Interventions in Nursing Homes

NIH Public Access
Author Manuscript
Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 22.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Published in final edited form as:

Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2010 June ; 8(3): 183200. doi:10.1016/j.amjopharm.2010.05.004.
Interventions to Improve Suboptimal Prescribing in Nursing

Homes: A Narrative Review
Zachary A. Marcum, PharmD1, Steven M. Handler, MD, MS1,2,3, Rollin Wright, MD, MPH1,
and Joseph T. Hanlon, PharmD, MS1,3,4
1 Department of Medicine (Geriatrics), School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
2
Department of Biomedical Informatics, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania
3
Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, and Center for Health Equity Research and
Promotion, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Department of Pharmacy and Therapeutics, School of Pharmacy, and Department of

Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
Abstract
BackgroundAppropriate medication prescribing for nursing home residents remains a
challenge.
ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to conduct a narrative review of the published
literature describing randomized controlled trials that used interventions to improve suboptimal
prescribing in nursing homes.
MethodsThe PubMed, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and EMBASE databases were

searched for articles published in the English language between January 1975 and December 2009,
using the terms drug utilization, pharmaceutical services, aged, long-term care, nursing homes,
prescribing, geriatrics, and randomized controlled trial. A manual search of the reference lists of
identified articles and the authors files, book chapters, and recent review articles was also
conducted. Abstracts and posters from meetings were not included in the search. Studies were
included if they: (1) had a randomized controlled design; (2) had a process measure outcome for
quality of prescribing or a distal outcome measure for medication-related adverse patient events;
and (3) involved nursing home residents.
ResultsEighteen studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Seven of those studies
described educational approaches using various interventions (eg, outreach visits) and measured
suboptimal prescribing in different manners (eg, adherence to guidelines). Two studies described
computerized decision-support systems to measure the interventions impact on adverse drug
events (ADEs) and appropriate drug orders. Five studies described clinical pharmacist activities,
most commonly involving a medication review, and used various measures of suboptimal
prescribing, including a measure of medication appropriateness and the total number of
medications prescribed. Two studies each described multidisciplinary and multifaceted approaches
that included heterogeneous interventions and measures of prescribing. Most (15/18; 83.3%) of
Address correspondence to: Zachary A. Marcum, PharmD, Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of
Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Kaufman Medical Building, Suite 500, 3471 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. zam12@pitt.edu.
The authors have indicated that they have no other conflicts of interest regarding the content of this article.
Marcum et al.
Page 2
these studies reported statistically significant improvements in 1 aspect of suboptimal

