A Survey on Medication Reviews in Older Patients: Substantial Variation in Daily Practice
|Kim PGM Hurkens1*, Carlota Mestres-Gonzalvo2, Hugo AJM de Wit2, P. Hugo M van der Kuy2, Rob Janknegt2, FransVerhey3, Jos MGA Schols4, Leo ML Stolk5, Coen DA Stehouwer1,6 and Wubbo Mulder1|
|1Department of Internal Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, The Netherlands|
|2Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Orbis Medisch Centrum Sittard, The Netherlands|
|3Alzheimer Centrum Limburg, School of Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University Medical Centre, The Netherlands|
|4Department of Family Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, The Netherlands|
|5Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, The Netherlands|
|6Cardiovasculair Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM), The Netherlands|
|Corresponding Author :||Kim PGM Hurkens
Department of Internal Medicine
Maastricht University Medical Centre
PO box 5800, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 433877005
Fax: +31 433875006
E-mail: [email protected]
|Received July 10, 2013; Accepted September 30, 2013; Published October 03, 2013|
|Citation: Hurkens KPGM, MestresGonzalvo C, de Wit HAJM, van der Kuy PHM, Janknegt R, et al. (2013) A Survey on Medication Reviews in Older Patients: Substantial Variation in Daily Practice. J Gerontol Geriat Res 2:133. doi:10.4172/2167-7182.1000133|
|Copyright: © 2013 Hurkens KPGM, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.|
Objective: To assess the methods and frequency by which medication reviews are performed by general practitioners and nursing home physicians by means of a survey.
Methods: 134 nursing home physicians and general practitioners working in the southern part of the Netherlands, the province of Limburg were asked to fill in a digital questionnaire. Non response was followed by second emailing and a questionnaire on paper by regular post. The questionnaire was developed by an expert panel, consisting of two hospital pharmacists, an internist, a nursing home physician and a neuropsychiatrist.
Results: There was substantial inconsistency in the frequency of performing medication reviews, ranging from monthly (in 40%) by the nursing home physicians to four times a year (in 50%) by the general practitioners. Time spent on one review also varied significantly between groups, namely 10 minutes for a nursing home physician and 20 minutes for general practitioners. Meetings between the physician and pharmacist took place regularly (91%), but these were not organised for medication reviewing of individual patients. When medication was changed by another doctor, 47% of nursing home physicians and 44% of the general practitioners were informed often, whereas 40% and 50% respectively were only informed sometimes, and 13% of nursing home physicians and 6% of general practitioners never received any notice. 59% of the nursing home physicians and 89% of general practitioners considered workload to be a limiting factor in performing reviews.
Conclusions: This survey shows great inconsistency in the way medication reviews are done. To achieve a high standard, we may have to reconsider the way medication reviews are done.