveness of a standardized pharmaceutical intervention for the review and optimization of pharmacological treatments in ATDOM patients with usual management practice.

Design: Pragmatic randomized clinical trial with a comparable control group, with prospective follow-up regarding the intervention on the adequacy of the pharmacological treatment of patients in the ATDOM program.

Setting: Primary care teams in the Camp de Tarragona Primary Care Area, Tarragona, Spain.

Participants: Four hundred and thirty-two ATDOM patients will be recruited, those who are over 65 years old and who are currently undergoing pharmacological treatment.

Measures: Effectiveness of a six-month long intervention in reducing DRPs per patient and polypharmacy. Additionally, in the intervention group we will evaluate the implementation of the proposals for change or improvement made by the responsible physician.

Analysis: The outcomes will be analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis and the analysis units will be the individual patients. Logistic regression and linear regression models will be used to evaluate the effects of the intervention on dichotomous and continuous variables versus the control arm.

Ethics: The protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Jordi Gol Primary Care Research Institute (IDIAPJGol), Barcelona, (19/141-P).

Discussion

If the results of the pharmaceutical intervention are favorable, widespread implementation of the program could be possible. It could be extended to all ATDOM patients or outpatients in general. Interdisciplinary teamwork could be strengthened as a result, which would improve the healthcare continuum.

Trial registration

Retrospectively registered. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT05820945; Registered 21 March, 2023.

Peer Review reports

Background

A drug-related problem (DRP) occurs when, in the application and use of drugs, patients experience or are likely to experience problems associated with these drugs [1]. Studies carried out both in and outside Spain show very disparate data on the prevalence of DRPs, with between 3.9% [2] and 59% [3] of patients being affected. This difference in the percentage of DRPs between the different studies could stem from the differing concepts of DRP, in addition to patient typology. The incidence of DRPs is recorded for in-patients [4] and out-patients [5]. This latter group includes those receiving home care. There are a variety of factors which could increase the risk of DRPs in the home care setting: associated illnesses and polymedication (owing to greater life expectancy), sporadic contact with the physician in relation to chronic illnesses which do not require regular check-ups, healthcare via different providers, lack of teamwork by the interdisciplinary team, and scant patient’s information about their treatment [6]. A recent systematic review revealed a high prevalence of DRPs, particularly amongst home-dwelling elderly patients [7]. Certain categories of DRPs, such as adverse reactions to medication or medical interactions, are of considerable clinical significance as they can result in hospitalization [8]. In relation to the importance of DRPs in outpatients, while it is true that the majority of DRPs would not have caused the patient any harm, they could have affected the effectiveness of the treatment [9].

A clinical medication review is a structured process whereby the therapeutic efficacy of each medication is assessed and correlated with the evolution of the pathologies treated. It also studies the prevention and resolution of DRPs, treatment adherence and the understanding the patients have about the pharmacological treatments and their own pathologies. The objective is to decide whether drugs need to be added, withdrawn or continued, and to evaluate the benefits and risks the treatment involves [10]. This is based on the interdisciplinary work of medical professionals, nurses and social workers. The role of pharmaceutical services within the healthcare team must also be considered, with optimal communication between physicians and clinical pharmacists being of particular importance [11]. Intervention led by clinical pharmacists for reviewing medication was able to identify, minimize and resolve DRPs in elderly patients in the primary care services [12] as well as in home care patients [13], especially among the elderly population in home care settings [14].

The Domiciliary Healthcare program (ATDOM), within the Catalan primary care system, organizes care and attends to patients with chronic or acute health problems who have difficulty getting to health centers. The program aims to foster greater autonomy and improve quality of life for patients, and especially to ensure continuity of care, given that it involves the coordination of all healthcare areas [15]. An ATDOM patient's treatment plan is established once the patient and caregiver's needs have been evaluated in terms of such key aspects as communication, coordination, symptom control, continuity of care and treatment support. However, this plan is not proactively reviewed when the patient enters this system or on a periodic basis. Patients such as these, who may be fragile and have multiple morbidities, are more likely to be polymedicated as well.

To optimize medication for polymedicated patients, we can submit these patients' treatment plans to a regular reassessment in order to detect DRPs. In this pharmacotherapy review, the adequacy of the patient's medication plan is assessed and proposals are made with a view to improving the patient's health as well as the economic sustainability of the healthcare system.