prescribing. Only 3 of the studies reported significant improvements in distal health outcomes, and
only 3 measured ADEs or adverse drug reactions.
ConclusionsMixed results were reported for a variety of approaches used to improve
suboptimal prescribing. However, the heterogeneity of the study interventions and the various
measures of suboptimal prescribing used in these studies does not allow for an authoritative
conclusion based on the currently available literature.
Keywords
drug utilization; prescribing; nursing home; long-term care; geriatrics
INTRODUCTION
Medication prescribing for nursing home residents 65 years of age is a complex process
that can potentially improve quality of life, prolong life expectancy, and/or cure disease.
However, sufficient data have been published over the past 3 decades suggesting that
prescribing can be suboptimal (ie, overuse, underuse, or misuse).1 Of concern is that these
different types of suboptimal prescribing can lead to adverse health outcomes, especially
medication-related adverse patient events (ie, adverse drug events [ADEs], adverse drug
withdrawal events, and therapeutic failures).14
Various research approaches have been used in attempts to improve prescribing practices
among physicians in multiple clinical care settings.1,511 These include interventions to
improve education of the health care staff providing patient care, to utilize computerized
decision-support systems, to use clinical pharmacy interventions, to use a multidisciplinary
approach, and to use a multifaceted approach. The conclusions of these various interventions
have produced mixed results, leading to further confusion on effective interventions to
improve prescribing. Unfortunately, previous reviews either are outdated or focus on a
single drug class (eg, psychotropic drugs) or intervention (eg, pharmacists).1,8,11 Because a
review of interventions to improve prescribing in nursing homes has not been conducted in
almost 2 decades,1 this updated review is both timely and relevant. The objective of this
study was to conduct a narrative review of the published literature, describing the current
state of the art of medication prescribing in nursing homes and interventions for
improvement.
METHODS
With the aid of a trained medical librarian, articles that assessed improving suboptimal
prescribing among elderly nursing home residents (65 years of age) were identified
through searches of the PubMed, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), and
EMBASE databases for articles published in English between January 1975 and December
2009. The search combined the terms drug utilization, pharmaceutical services, aged, longterm care, nursing homes, prescribing, geriatrics, and randomized controlled trial (RCT).
Additional articles were identified by a manual search of the reference lists of identified
articles and the authors files, book chapters, and recent review articles. Abstracts and
posters from meetings were not included in the literature search. The authors then reviewed
the identified studies and included those that: (1) had a randomized controlled design; (2)
had a process measure outcome for quality of prescribing or a distal outcome measure for
medication-related adverse patient events; and (3) involved nursing home residents.
Identified articles were grouped according to type of intervention using a previously
published approach.7
Marcum et al.
Page 3
RESULTS
Twenty-three publications were identified from the literature search, 5 of which were
excluded. Three of the excluded trials were not randomized,1214 one of the trials did not
focus on improving prescribing as a main outcome,15 and one was a placebo-controlled
withdrawal trial that assessed stopping long-term anti-psychotic treatment as the primary
outcome.16 The 18 studies that met the inclusion criteria are summarized in the table.1734
Seven of those studies described educational approaches using various interventions (eg,
outreach visits) and measured suboptimal prescribing in different manners (eg, adherence to
guidelines). Two studies described computerized decision-support systems to measure the
interventions impact on ADEs and appropriate drug orders. Five studies described clinical
pharmacist activities, most commonly involving a medication review, and used various
