Cited by 48Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesPharmacy and Medical PracticesHealthcare cost, quality, practices

A Collaborative Medication Review Including Deprescribing for Older Patients in an Emergency Department: A Longitudinal Feasibility Study

Open access
Houlind, Morten Baltzer, Andersen, Aino Leegaard, Treldal, Charlotte, Jørgensen, Lillian Mørch, Kannegaard, Pia Nimann, Castillo, Luana Sandoval, Christensen, Line Due, Tavenier, Juliette +4 more·2020·Journal of Clinical Medicine

Abstract

Medication review for older patients with polypharmacy in the emergency department (ED) is crucial to prevent inappropriate prescribing. Our objective was to assess the feasibility of a collaborative medication review in older medical patients (≥65 years) using polypharmacy (≥5 long-term medications). A pharmacist performed the medication review using the tools: Screening Tool of Older Persons’ potentially inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP) criteria, a drug–drug interaction database (SFINX), and Renbase® (renal dosing database). A geriatrician received the medication review and decided which recommendations should be implemented. The outcomes were: differences in Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) and Assessment of Underutilization Index (AOU) scores between admission and 30 days after discharge and the percentage of patients for which the intervention was completed before discharge. Sixty patients were included from the ED, the intervention was completed before discharge for 50 patients (83%), and 39 (61.5% male; median age 80 years) completed the follow-up 30 days after discharge. The median MAI score decreased from 14 (IQR 8-20) at admission to 8 (IQR 2-13) 30 days after discharge (p < 0.001). The number of patients with an AOU score ≥1 was reduced from 36% to 10% (p < 0.001). Thirty days after discharge, 83% of the changes were sustained and for 28 patients (72%), 1≥ medication had been deprescribed. In conclusion, a collaborative medication review and deprescribing intervention is feasible to perform in the ED.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/jcm9020348

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Houlind, M. B., Andersen, A. L., Treldal, C., Jørgensen, L. M., Kannegaard, P. N., Castillo, L. S., Christensen, L. D., Tavenier, J., Rasmussen, L. J. H., Ankarfeldt, M. Z., Andersen, O., & Petersen, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Amager Hospital (DK)
  • Herlev Hospital (DK)
  • Bispebjerg Hospital (DK)
  • Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Houlind, Morten Baltzer
Venue
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-01-27
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
348
ISSN
2077-0383 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3001653910
Cited by
48
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 1
FWCI
3.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Scopus (Elsevier) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Gentofte Hospital
  • Lundbeckfonden (R288-2018–380)
  • Region Hovedstaden
  • H. Lundbeck A/S
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
Keywords
medication review, deprescribing, polypharmacy, older adults, emergency department, potentially inappropriate prescribing, STOPP criteria, renal dosing, Medication Appropriateness Index, feasibility, inappropriate prescribing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review