This pragmatic study aims to assess the efficacy of the medication review program during the implementation process. Our hypothesis is that the pharmacist-led individualized review of the pharmacotherapeutic plans of ATDOM patients will be effective in improving the quality of treatments by reducing DRPs in terms of indication, adequacy, effectiveness, and safety.

Methods/design

To design this protocol, the SPIRIT 2013 Statement [16] was addressed. The current version of the protocol is V1, which is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (ID NCT05820945, first submitted on 21 March, 2023; first posted on 20 April, 2023; see https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05820945 for details). All items from the World Health Organization Trial Registration Data Set are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 World health organization trial registration data set
Full size table

Aim

The aim is to compare the effectiveness of a standardized pharmaceutical intervention for the review and optimization of pharmacological treatments in elderly patients on the ATDOM program with usual management practice.

In particular we want to determine the effectiveness of the program by way of a six-month intervention trial in order to (1) reduce DRPs per patient, and (2) reduce polymedication. In the intervention group, we will evaluate the implementation of proposals for change or improvements made by the physician in charge.

Design

Pragmatic controlled clinical trial for assessing healthcare intervention with random distribution of patients into two groups: (a) intervention group, in which patients will receive the pharmaceutical intervention being assessed, and (b) the control group, in which the patients' pharmacotherapy plans will be managed according to the usual criteria and procedures. Pharmaceutical intervention forms part of a range of primary care services and its assessment will be carried out under implementation conditions in real healthcare practice. If this pharmaceutical intervention – which is the object of assessment – proves effective, the patients in the control group will receive the same treatment once their participation in the study is over.

Study setting and patient sample

The study will be carried out at 10 primary care centers within the Camp de Tarragona Regional Health Authority (Catalan Health Institute) in the Tarragona province (Catalonia). Participation in the study by family physicians from these centers will be voluntary.

The patients from the participating physicians will be eligible if they receive care through the ATDOM program, if they are 65 years old or over, and if they have an active pharmacological treatment plan involving at least one drug. It will be up to the responsible physician to decide if there are any reasons why a patient may be excluded, for example, if their participation might cause them harm. Those patients who are taken into care homes or long-term nursing facilities, or who pass away during the period of the study will also be excluded from the analysis.

Sampling and randomization of patients

The eligible patients will be assigned by a primary care pharmacist either to the intervention group or the control group from the patient lists of each participating physician, following a random procedure using the https://www.random.org/ platform.

Intervention

The intervention will consist of a primary care pharmacist carrying out a clinical review of the medical records and pharmacological treatment plans established for the patients registered on the ATDOM program. The pharmaceutical review procedures are systematized in the document "Rational Use of Medication. Basic medication management in chronic patients: reconciliation, review, deprescribing and adherence” [17], published by the Catalan Department of Health, part of the Camp de Tarragona Regional Authority’s primary care services portfolio (Catalan Health Institute). The pharmacist will review the instructions for each drug in the treatment plan in terms of the patient's pathologies, how appropriate the medication is for their age and clinical conditions (e.g. kidney failure, liver failure or other comorbidities), the suitability of the dosage, treatment instructions and duration, the effectiveness of the treatment in relation to the intended therapeutic goal, the safety of the medication and adherence to the treatment (Table 2). This review will be based on the Beers 2019 criteria [18], STOPP-START [19], Priscus [20] and EU(7)-PIM list [21]. Adherence to the treatment will be monitored using information about the medicines dispensed from the pharmacy office which is registered on the electronic prescription module.

Table 2 Classification of drug-related problems (DRPs) that can be detected in a pharmaceutical review
Full size table

After the review process, a meeting will be held between the pharmacist and the physician in charge in which the DRPs detected will be discussed (Fig. 1) and a series of recommendations for improvement and proposals for change will be made. The proposals might be: (a) suspending treatment of a drug, (b) changing the medication, (c) changing the dosage, (d) changing of posology, (e) starting a new treatment, (f) monitoring the clinical and/or analytical variables, and (g) interventions to encourage adherence to the treatment. Thereafter, the physician will make a global assessment of the improvement and adaptation treatment plan and in exercising his/her responsibility will decide to what degree and/or which points to adhere to in the plan. In any case, the proposals, their justification, the expected advantages and possible drawbacks will be explained and agreed with the patient and, if necessary, with the caregiver or responsible family member. The whole procedure will be recorded in the patient's clinical record.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram of the pharmaceutical review intervention and improvements to the medication plan

Full size image

Although the intervention being assessed will be carried out both on a professional level with the family physicians as well as with the patients and caregivers, the intervention results will be measured in every patient. The intervention on physicians/patients will not be blinded but the results will be measured blind.