measures of suboptimal prescribing, including a measure of medication appropriateness and
the total number of medications prescribed. Two studies each described multidisciplinary
and multifaceted approaches that included heterogeneous interventions and measures of
prescribing.
The following descriptions provide further information about these individual trials,
categorized by type of intervention. Of note, the trials were categorized by the type of
intervention rather than the object of the intervention. For example, an educational
intervention directed at a multidisciplinary target audience would be classified under the
educational approaches section.
Educational Approaches
A study by Avorn et al17 examined the impact of an academic detailing intervention on the
use of psychotropic medications in nursing home residents. The study included 823 elderly
residents from 6 randomized matched pairs of nursing homes and lasted 5 months. The
intervention consisted of a clinical pharmacist educating physicians, nurses, and nurses
aides in the principles of geriatric psychopharmacology. The intervention was associated
with a significant decrease in the use of antipsychotic drugs (32% in experimental group vs
14% in control group; mean difference, 18%; 95% CI, 3% to 33%; P < 0.05). However,
the intervention did not have a significant impact on the use of hypnotics (45% vs 21%,
respectively; mean difference, 24%; 95% CI, 54% to 5%) or long half-life
benzodiazepines (BZDs) (20% vs 9%; mean difference, 11%; 95% CI, 38% to 15%).
Overall, inappropriateness scores for use of psychoactive drugs declined significantly in the
intervention nursing homes compared with those from the control nursing homes (27% vs
8%, respectively; P = 0.02). Most (4/6) measures of clinical status (mental status, anxiety,
behavior, and sleep) remained unchanged in both groups. Residents of the control homes
were less likely than residents of intervention homes to maintain or improve their
performance on memory testing (46% vs 69%; rate ratio = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.3 to 1.0); they also
were less likely to maintain or improve scores on mental status testing (44% vs 62%; rate
ratio = 0.7; 95% CI, 0.4 to 1.1) on 2 measures of cognitive function (delayed-recognitionspan test for memory and the Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE]), although the
differences were not statistically significant. In other words, residents of intervention homes
experienced less deterioration on these measures of cognitive function. However, residents
of intervention homes were more likely to report depression (56% vs 27%; rate ratio = 2.0;
95% CI, 1.1 to 3.9; P < 0.05). This study was limited by its use of an un-validated measure
of psychotropic prescribing quality and its low power to detect differences in health outcomes given the short follow-up period (30 days). Nonetheless, the intervention had some
beneficial effects on improving suboptimal psychotropic prescribing for elderly nursing
home residents.
Marcum et al.
Page 4
A 3-month study by Stein et al18 examined the impact of an academic detailing intervention
on the use of NSAIDs in 147 older residents (65 years of age) in 10 matched pairs of
nursing homes. A 30-minute education training session was held in intervention homes for
nurses and nurses aides on alternatives to NSAIDs for managing musculoskeletal pain. A
study investigator also met with directors of nursing and administrators in the intervention
homes. A study physician visited or talked by telephone with prescribing physicians in
intervention homes to review the risks and benefits of NSAIDs, an algorithm for stopping
use of these agents, and the available alternatives to NSAIDs. The intervention group had
significant reductions in the mean days per week that NSAIDs were used (5.1 days vs 0.8
day for the control group; P < 0.001) and significant increases in the use of acetaminophen
(APAP) (3.1 days vs 0.31 day for controls; P < 0.001). No statistically significant
differences in any of the 7 health outcome measures were found between the 2 groups. It is
likely that the study had limited power to detect differences in distal health outcomes given
the small sample size.
Monette et al19 conducted a 4-month clustered trial in 8 public Canadian long-term care
facilities involving 36 prescribing physicians. The intervention included written materials
