Specialist medication review does not benefit short-term outcomes and net costs in continuing-care patients

31Citations
Citations of this article
73Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate specialist geriatric input and medication review in patients in high-dependency continuing care. Design: prospective, randomised, controlled trial. Setting: two residential continuing care hospitals. Participants: two hundred and twenty-five permanent patients. Intervention: patients were randomised to either specialist geriatric input or regular input. The specialist group had a medical assessment by a geriatrician and medication review by a multidisciplinary expert panel. Regular input consisted of review as required by a medical officer attached to each ward. Reassessment occurred after 6 months. Results: one hundred and ten patients were randomised to specialist input and 115 to regular input. These were comparable for age, gender, dependency levels and cognition. After 6 months, the total number of medications per patient per day fell from 11.64 to 11.09 in the specialist group (P = 0.0364) and increased from 11.07 to 11.5 in the regular group (P = 0.094). There was no significant difference in mortality or frequency of acute hospital transfers (11 versus 6 in the specialist versus regular group, P = 0.213). Conclusion: specialist geriatric assessment and medication review in hospital continuing care resulted in a reduction in medication use, but at a significant cost. No benefits in hard clinical outcomes were demonstrated. However, qualitative benefits and lower costs may become evident over longer periods. © The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Pope, G., Wall, N., Peters, C. M., O’Connor, M., Saunders, J., O’Sullivan, C., … Clinch, D. (2011). Specialist medication review does not benefit short-term outcomes and net costs in continuing-care patients. Age and Ageing, 40(3), 307–312. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afq095

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free