Usual practice (control group)

In the control group, the patients' treatment plans will be managed according to usual criteria and procedures, including an automatic warning system generated by the Self-Audit tool which is part of the electronic clinical record to identify safety problems: redundant treatments, polymedicated patients, side effects, and review of the treatment duration, among others [22].

Measurements

The outcome variables will be obtained at baseline and after six months with a review of the pharmacological prescription module in the electronic clinical record made using a questionnaire which compiles electronic data. The review will not be blind with regards to the patient's allocation to either of the two study groups. However, the results will be subsequently evaluated blind. A data monitoring committee (DMC) is not needed in this monocentric academic trial with known minimal risks. All study-related information will be codified and stored securely at the study site.

Variables

Principal variables

  • Drug related problems [23, 24]: Total DRPs, DRPs per patient, and number of patients with one or more DRP.

  • Polymedication: number of associated drugs per patient and number of polymedicated patients. We define polymedication as the simultaneous consumption of ≥ 8 different drugs [25].

Secondary variables and co-variables

Sociodemographic data: age, sex, primary care team, socioeconomic status according to place of residence [26], household characteristics, caregiver, social/family support.

Clinical variables:

  •  Physical comorbidity: chronic pathologies such as diabetes mellitus, coronary heart disease and other types of heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, respiratory diseases, musculoskeletal diseases, diseases of the connective tissue and neoplasms.

  • Psychological comorbidity: dementia, depression, anxiety and psychotic disorder.

  • Charlson index. This refers to a global index of comorbidity which computes 19 items related to various pathologies which together with the patient's age is used to predict comorbidity after one year and after ten years [27].

  • AMG (Adjusted Morbidity Groups) is an instrument for stratifying the population in relation to multimorbidity and complexity. It provides good explanatory results for indicators of healthcare resource usage, in particular for drug consumption [28].

  • Barthel test. This measures the degree of the patient's dependence in basic day-to-day activities and its results are shown on an ordinal scale from 0 (maximum dependence) to 100 (total autonomy) [29, 30].

  • Pfeiffer test. This questionnaire detects the existence and extent of cognitive decline by assessing the subject's responses to ten brief questions. It examines short- and long-term memory, orientation, information about daily life and calculation ability [31, 32].

  • Complex chronic patient (CCP). This is defined as a patient with multimorbidity, extreme fragility or a unique condition which makes clinical management difficult. These are patients who use emergency hospital services very frequently, spending various periods in hospital throughout the year, they experience reductions in their personal autonomy either temporarily or permanently and are polymedicated [33].

  • Advanced chronic patient (ACP). These are defined as patients with a limited life prognosis and high level of need, requiring palliative care and advanced decision planning [34].

Variables related to pharmacological treatment:

  • Description of the pharmacotherapy plan using an ATC code (Anatomical, Therapeutic, Chemical classification system). This is a drug index organized by therapeutic group, which includes the system or organ which it acts upon, the pharmacological effect, the therapeutic indications and the chemical structure of the drug [35].

  • Description of DRPs detected according to typology: indication, adequacy, effectiveness, safety (Table 2) [8].

  • Adherence to the treatment by analyzing the medicines dispensed from the pharmacy office in relation to the dosage and prescribed dose. This will be examined after a period of six months. The adherence will be considered adequate if > 80% of the necessary doses have been taken.

Variables related to the procedure and result of the pharmaceutical intervention:

  • Number of changes or improvement proposals sent by the pharmacist.

  • Number of proposals implemented by the physician.