about appropriate management of common infections, which were mailed to physicians
along with specific information about their prescribing patterns for anti-infectives.
Nonadherent, or suboptimal, prescribing was defined as any anti-infective prescription that
differed from the mailed guidelines in 1 of the following areas: the choice of the antiinfective according to the diagnosis; dosage; frequency; duration; or adjustment for
creatinine clearance, when indicated. The physicians in the intervention group were 64%
less likely to prescribe nonadherent antibiotics than were physicians in the control group
(odds ratio [OR] = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.180.73; P < 0.05). No information was collected on any
additional health outcomes. The study was limited by the use of unvalidated explicit criteria
to measure suboptimal prescribing and the use of non-blinded evaluators of the outcome
measures. In addition, the generalizability of the results to the United States or other
countries is unknown.
Fossey et al20 tested the effectiveness of training staff from 6 paired nursing homes in the
United Kingdom on antipsychotic use in 349 residents (median age, 82 years) with
dementia. The in-facility training was done by a psychologist, a nurse, and occupational
therapists over 10 months. In addition, 3 geriatric psychiatrists reviewed residents medical
records and wrote specific recommendations to prescribing physicians to discontinue
antipsychotics that had been given for >3 months, especially if behavioral problems had
subsided. Study team members made initial and 12-month follow-up assessments of any use
of antipsychotics, the dosages used, and behavioral complications (based on the CohenMansfield Agitation Inventory35). The proportion of residents taking neuroleptics was
significantly lower in the intervention homes than in the control homes at 12 months (23.0%
vs 42.1%, respectively; mean reduction in neuroleptic use, 19.1%; 95% CI, 0.5%37.7%; P
= 0.045). This improvement did not result in changes in the use of other psychotropics or
behavioral complications. It is important to note that antipsychotic use at baseline (50% in
control homes, 47% in intervention homes) was nearly twice as high as current levels in US
nursing homes; the cost-effectiveness of such a labor-intensive, hands-on intervention was
not provided.
A study by Crotty et al21 assessed the impact of an outreach visit intervention delivered by a
pharmacist on fall reduction and stroke prevention in a residential care setting over 7
months. The study included 897 participants at baseline and 902 participants at the 7-month
follow-up from 20 residential care facilities, 715 of whom (mean age, 83.4 years in control
homes, 84.7 years in intervention homes) had data at both time points; 452 residential care
staff were surveyed, and 121 physicians were invited to participate, 61 of whom attended
Marcum et al.
Page 5
outreach visits. The intervention consisted of two 30-minute outreach visits by a pharmacist.
The first visit focused on relevant evidence related to fall reduction and stroke prevention
using guidelines for community-based patients. The second visit included detailed audit
information about fall rates, risk of psychotropic drug use, and stroke risk-reduction
practices (eg, blood pressure monitoring, use of aspirin and warfarin) using facility-specific
information. Case notes were audited by nurses blinded to allocation for demographic
information, diagnoses, and stroke risk factors. The only significant result of this study was
the greater use of as required antipsychotics in the intervention group than in the control
group (relative risk [RR] = 4.95; 95% CI, 1.6914.50; P < 0.05). No significant difference
was found between the 2 groups in the numbers of residents at risk of stroke on aspirin at
follow-up (RR = 0.54; 95% CI, 0.291.00) or the 3-month fall rate (RR = 1.17; 95% CI,
0.861.58). This study was limited by the short time frame of the trial (7 months), which
may not have allowed detection of changes in prescribing patterns. In addition, because of
the short time frame, the total number of outreach visits (61) may not have been large
enough to have a sustainable effect on suboptimal prescribing.
A study by Schmidt et al22 assessed the impact of a pharmacist outreach program on

