Causes of preventable drug-related hospital admissions: a qualitative study

Objective: To explore the causes of preventable drug-related admissions (PDRAs) to hospital. Design: Qualitative case studies using semi-structured interviews and medical record review; data analysed using a framework derived from Reason's model of organisational accidents and cascade analysis. Participants: 62 participants, including 18 patients, 8 informal carers, 17 general practitioners, 12 community pharmacists, 3 practice nurses and 4 other members of healthcare staff, involved in events leading up to the patients' hospital admissions. Setting: Nottingham, UK. Results: PDRAs are associated with problems at multiple stages in the medication use process, including prescribing, dispensing, administration, monitoring and help seeking. The main causes of these problems are communication failures ( between patients and healthcare professionals and different groups of healthcare professionals) and knowledge gaps ( about drugs and patients' medical and medication histories). The causes of PDRAs are similar irrespective of whether the hospital admission is associated with a prescribing, monitoring or patient adherence problem. Conclusions: The causes of PDRAs are multifaceted and complex. Technical solutions to PDRAs will need to take account of this complexity and are unlikely to be sufficient on their own. Interventions targeting the human causes of PDRAs are also necessary - for example, improving methods of communication.

Which drugs cause preventable admissions to hospital? A systematic review

Aim: Previous systematic reviews have found that drug-related morbidity accounts for 4.3% of preventable hospital admissions. None, however, has identified the drugs most commonly responsible for preventable hospital admissions. The aims of this study were to estimate the percentage of preventable drug-related hospital admissions, the most common drug causes of preventable hospital admissions and the most common underlying causes of preventable drug-related admissions. Methods: Bibliographic databases and reference lists from eligible articles and study authors were the sources for data. Seventeen prospective observational studies reporting the proportion of preventable drug-related hospital admissions, causative drugs and/or the underlying causes of hospital admissions were selected. Included studies used multiple reviewers and/or explicit criteria to assess causality and preventability of hospital admissions. Two investigators abstracted data from all included studies using a purpose-made data extraction form. Results: From 13 papers the median percentage of preventable drug-related admissions to hospital was 3.7% (range 1.4-15.4). From nine papers the majority (51%) of preventable drug-related admissions involved either antiplatelets (16%), diuretics (16%), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (11%) or anticoagulants (8%). From five studies the median proportion of preventable drug-related admissions associated with prescribing problems was 30.6% (range 11.1-41.8), with adherence problems 33.3% (range 20.9-41.7) and with monitoring problems 22.2% (range 0-31.3). Conclusions: Four groups of drugs account for more than 50% of the drug groups associated with preventable drug-related hospital admissions. Concentrating interventions on these drug groups could reduce appreciably the number of preventable drug-related admissions to hospital from primary care.

Integrated motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioural therapy for people with psychosis and comorbid substance misuse: randomised controlled trial

Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of integrated motivational interviewing and cognitive behaviour therapy in addition to standard care for patients with psychosis and a co-morbid substance use problem. Design Two-centre, open, rater-blind randomised controlled trial Setting UK Secondary Care Participants 327 patients with clinical diagnoses of schizophrenia, schizophreniform or schizoaffective disorder and DSM-IV diagnoses of drug and/or alcohol dependence or abuse Interventions Participants were randomly allocated to integrated motivational interviewing and cognitive behaviour therapy or standard care. Therapy has two phases. Phase one – “motivation building” – concerns engaging the patient, then exploring and resolving ambivalence for change in substance use. Phase two –“Action” – supports and facilitates change using cognitive behavioural approaches. Up to 26 therapy sessions were delivered over one year. Main outcomes The primary outcome was death from any cause or admission to hospital in the 12 months after therapy. Secondary outcomes were frequency and amount of substance use (Timeline Followback), readiness to change, perceived negative consequences of use, psychotic symptom ratings, number and duration of relapses, global assessment of functioning and deliberate self harm, at 12 and 24 months, with additional Timeline Followback assessments at 6 and 18 months. Analysis was by intention-to-treat with robust treatment effect estimates. Results 327 participants were randomised. 326 (99.7%) were assessed on the primary outcome, 246 (75.2%) on main secondary outcomes at 24 months. Regarding the primary outcome, there was no beneficial treatment effect on hospital admissions/ death during follow-up, with 20.2% (33/163) of controls and 23.3% (38/163) of the therapy group deceased or admitted (adjusted odds-ratio 1.16; P= 0.579; 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.99). For secondary outcomes there was no treatment effect on frequency of substance use or perceived negative consequences, but a statistically significant effect of therapy on amount used per substance-using day (adjusted odds-ratios: (a) for main substance 1.50; P=0.016; 1.08 to 2.09, (b) all substances 1.48; P=0.017; 1.07 to 2.05). There was a statistically significant treatment effect on readiness to change use at 12 months (adjusted odds-ratio 2.05; P=0.004; 1.26 to 3.31), not maintained at 24 months. There were no treatment effects on assessed clinical outcomes. Conclusions Integrated motivational interviewing and cognitive behaviour therapy for people with psychosis and substance misuse does not improve outcome in terms of hospitalisation, symptom outcomes or functioning. It does result in a reduction in amount of substance use which is maintained over the year’s follow up. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN14404480