Statistical methods

Sample size

Based on a review of the literature [7, 14], as well as an exploratory analysis of 100 patients eligible for the study, we assume that in our target patient population the proportion of patients with at least one DRP will be around 60% and we hope to be able to detect a reduction of ≥ 15% in the intervention group after six months. If we accept an alpha risk of 0.05 and a power of 80% in a bilateral contrast, and assume a 20% loss of patients in the process (patients who go into a care home, or into a long-term nursing facility, or who pass away during the study period), we need to include 216 individuals in each group (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Flow diagram of study: center allocation, sampling and monitoring

Full size image

Data analysis

The principal analyses will be carried out by intention to treat, taking the patients in each group according to their initial random assignment, independently from the adherence to the pharmaceutical intervention and the recommendations made. The results will be measured in individual patients, although the intervention will be largely directed to the attending physician in the form of instructions or change recommendations. In the analyses we will bear in mind the potential loss of independence that might occur in observations when patients are treated by the same physician (cluster effect). We will first compare both study groups to check that their baseline characteristics are similar. The principal result variables (dependent) will be the number of DRPs per patient, the proportion of patients with DRPs, the number of drugs per patient and the proportion of polymedicated patients. To assess the effects of the intervention on the dichotomous variables we will use multilevel logistic regression models with mixed effects using an Odds Ratio estimate (IC95%) of the intervention group with respect to the control group as an effect measure. To measure the effect on the continuous variables we will use linear regression models with random effect, estimating the differences in adjusted means (IC95%) for the intervention group versus the control group. The statistical significance will be established as p < 0.05. For these calculations, we will use the R statistical package.

Discussion

There is a high incidence of DRPs in elderly patients, including those in home care [6, 7]. These DRPs often involve morbimortality and have a high economic cost, which can even exceed the cost of the prescribed medicines [36]. Pharmaceutical intervention by way of a medication review could reduce these DRPs, which cause unnecessary suffering to patients and carry a high social cost. Furthermore, the potential cost saving in primary care could far exceed the cost in human resources currently being invested in identifying and dealing with DRPs [37].

The Catalan primary care system has a program called ATDOM which complies with the directives of the Program for the Prevention and Care of Chronicity, instigated by the Catalan Government’s Department of Health [33], which since March 2019 includes a prescribed medicine review program. The aims of this study fit the Catalan health authorities' strategy to strengthen and improve chronic care at home. The present pragmatic study aims to assess the efficacy of the medication review program during the implementation process.

The efficacy of pharmaceutical intervention for the review of medication, identification and resolution of DRPs in elderly patients has been assessed in hospitals [38] and in care homes [39], as well as in primary care [12]. One descriptive study showed a greater number of DRPs in elderly patients in home care than in elderly residents of care homes [40]. The effect of medication reviews for home-dwelling elderly patients has been studied at an observational level [41], including patients receiving home care [42]. However, we only found a randomized comparative study in home-dwelling older people referred to an aged care assessment team [43]. The present study is experimental, designed as a controlled randomized clinical trial, which will assess the effectiveness of standard pharmaceutical intervention for reviewing and optimizing drug treatment in elderly patients on the ATDOM program, with respect to the usual management practice.

The experimental design of this study – a controlled randomized clinical trial – has the potential to give results with a higher level of clinical evidence than observational studies [44]. Being a pragmatic study, the inclusion criteria are broader and the sample is more heterogeneous so it may have lower internal validity. However, the results will be more similar to the real-life conditions of home care for elderly patients and therefore more easily replicable, not only for the institution where the study was carried out, but also more generally in similar fields throughout the healthcare system.

Standard pharmaceutical intervention for the review and optimization of drug treatments in elderly patients could be extended to all ATDOM patients or even outpatients in general, with health benefits for the patient and economic sustainability for the healthcare system. In this way, good medical practice will be improved by incorporating pharmacotherapy instructions based on the best scientific evidence available. This will make it possible to strengthen interdisciplinary teamwork, supporting the continuum of care, especially in pharmacist-physician communication, where criteria are not always shared in terms of prescription, review of medication and medicine usage. Finally, this clinical trial should be complemented with a study of the cost–benefit relationship which could inform healthcare planning managers in their decision-making.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

The study results will be released to the participating physicians, patients and the general medical community. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors authorship criteria will be addressed in manuscripts submitted for publication.