psychotropic drug use that targeted a multidisciplinary team consisting of physicians,
pharmacists, nurses, and nurses aides. The 12-month study included 1854 residents of 33
long-term care facilities. The investigators placed drugs into 1 of 3 categories: (1)
nonrecommended (eg, tricyclic antidepressants), (2) acceptable (eg, selective serotonin
reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs]), and (3) other drugs not categorized by the Swedish Medical
Products Agency. The intervention led to significant decreases in the prescribing of
antipsychotics (19%; P = 0.007), nonrecommended BZDs (37%; P < 0.001), and
nonrecommended tricyclic antidepressants (59%; P < 0.001) in the intervention group.
Orders for acceptable antidepressants increased in the intervention group (584% increase in
SSRI use; P < 0.001) as well as in the control group (315% increase in SSRI use; P <
0.001); however, no significant reductions in other drug classes were reported in the control
group. This study was limited in that it did not assess any clinical outcomes associated with
improving psychotropic prescribing.
Naughton et al23 compared a continuing-education strategy for the treatment of nursing

homeacquired pneumonia (NHAP) targeting individual physicians from skilled nursing
facilities (SNFs) and an educational strategy on NHAP targeting both SNF nurses and
physicians. The continuing-education tool involved promotion of a set of guidelines
developed by the investigators to improve antibiotic prescribing for NHAP. Ten SNFs were
randomly assigned to either the physician-only control group or to the multidisciplinary
intervention group (ie, nurses and physicians); the study lasted 6 months. All residents with
NHAP in the participating facilities (total, 2375 beds) were included in the study. There
were 350 episodes of NHAP, which were the basis of analysis for this study. The
investigators found that the intervention did not significantly improve the rate of treatment
among the preintervention and postintervention groups according to the guidelines. The use
of parenteral antibiotics in accordance with guidelines increased from a preintervention level
of 50% to a postintervention level of 81.8% in the SNFs randomized to the multidisciplinary
intervention and from 64.5% to 69.0% in the physician-only group (both, P = NS).
Interestingly, a statistically significant increase in prescribing of parenteral antibiotics
according to the guidelines was detected only after both groups of SNFs were combined in
the analysis (data not reported; P < 0.02). The intervention also did not yield a significant
difference in the other primary outcomes measured. Thus, in this study, neither strategy had
a significant effect on antibiotic prescribing in the SNFs studied.
Marcum et al.
Page 6
Computerized Decision-Support Systems

