Impact of different health systems on the burden of type 2 diabetes in two populations

Objectives: Health policy directs the management of patients with chronic disease in a country, but evaluating nationwide policies is difficult, not least because of the absence of suitable comparators. This paper examines the management of patients with type 2 diabetes in two demographically comparable populations with different health care systems to see if this represents a viable approach to evaluation.

Methods: A secondary analysis of centralized prescribing databases for 2010 was undertaken to compare the levels and costs of care of patients with type 2 diabetes in Northern Ireland’s National Health Service (NHS) (NI, n = 1.8 million) which has structured care, financial incentives related to diabetes care and an emphasis on generic prescribing, with that of the Republic of Ireland (ROI, n = 4.3 million) where management of diabetes care is guided solely by clinical and other guidelines.

Results: The prevalence of treated type 2 diabetes was 3.59% in NI and 3.09% in ROI, but there were similar and high levels of prescribing of secondary cardiovascular medications. Medication costs per person for anti-diabetic, anti-obesity and cardiovascular medication were 46% higher in ROI than NI, due to differences in levels of generic prescribing.

Conclusions: These different health care systems appear to be producing similar levels of care for patients with type 2 diabetes, although at different levels of cost. The findings question the need for financial incentives in NI and highlight the large cost savings potentially accruing from a greater shift to generic prescribing in ROI. Cross-country comparison, though not without difficulties, may prove a useful adjunct to within-country analysis of policy impact.

Better together: Interprofessional Education in Medication Safety

Background: The importance of actively working with other professionals, as part of a single team, is well embedded in discussions relating to effective healthcare. The need for effective teamwork specifically in relation to patient safety is also widely acknowledged; however healthcare has traditionally been poor at building teams and professional groups tend to function semi-autonomously and autocratically.1
Objective: This study aims to gain the views and experiences of students from nursing, pharmacy and medicine involved in an interprofessional workshop in medication safety.
Setting and methods: Interprofessional workshops involving students from nursing, pharmacy and medicine were delivered using case studies involving medication incidents. Focus groups were used to investigate participant’s views and experiences of the workshop.
Results: Focus groups were completed with 22 students. Five main themes were identified from the focus group data relating to medication safety; these were increasing confidence, insight into roles, improving skills, culture of responsibility and application to future practice.
Conclusions: This study represents a model for delivery of training that has demonstrated improvement in the students’ attitudes towards team working and is a first step towards introducing team working into the medication safety program. The programme continues to run using live and virtual workshops.

1. Leape LL. A systems analysis approach to medical error. J Clin Eval Clin Pract. 1997. 3, 3, 213-222.

GPs’ and community pharmacists’ opinions on medication management at transitions of care in Ireland

Objective. The aim of this study was to survey GPs and community pharmacists (CPs) in Ireland regarding current practices of medication management, specifically medication reconciliation, communication between health care providers and medication errors as patients transition in care.
Methods. A national cross-sectional survey was distributed electronically to 2364 GPs, 311 GP Registrars and 2382 CPs. Multivariable associations comparing GPs to CPs were generated and content analysis of free text responses was undertaken.
Results. There was an overall response rate of 17.7% (897 respondents—554 GPs/Registrars and 343 CPs). More than 90% of GPs and CPs were positive about the effects of medication reconciliation on medication safety and adherence. Sixty per cent of GPs reported having no formal system of medication reconciliation. Communication between GPs and CPs was identified as good/very good by >90% of GPs and CPs. The majority (>80%) of both groups could clearly recall prescribing errors, following a transition of care, they had witnessed in the previous 6 months. Free text content analysis corroborated the positive relationship between GPs and CPs, a frustration with secondary care communication, with many examples given of prescribing errors.
Conclusions. While there is enthusiasm for the benefits of medication reconciliation there are limited formal structures in primary care to support it. Challenges in relation to systems that support inter-professional communication and reduce medication errors are features of the primary/secondary care transition. There is a need for an improved medication management system. Future research should focus on the identified barriers in implementing medication reconciliation and systems that can improve it.

Polypharmacy and inappropriate medication use in patients with dementia: an underresearched problem

Multimorbidity and polypharmacy are increasingly prevalent across healthcare systems and settings as global demographic trends shift towards increased proportions of older people in populations. Numerous studies have demonstrated an association between polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP), and have reported high prevalence of PIP across settings of care in Europe and North America and, as a consequence, increased risk of adverse drug reactions, healthcare utilisation, morbidity and mortality. These studies have not focused specifically on people with dementia, despite the high risk of adverse drug reactions and PIP in this patient cohort. This narrative review considers the evidence currently available in the area, including studies examining prevalence of PIP in older people with dementia, how appropriateness of prescribing is assessed, the medications most commonly implicated, the clinical consequences, and research priorities to optimise prescribing for this vulnerable patient group. Although there has been considerable research effort to develop criteria to assess medication appropriateness in older people in recent years, the majority of tools do not focus on people with dementia. Of the limited number of tools available, most focus on the advanced stages of dementia in which life-expectancy is limited. The development of tools to assess medication appropriateness in people with mild-to-moderate dementia or across the full spectrum of disease severity represents an important gap in the research literature and is beginning to attract research interest, with recent studies considering the medication regimen as a whole, or misprescribing, overprescribing or underprescribing of certain medications/medication classes including anticholinergics, psychotropics, antibiotics and analgesics. Further work is required in development and validation of criteria to assess prescribing appropriateness in this vulnerable patient population, to determine prevalence of PIP in large cohorts of people with the full spectrum of dementia variants and severities and to examine the impact of PIP on health outcomes.