Abbreviations

ATC:

Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification System

CEIC:

Clinical Research Ethics Committee

DRPs:

Drug-related problems

AMG:

Adjusted morbidity groups

IDIAPJGol:

Jordi Gol Primary Care Research Institute

ACP:

Advanced chronic patient

CCP:

Complex chronic patient

References

  1. Comité de Consenso GIAF-UGR, GIFAF-USE, GIF-UGR. Tercer consenso de Granada sobre problemas relacionados con los medicamentos (PRM) y resultados negativos asociados a la medicacion (RNM). Ars Pharm. 2007;48(1):5‑17.

  2. Güemes Artiles M, Sanz Alvarez E, Garcia S-C. Reacciones adversas y problemas relacionados con medicamentos en un servicio de urgencia. Rev Esp Salud Publica. 1999;73(4):511–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Parody Rúa E, Segu Tolosa JL. Efectividad y estimación de costes en una intervención sobre problemas relacionados con los medicamentós en atencion primaria. Aten Primaria. 2005;35(9):472–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Krähenbühl-Melcher A, Schlienger R, Lampert M, Haschke M, Drewe J, Krähenbühl S. Drug-related problems in hospitals. A review of the recent literature. Drug Safety. 2007;30(5):379–407.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ni XF, Yang CS, Bai YM, Hu ZX, Zhang LL. Drug-related problems of patients in primary health care institutions: a systematic review. Front Pharmacol. 2021;12:698907.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Meyer-Massetti C, Meier CR, Joseph Guglielmo BJ. The scope of drug-related problems in the home care setting. Int J Clin Pharmacy. 2018;40(2):325–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Plácido AI, Herdeiro MT, Morgado M, Figueiras A, Roque F. Drug-related problems in home-dwelling older adults: a systematic review. Clin Ther. 2020;42(4):559–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kjeldsen LJ, Høgh Nielsen TR, Charlotte OC. Investigating the relative significance of drug-related problem categories. Pharmacy. 2017;5(2):31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Franco M, Seguí I, García AJ, Soler E. Problemas relacionados con la medicación en el medio ambulatorio. FAP. 2012;10(1):3–8.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Griese‑Mammen N, Hersberger KE, Messerli M, Leikola S, Horvat N, Foppe van Mil JW, et al. PCNE definition of medication review: reaching agreement. Int J Clin Pharmacy. 2018;49(5):1199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Foppe van Mil JW, Westerlund T, Brown L, Chen TF, Henman M, Hersberger K, et al. Medical care and drug-related problems: do doctors and pharmacists speak the same language? Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38(2):191–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Etxebarria A, Iribar J, Rotaeche R, Vrotsoud K, Barral I, Grupo de Polimedicación y Uso Prudente de Gipuzkoa. Evaluación de una intervención formativa con revisión estructurada de la medicación en pacientes mayores polimedicados en Atención Primaria. Rev Esp Geriatr Gerontol. 2018;53(6):319–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Triller DM, Clause SL, Briceland LL, Hamilton RA. Resolution of drug-related problems in home care patients through a pharmacy referral service. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2003;60(1):905–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gudi SK, Kashyap A, Chhabra M, Rashid M, Tiwari KK. Impact of pharmacist-led home medicines review services on drug-related problems among the elderly population: a systematic review. Epidemiol Health. 2019;41:e2019020.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Grup de treball ATDOM de l’Institut Català de la Salut. Programa de millora de l’atenció al domicili des de l’atenció primària de salut. Abril, 2010. Available at: https://scientiasalut.gencat.cat/bitstream/handle/11351/4956/programa_millora_atencio_domicili_atencio_primaria_salut_2010.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Last Accessed: 10 February 2023.

  16. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG, Mann H, Berlin JA, Dickersin K, Hróbjartsson A, Schulz KF, Parulekar WR, Krleza-Jeric K, Laupacis A, Moher D. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013;8(346):e7586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ús racional de medicaments. Maneig bàsic de la medicació en el pacient crònic: conciliació, revisió, desprescripció i adherència. [Rational use of medicines. Basic management of medication in the chronic patient: reconciliation, review, deprescription and adherence.] Generalitat de Catalunya. Departament de Salut. Barcelona, October 2014. Available at: https://salutweb.gencat.cat/web/.content/_ambits-actuacio/Linies-dactuacio/Estrategies-de-salut/Cronicitat/Documentacio-cronicitat/arxius/us_racional_farmacs_global.pdf. Last Accessed: 10 February 2023.