A study by Gurwitz et al24 evaluated the efficacy of a computerized provider order-entry

system with clinical decision support for preventing ADEs in the long-term care setting. The
study design was a clustered RCT conducted in 2 large long-term care facilities and
involved 1118 residents in 29 resident care units. The trial lasted 12 months at one site and 6
months at the other. Before study initiation, the investigators developed 39 clinical decisionsupport rules and 41 corresponding alerts based on the following principles: that messages
are evidence-based; practitioners should perceive the message as useful and informative; and
the system should have only a modest effect on the time required for the practitioner to
complete an order.36 The resident care units, each equipped with computerized provider
order-entry systems, were randomized to having a clinical decision-support system
(intervention) or not (control units). Physician pairs then independently classified incidents
according to the following criteria: whether an ADE was present, the severity of the event,
and whether the event was preventable. Within intervention units, 411 ADEs occurred over
3803 resident-months of observation; 152 (37.0%) were deemed preventable. Within control
units, 340 events occurred over 3257 resident-months of observation; 126 (37.1%) were
deemed preventable. Comparing intervention and control units, the adjusted rate ratios
were 1.06 (95% CI, 0.921.23) for all ADEs and 1.02 (95% CI, 0.811.30) for preventable
events (both, P = NS). In this study, computerized provider order entry with clinical decision
support did not reduce the rate of ADEs or preventable ADEs in the long-term care setting.
Possible reasons for the negative findings include alert burden (ie, >50% of the alerts were
determined to be unnecessary),37 limited scope of the alerts (ie, the alerts incorporated into
this system addressed only a minority of ADEs identified in this study), and clinical and
laboratory information not being integrated.
A study by Field et al25 determined whether a computerized provider order-entry system

with clinical decision support improves the quality of prescribing for long-term care
residents with renal insufficiency. The study design was a clustered RCT, was conducted in
a single long-term care facility, and involved 833 residents (mean age, 86.3 years in
intervention units, 86.2 years in control units) in 22 units over 12 months. Before study
initiation, the research team developed a list of 62 drugs selected from hospital-based,
dosing-alert systems that either required dose or frequency adjustments or should be avoided
altogether in residents with renal insufficiency. The rates of alerts were nearly equal in the
intervention and control units: 2.5 per 1000 resident-days in the intervention units and 2.4 in
the control units. The proportions of dose alerts for which the final drug orders were
appropriate were similar between the intervention and control units (RR = 0.95; 95% CI,
0.831.1; P = NS); conversely, the remaining alert categories had significantly higher
proportions of final drug orders that were appropriate in the intervention units: RR = 2.4 for
maximum frequency (95% CI, 1.44.4; P < 0.05), 2.6 for drugs that should be avoided (95%
CI, 1.45.0; P < 0.05), and 1.8 for alerts to acquire missing information (95% CI, 1.13.4; P
< 0.05). A computerized decision-support system for prescribing medications among longterm care residents with renal insufficiency can improve certain aspects of prescribing,
including the maximum administration frequency, which medications should be avoided,
and when missing information prevents the calculation of creatinine clearance. One of the
limitations of this study was the possibility of cross-contamination of the effect of the
intervention on prescribing. The physicians caring for residents provided care in both
intervention and control units; thus, their prescribing patterns in the intervention units may
have influenced their prescribing in the control units.
Clinical Pharmacy
A study by Crotty et al26 assessed the impact of adding a pharmacist transition coordinator
on evidence-based medication management and health outcomes in patients moving from
Marcum et al.
Page 7
the hospital to a long-term care facility for the first time. The study included 110 older adults
(mean age, 82.7 years) assigned to 85 long-term care facilities. Patients were randomly
allocated either to receive the services of the pharmacist transition coordinator or to undergo
the usual hospital discharge process over 8 weeks. The intervention was not associated with
a significant change in the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) score (range, 018 per
drug; higher scores = more inappropriate) from baseline in the intervention group (mean
score, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.84.6 at baseline vs 2.5; 95% CI, 1.43.7 at 8 weeks); however, the
MAI score worsened in the control group (mean score, 3.7; 95% CI, 2.25.2 for intervention
group vs 6.5; 95% CI, 3.99.1 for control group at 8 weeks; P = 0.007). In addition, the
intervention group showed a significant protective effect of the intervention against
worsening pain (RR = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.320.94; P = 0.023) and hospital usage (RR = 0.38;
95% CI, 0.150.99; P = 0.035), but did not differ significantly from control patients in terms
of ADEs (RR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.661.68), falls (RR = 1.19; 95% CI, 0.711.99), worsening
mobility (RR = 0.39; 95% CI, 0.131.15), worsening behaviors (RR = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.25
1.10), or increased confusion (RR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.281.22). This study was limited by the
small sample size, which may have limited the power of the study and the ability to detect
significant differences in secondary outcomes.
A study by Zermansky et al27 assessed the impact of a pharmacist-conducted clinical

