Older adults with concealed renal insufficiency are at risk of medication dosing errors. It is not known whether automated estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) reporting is associated with reduced dosing errors in this population.
The goal of the present study was to examine the impact on prescribing patterns in older adults with concealed renal insufficiency for a variety of renally cleared medications before and after the addition of automated eGFR reporting.
We performed a retrospective chart review at a single tertiary academic medical center among hospitalized patients aged ≥ 70 years with concealed renal insufficiency. Data were examined from the months of July, December, and May before and after the hospital initiated automated eGFR reporting, in 2006-2007 and 2008-2009, respectively. Doses of selected renally cleared medications were classified as appropriate or inappropriate on the basis of published recommendations. Regression models were used to identify demographic, clinical, and care factors associated with dosing appropriateness.
Before implementation of automated eGFR reporting, we observed 260 persons in whom 42.2% of relevant prescriptions were inappropriately dosed; after implementation, there were 280 subjects in whom 36.6% of relevant prescriptions were inappropriately dosed. The multivariable model suggested an overall trend toward less inappropriate dosing after automated eGFR reporting began, compared with rates before (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.75 [95% confidence interval: 0.52-1.07], P = 0.11). However, a gradient was observed as the academic year progressed. A marked reduction in the rate of inappropriate medication dosing was seen in July after initiation of eGFR reporting compared with the July before initiation (AOR = 0.28; P < 0.01). This effect was attenuated in December (AOR = 0.45; P = 0.05) and gone by May (AOR = 0.85; P = 0.67).
Automated eGFR reporting alone, without any order entry intervention, was associated only transiently with improved dosing appropriateness for these older adults with concealed renal insufficiency.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The aims of this study were to evaluate the current awareness of and implementation by pharmacists in Japan of adjustment of drug dosage according to renal function (ADDR) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and to clarify the factors influencing implementation of ADDR by community pharmacists.
We conducted a web-based questionnaire of Japanese community and hospital pharmacists. Responders were compared by characteristics, rate of implementation of ADDR, experience with adverse drug events, pharmacist awareness of implementation of ADDR, and obstacles to ADDR implementation experienced by pharmacists. Additionally, the factors influencing the implementation of ADDR by community pharmacists were investigated by logistic regression analysis.
Fewer community pharmacists had implemented ADDR than hospital pharmacists. The community pharmacists had less experience with adverse drug events caused by an inappropriate dosage than the hospital pharmacists, while the hospital pharmacists had encountered more severe adverse drug events than the community pharmacists. The community pharmacists had less awareness of ADDR implementation, and believed that problems in implementing ADDR were caused by a lack of information on the renal function of patients. In the logistic regression analysis, the factors influencing implementation of ADDR were “Routinely receiving prescriptions from nephrologists”, “Experience with adverse drug events caused by inappropriate dosage for CKD patients”, and “Awareness of the need for pharmacists to check the dosage of renally excreted drugs”; they did not include “Lack of information on patient renal function”.
This study indicates that fewer Japanese community pharmacists than hospital pharmacists implement ADDR and that implementation of ADDR by community pharmacists is hindered by their limited awareness of the importance of patient renal function. We advocate that many countermeasures be introduced to prevent CKD patients from experiencing adverse drug events caused by inappropriate dosage. Such countermeasures would include a training program to educate pharmacists about the impact of impaired renal function on dosage of drugs that are excreted by the kidneys.
BMC Health Services Research 12/2014; 14(1-1):615. DOI:10.1186/s12913-014-0615-0 · 1.71 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To determine the prevalence, determinants, and potential clinical relevance of adherence with the Dutch dosing guideline in patients with impaired renal function at hospital discharge.
Retrospective cohort study between January 2007 and July 2011.
Academic teaching hospital in the Netherlands.
Patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between 10-50 ml/min/1.73m2 at discharge and prescribed one or more medicines of which the dose is renal function dependent.
The prevalence of adherence with the Dutch renal dosing guideline was investigated, and the influence of possible determinants, such as reporting the eGFR and severity of renal impairment (severe: eGFR<30 and moderate: eGFR 30-50 ml/min/1.73m2). Furthermore, the potential clinical relevance of non-adherence was assessed.
1327 patients were included, mean age 67 years, mean eGFR 38 ml/min/1.73m2. Adherence with the guideline was present in 53.9% (n=715) of patients. Reporting the eGFR, which was incorporated since April 2009, resulted in more adherence with the guideline: 50.7% vs. 57.0%, RR 1.12 (95% CI 1.02-1.25). Adherence was less in patients with severe renal impairment (46.0%), compared to patients with moderate renal impairment (58.1%, RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.70-0.89). 71.4% of the cases of non-adherence had the potential to cause moderate to severe harm.
Required dosage adjustments in case of impaired renal function are often not performed at hospital discharge, which may cause harm to the majority of patients. Reporting the eGFR can be a small and simple first step to improve adherence with dosing guidelines.
PLoS ONE 06/2015; 10(6):e0128237. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0128237 · 3.23 Impact Factor
Note: This list is based on the publications in our database and might not be exhaustive.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.