  18. 2019 American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria® Update Expert Panel. American Geriatrics Society 2019 updated AGS Beers Criteria® for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67(4):674–94.

  19. Gallo C, Vilosio J, Saimovici J. Actualización de los criterios STOPP-START: una herramienta para la detección de medicación potencialmente inadecuada en ancianos. Evid Act Pract Ambul. 2015;18(4):124–9.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Holt S, Schmiedl S, Thürmann PA. Potentially inappropriate medications in the elderly: the PRISCUS list. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010;107(31–32):543–51.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Renom-Guiteras A, Meyer G, Thürmann PA. The EU(7)-PIM list: a list of potentially inappropriate medications for older people consented by experts from seven European countries. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;71(7):861–75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Catalán A, Pons A, Berges MJ, Figuerola M. Self-Audit: el suport de les noves TIC a la prescripció farmacèutica [Self-Audit: support of the new ICTs to pharmaceutical prescription]. Direcció Adjunta d‘Afers Assistencials Barcelona, March 2009. Available at: https://vdocuments.mx/self-audit-de-prescripcio-farmaceutica.html?page=1. Last Accessed: 10 February 2023.

  23. Strand LM, Morley PC, Cipolle RJ, Ramsey R, Lamsan GD. Drug-related problem: their structure and function. Ann Pharmacoter. 1990;24(11):1093–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Basger BJ, Moles RJ, Chen TF. Development of an aggregated system for classifying causes of drug-related problems. Ann Pharmacother. 2015;49(4):405–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Masnoon N, Shakib S, Kalisch-Ellett L, Caughey GE. What is polypharmacy? A systematic review of definitions. BMC Geriatr. 2017;17:230.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Observatori del Sistema de Salut de Catalunya[Health System Observatory of Catalonia]. Gencat. 2017. Available at: https://observatorisalut.gencat.cat/ca/observatori-desigualtats-salut/dades_obertes/#bloc1. Last Accessed: 10 February 2023.

  27. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Monterde D, Vela E, Clèries M, Grupo colaborativo GMA. Los grupos de morbilidad ajustados: nuevo agrupador de morbilidad poblacional de utilidad en el ámbito de la atención primaria. Aten Primaria. 2016;48(10):674–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Md State Med J. 1965;71:61–5.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Cid-Ruzafa J, Damián-Moreno J. Valoración de la discapacidad física: el índice de Barthel. Rev Esp Salud Publica. 1997;71(2):127–37.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Pfeiffer EA. A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficits in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1975;23(10):433.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Martínez de la Iglesia J, Dueñas Herrero R, Onís Vilches MC, Aguado Taberné C, Albert Colomer C, Luque Luque R. Adaptación y validación al castellano del cuestionario de Pfeiffer (SPMSQ) para detectar la existencia de deterioro cognitivo en personas mayores de 65 años. Med Clín (Barc). 2001;117(4):129–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Contel J, Muntané B, Camp L. La atención al paciente crónico en situación de complejidad: el reto de construir un escenario de atención integrada. Aten Primaria. 2012;44(2):107–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. El Programa de prevenció i atenció a la cronicitat de Catalunya[Program for chronicity prevention and care in Catalonia]. Departament de Salut, Generalitat de Catalunya. 2018. Available at: https://salutweb.gencat.cat/web/.content/_ambits-actuacio/Linies-dactuacio/Estrategies-de-salut/Cronicitat/Documentacio-cronicitat/arxius/fites-ppac-2015-2018.pdf. Last Accessed: 10 February 2023.

  35. WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. Norway: Norwegian Institute of Public Health. Available at: https://www.whocc.no/atc_ddd_index/. Last Accessed: 10 February 2023.