medication review among residents of 65 nursing, residential, and mixed-care homes. The
study included 661 residents 65 years of age and lasted 6 months. The intervention was a
clinical medication review by a pharmacist, who then made recommendations to the general
practitioner (GP) for approval and implementation. Control residents received usual GP
care. The intervention led to a significant difference in the mean number of drug changes per
resident: 3.1 for the intervention group versus 2.4 for the control group (P < 0.001). The GP
accepted 75.6% (565/747) of the pharmacists recommendations, and 76.6% (433/565) of
the accepted recommendations were implemented. The mean number of falls per resident
was 0.8 for the intervention group versus 1.3 for the control group (P < 0.001). However, no
significant differences were found between the intervention and control groups for the
following secondary outcomes: GP consultations per resident (mean, 2.9 and 2.8,
respectively), hospitalizations (mean, 0.2 and 0.3), deaths (51/331 [15.4%] and 48/330
[14.5%]), Barthel score (mean, 9.8 and 9.3), Standardized MMSE score (mean, 13.9 and
13.8), number of drugs per resident (mean, 6.7 and 6.9), or cost of drugs per resident (mean,
42.24 and 42.94 [~$62.79 and $63.83 in US$, respectively]38 per 28 days). This study
was limited by the underachievement of the targeted sample size and the short duration of
the trial. Moreover, no validated explicit or implicit measures of suboptimal prescribing
were used.
A study by Furniss et al28 assessed the impact of active medication review by a pharmacist.
This 8-month study included 330 nursing home residents from 14 homes. The intervention
involved a medication review by a pharmacist followed up 3 weeks later to see whether the
suggested changes had been implemented and to assess whether any immediate problems
had occurred after making the changes in medication. At the end of the intervention, the
mean number of drugs that were prescribed had decreased in both the intervention group
(5.1 at baseline vs 4.2 at 8 months) and the control group (4.9 at baseline vs 4.4 at 8
months); however, the difference between the 2 groups was not statistically significant.
Interestingly, the intervention group experienced a greater deterioration in cognitive function
(mean MMSE score, 12.5 vs 17.1 in the control group; P = NS). The intervention group
experienced significantly greater behavioral disturbance (mean Crichton-Royal Behaviour
Rating Scale score, 19.4 vs 14.5 in the control group; P = 0.02). However, changes in
depression (mean Geriatric Depression Scale score, 3.86 in the intervention group vs 4.41 in
the control group) and quality of life (mean Brief Assessment Schedule Depression Cards
score, 3.77 in the intervention group vs 3.26 in the control group) were not significantly
Marcum et al.
Page 8
different statistically. The number of deaths was significantly lower in the intervention
group than in the control group during the intervention period (4 vs 14; P = 0.028) but not
during the study period as a whole (26 vs 28). As in the previously described studies,17,19,27
this study was limited by the lack of a validated measure of suboptimal prescribing. The
clinical impact of the lower number of prescribed drugs in the intervention group is
uncertain. Furthermore, cognitive, depressive, and quality-of-life outcomes are
multifactorial; thus, an intervention focused on medications may be less likely to have an
important impact on such outcomes.
A study by Roberts et al29 assessed the impact of a clinical pharmacy program involving
development of professional relationships, nurse education on medication issues, and
individualized medication reviews. This 12-month study included 905 residents in 13
intervention homes and 2325 residents in 39 control homes and was a clustered RCT in
which an intervention home was matched to 3 control homes. The intervention significantly
reduced the use of BZDs, NSAIDs, laxatives, and histamine H2-receptor antagonists/
antacids compared with the control groups (change in number of prescription items/year/
1000 residents [trial period minus baseline period], intervention minus control: 875, 239,
451, 285, and 82, respectively; all, P < 0.05). No significant difference was found in the
use of digoxin or diuretics (change in number of prescription items/year/1000 residents [trial
period minus baseline period], intervention minus control: 12 and 355, respectively).
Overall drug use in the intervention group was reduced by 14.8% relative to the control
group (P = NS). Finally, no significant changes in morbidity indices (eg, hospitalization,
ADEs, changes in disability index) or survival rates (hazard ratio = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.68
1.06) were found between the intervention and control groups. This study was limited by the
lack of a validated measure of suboptimal prescribing and its short duration.
A study by Thompson et al30 assessed the impact of clinical pharmacist prescribing and
monitoring under the supervision of a family practitioner compared with a traditional-care
control group. The study initially included 152 residents from a single SNF and lasted 12
months; 139 residents (mean age, 85.1 years in the intervention group and 86.3 years in the
control group) were assessed during the study year. The intervention led to a significantly
lower mean number of drugs per resident in the intervention group than in the control group
(5.7 vs 7.1, respectively; P = 0.04). In addition, the investigators reported that the
intervention group had a numerically lower number of deaths (3/67 [4.48%] vs 10/72
[13.89%]; P = 0.05); however, this was not a statistically significant finding and should be
interpreted with caution. Furthermore, significantly more residents were discharged to lower
levels of care in the intervention group than in the control group (8/67 [11.94%] vs 2/72
[2.78%]; P = 0.03). This study reported that clinical pharmacists working collaboratively
with family practice physicians can have a positive impact on the number of drugs
prescribed and the discharge rate. Use of a single-center study with only 2 pharmacists
limited the generalizability of the study results.
Multidisciplinary Approaches
Another study by Crotty et al31 assessed the impact of 2 multidisciplinary case conferences
involving the residents GP, a geriatrician, a pharmacist, and residential care staff. This
study lasted 3 months and included 154 residents (mean age, 85.3 years in the intervention
group and 83.6 years in the control group) with medication problems and/or challenging
behaviors from 10 high-level aged-care facilities. The mean change in MAI score was
greater in the intervention group (4.1; 95% CI, 2.1 to 6.1) than in the control group (0.4;
95% CI, 0.4 to 1.2; P < 0.001). The intervention group also had a significantly greater
reduction in mean MAI score for BZDs (0.73; 95% CI, 0.16 to 1.30) than did the control
group (0.38; 95% CI, 1.02 to 0.27; P = 0.017). Overall, no significant changes in resident
behaviors were found after the intervention. Furthermore, the nonstudy residents in the
Marcum et al.
Page 9
facility were not affected by the case-conferencing approach, ruling out the possibility that
this approach would carry over within the facility.
A study by Ulfvarson et al32 assessed the impact of medication reviews conducted by a

