An intervention on discharge polypharmacy

David M. Smith, Mark R. Cox, Edward J. Brizendine, Siu Hui, Jay A. Freedman, Douglas Martin, Michael Murray

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine if providing a way to cancel pre-admission prescriptions would reduce the number of active drug prescriptions (RXs) at discharge. DESIGN: A randomized non-blinded clinical trial. SETTING: Inpatient acute medical service of a university-affiliated Veterans Administration medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve medicine ward teams were randomized to control and intervention groups. Patients enrolled had been discharged from these teams during 12 weeks and were receiving outpatient medications from this facility at hospital admission; control = 180, intervention = 168. INTERVENTION: At discharge, intervention teams used a computer-generated drug list to cancel or renew previous outpatient RXs or to prescribe new medications. Control teams could not cancel outpatient drugs and wrote all medications on individual prescriptions. MEASUREMENTS: The difference between admission and discharge RXs. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in patients' age, sex, race, Charlson Index (CI), or LOS between patient groups at discharge. The intervention group had fewer RXs on admission (5.4 vs 6.2, P < .05) and at discharge (8.3 vs 9.1, P < .04), but the increase from admission to discharge was not significantly different (2.9 vs 2.9, P = .87) from the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Providing a method for canceling preadmission medications did not reduce the number of RXs at discharge. Further research is needed to evaluate the appropriateness of the large increase in RXs from admission to discharge for patients in acute hospital settings.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)416-419
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of the American Geriatrics Society
Volume44
Issue number4
StatePublished - Apr 1996

Fingerprint

Polypharmacy
Outpatients
Prescriptions
Drug Prescriptions
United States Department of Veterans Affairs
Control Groups
Patient Discharge
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Inpatients
Medicine
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geriatrics and Gerontology

Cite this

Smith, D. M., Cox, M. R., Brizendine, E. J., Hui, S., Freedman, J. A., Martin, D., & Murray, M. (1996). An intervention on discharge polypharmacy. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 44(4), 416-419.

An intervention on discharge polypharmacy. / Smith, David M.; Cox, Mark R.; Brizendine, Edward J.; Hui, Siu; Freedman, Jay A.; Martin, Douglas; Murray, Michael.

In: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Vol. 44, No. 4, 04.1996, p. 416-419.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Smith, DM, Cox, MR, Brizendine, EJ, Hui, S, Freedman, JA, Martin, D & Murray, M 1996, 'An intervention on discharge polypharmacy', Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 416-419.
Smith DM, Cox MR, Brizendine EJ, Hui S, Freedman JA, Martin D et al. An intervention on discharge polypharmacy. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 1996 Apr;44(4):416-419.
Smith, David M. ; Cox, Mark R. ; Brizendine, Edward J. ; Hui, Siu ; Freedman, Jay A. ; Martin, Douglas ; Murray, Michael. / An intervention on discharge polypharmacy. In: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 1996 ; Vol. 44, No. 4. pp. 416-419.
@article{a29665f1bde64189a2812e0e6a2244ca,
title = "An intervention on discharge polypharmacy",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To determine if providing a way to cancel pre-admission prescriptions would reduce the number of active drug prescriptions (RXs) at discharge. DESIGN: A randomized non-blinded clinical trial. SETTING: Inpatient acute medical service of a university-affiliated Veterans Administration medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve medicine ward teams were randomized to control and intervention groups. Patients enrolled had been discharged from these teams during 12 weeks and were receiving outpatient medications from this facility at hospital admission; control = 180, intervention = 168. INTERVENTION: At discharge, intervention teams used a computer-generated drug list to cancel or renew previous outpatient RXs or to prescribe new medications. Control teams could not cancel outpatient drugs and wrote all medications on individual prescriptions. MEASUREMENTS: The difference between admission and discharge RXs. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in patients' age, sex, race, Charlson Index (CI), or LOS between patient groups at discharge. The intervention group had fewer RXs on admission (5.4 vs 6.2, P < .05) and at discharge (8.3 vs 9.1, P < .04), but the increase from admission to discharge was not significantly different (2.9 vs 2.9, P = .87) from the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Providing a method for canceling preadmission medications did not reduce the number of RXs at discharge. Further research is needed to evaluate the appropriateness of the large increase in RXs from admission to discharge for patients in acute hospital settings.",
author = "Smith, {David M.} and Cox, {Mark R.} and Brizendine, {Edward J.} and Siu Hui and Freedman, {Jay A.} and Douglas Martin and Michael Murray",
year = "1996",
month = "4",
language = "English",
volume = "44",
pages = "416--419",
journal = "Journal of the American Geriatrics Society",
issn = "0002-8614",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An intervention on discharge polypharmacy

AU - Smith, David M.

AU - Cox, Mark R.

AU - Brizendine, Edward J.

AU - Hui, Siu

AU - Freedman, Jay A.

AU - Martin, Douglas

AU - Murray, Michael

PY - 1996/4

Y1 - 1996/4

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To determine if providing a way to cancel pre-admission prescriptions would reduce the number of active drug prescriptions (RXs) at discharge. DESIGN: A randomized non-blinded clinical trial. SETTING: Inpatient acute medical service of a university-affiliated Veterans Administration medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve medicine ward teams were randomized to control and intervention groups. Patients enrolled had been discharged from these teams during 12 weeks and were receiving outpatient medications from this facility at hospital admission; control = 180, intervention = 168. INTERVENTION: At discharge, intervention teams used a computer-generated drug list to cancel or renew previous outpatient RXs or to prescribe new medications. Control teams could not cancel outpatient drugs and wrote all medications on individual prescriptions. MEASUREMENTS: The difference between admission and discharge RXs. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in patients' age, sex, race, Charlson Index (CI), or LOS between patient groups at discharge. The intervention group had fewer RXs on admission (5.4 vs 6.2, P < .05) and at discharge (8.3 vs 9.1, P < .04), but the increase from admission to discharge was not significantly different (2.9 vs 2.9, P = .87) from the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Providing a method for canceling preadmission medications did not reduce the number of RXs at discharge. Further research is needed to evaluate the appropriateness of the large increase in RXs from admission to discharge for patients in acute hospital settings.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To determine if providing a way to cancel pre-admission prescriptions would reduce the number of active drug prescriptions (RXs) at discharge. DESIGN: A randomized non-blinded clinical trial. SETTING: Inpatient acute medical service of a university-affiliated Veterans Administration medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve medicine ward teams were randomized to control and intervention groups. Patients enrolled had been discharged from these teams during 12 weeks and were receiving outpatient medications from this facility at hospital admission; control = 180, intervention = 168. INTERVENTION: At discharge, intervention teams used a computer-generated drug list to cancel or renew previous outpatient RXs or to prescribe new medications. Control teams could not cancel outpatient drugs and wrote all medications on individual prescriptions. MEASUREMENTS: The difference between admission and discharge RXs. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in patients' age, sex, race, Charlson Index (CI), or LOS between patient groups at discharge. The intervention group had fewer RXs on admission (5.4 vs 6.2, P < .05) and at discharge (8.3 vs 9.1, P < .04), but the increase from admission to discharge was not significantly different (2.9 vs 2.9, P = .87) from the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Providing a method for canceling preadmission medications did not reduce the number of RXs at discharge. Further research is needed to evaluate the appropriateness of the large increase in RXs from admission to discharge for patients in acute hospital settings.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030008068&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030008068&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 8636588

AN - SCOPUS:0030008068

VL - 44

SP - 416

EP - 419

JO - Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

JF - Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

SN - 0002-8614

IS - 4

ER -