  36. Watanabe JH, McInnis T, Hirsch JD. Cost of prescription drug-related morbidity and mortality. Ann Pharmacother. 2018;52(9):829–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Westerlund T, Marklund B. Assessment of the clinical and economic outcomes of pharmacy interventions in drug-related problems. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2009;34(3):319–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Gervais F, Novais T, Goutelle S, Chappuy M, Parat S, Cabelguenne D, et al. Drug-related problems among older patients: analysis of 8 years of pharmacist’s interventions. Ann Pharm Fr. 2021;79(5):511–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Alves da Costa F, Silvestre L, Periquito C, Carneiro C, Oliveira P, Fernandes AI, et al. Drugs Real World Outcomes. 2016;3(1):89–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Devik SA, Olsenb RM, Fiskvikc IL, Halbostadd T, Lassene T, Kuzinaf N, et al. Variations in drug-related problems detected by multidisciplinary teams in Norwegian nursing homes and home nursing care. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2018;36(3):291–329.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Zhang S, Zhu D, Qi Z, Tian L, Qian S, Song D, et al. Effects of home medication review on drug-related problems and health-related quality of life among community-dwelling older adults in China. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2022;62(2):481–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Lenander C, Bondesson A, Viberg N, Beckman A, Midlov P. Effects of medication reviews on use of potencially inappropiate medications in elderly patients; a cross-sectional study in Swedish primary care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):616.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Elliot RA, Martinac G, Campbell S, Thorn J, Woodward MC. Pharmacist-led medication review to identify medication-related problems in older people referred to an aged care assessment team: a randomized comparative study. Drugs Aging. 2012;29(7):593–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):401–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was made possible thanks to the collaboration of primary healthcare physicians in health centers where the intervention was carried out, as well as the cooperation of the patients.

Funding

The study is partially funded by a predoctoral grant from the Catalan Health Institute and the IDIAPJGol (21st CS grant for training in research and completion of the doctorate in Primary Care; code 7Z21/011). The funding bodies have had no role in the design of the study, or in the analysis and interpretation of data or its dissemination.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pharmacy Unit, Catalan Health Institute, Joan XXIII University Hospital, Camp de Tarragona Primary Care Area, 4 Doctor Mallafrè Guasch St, 43005, Tarragona, Spain

    Clara Salom-Garrigues, Cecília Campabadal Prats, Ferran Bejarano-Romero & Laura Canadell

  2. Research Support Unit, Catalan Health Institute, Camp de Tarragona Primary Care Area, Tarragona, Spain

    Enric Aragonès

  3. Mental Health and Primary Care Research Group, 2021 SGR 00989, Tarragona, Spain

    Clara Salom-Garrigues, Enric Aragonès & Cecília Campabadal Prats

  4. Department of Basic Medical Sciences, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Rovira i Virgili University, Tarragona, Spain

    Montse Giralt & Laura Canadell

  5. Healthcare Interventions and Community Activities Research Group - GRE ISAC, 2021 SGR 00884, Tarragona, Spain

    Ferran Bejarano-Romero

Authors
  1. Clara Salom-Garrigues
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Enric Aragonès
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Montse Giralt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cecília Campabadal Prats
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ferran Bejarano-Romero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Laura Canadell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CS is the lead researcher and developed the original idea for the study. All authors contributed to the study design and the writing of funding applications for the project, which is financed by the IDIAPJGol. EA and MG developed the statistical analysis plan. CS wrote the manuscript and all authors read and corrected the preliminary versions, and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clara Salom-Garrigues.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study has been designed according to the Good Practice Guide in Health Sciences Research of the Catalan Health Institute, the Declaration of Helsinki principles of the World Medical Association modified in 2013, and applicable regulations. The physician in charge will inform the patients, their caregivers and/or their legal guardians about the aims and general aspects of the study, any drawbacks of the eventual modification of the treatment plan and how to deal with. Since the pharmaceutical intervention is considered of minimal risk, with an anticipated probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort not greater than those encountered in ordinary clinical practice, the responsible physician will obtain verbal consent from all patients for participation. The protocol, including verbal consent procedure, has been approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee (CEIC) of the IDIAPJGol (Barcelona, 20/02/2020; code 19/141-P).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Salom-Garrigues, C., Aragonès, E., Giralt, M. et al. Evaluation of a pharmacist-led intervention to reduce drug-related problems in patients included in a home healthcare program: study protocol for a pragmatic randomized clinical trial. BMC Geriatr 24, 170 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-04763-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-04763-2

Keywords

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

Contact us