specialist in clinical pharmacology and a specialist in cardiology among 80 nursing home
residents (mean age, 87 years) in 9 nursing homes over a 3-month period. Symptoms related
to heart failure or adverse reactions to cardiovascular drugs were recorded using a
questionnaire. The intervention led to changed drug therapy that was suggested for 40
residents, and the advice was followed by the responsible physician for 19 residents.
However, no significant changes from baseline to follow-up (2 weeks and 3 months after
intervention) were found in the mean total scores of any of the study questionnaires (ie,
symptoms related to heart failure, adverse reactions to cardiovascular drugs, quality of life,
or activities of daily living). This study was limited by the small sample size, resident selfreporting of activities of daily living, and assessment of only cardiovascular drugs.
Multifaceted Approaches

Coln-Emeric et al33 conducted a single-blinded, 6-month RCT in 67 nursing facilities in 2

states (606 residents; mean age, 83.0 years in the intervention group and 85.6 years in the
control group). The investigators used a 6-pronged intervention that included the following
behavior change strategies: continuing-education modules on osteoporosis evaluation and
treatment; reminders; audit and feedback; academic detailing from osteoporosis opinion
leaders; case-based teleconference on osteoporosis quality improvement; and an
osteoporosis toolkit. Interestingly, the investigators targeted nursing and medical staff as
well as the nursing home administrators. The nursing and medical staff members were asked
to complete the continuing-education modules for credit. The director of nursing and the
physicians then received 3 reminders via telephone, e-mail, and/or fax to complete the
modules. The administrators of the intervention nursing homes received audit and feedback
reports comparing their facilitys compliance with that of other nursing homes in their state,
and they were asked to pass these reports along to the medical providers with privileges in
their facilities. Furthermore, academic detailing occurred via telephone calls that were
placed to providers by osteoporosis opinion leaders. Nursing and medical providers were
also invited to attend 1 of 4 scheduled teleconferences, and the participants received an
osteoporosis tool-kit that included posters, brochures, and links to Web sites providing
information about falls and osteoporosis prevention (ie, osteoporosis medication and hip
protectors). The use of osteoporosis prevention increased from 32.6% to 40.6% (8.0%
difference) in the intervention homes and from 38.6% to 39.2% (0.6% difference) in the
control homes; however, neither change was statistically significant. Completion of the
educational module (OR = 4.8; 95% CI, 1.912.0; P = 0.001) and direct physician contact
by an academic detailer (OR = 4.5; 95% CI, 1.118.2; P = 0.03) were significantly
associated with prescribing osteoporosis pharmacotherapy. This study was limited by low
participation rates in the educational components of the intervention and high baseline
treatment rates (~70%) before the intervention, which threatened a ceiling effect.
A study by Loeb et al34 assessed the impact of the development of a diagnostic and
treatment algorithm for urinary tract infections (UTIs) implemented at the nursing home
level using small group interaction sessions for nurses, videotapes, written material,
outreach visits, and one-on-one interviews with physicians. This 12-month study included
24 nursing homes (12 receiving the multifaceted intervention and 12 receiving usual care);
outcomes were measured in 4217 residents. The intervention led to fewer courses of
antimicrobials for suspected UTIs per 1000 resident-days (1.17 courses in the intervention
group vs 1.59 courses in the usual-care group; weighted mean difference, 0.49; 95% CI,
0.93 to 0.06; P < 0.05). Overall, no significant differences in hospital admissions or
mortality rates were found between the study arms. The proportion of total antimicrobials
Marcum et al.
Page 10
prescribed for suspected UTIs in the intervention homes was significantly lower than in the
usual-care homes (28% vs 39% of antimicrobial courses; weighted mean difference, 9.6%;
95% CI, 16.9% to 2.4%; P < 0.05). This study was limited in that it was underpowered to
detect significant differences in hospital admissions and mortality rates between the 2 study
groups. Furthermore, it was not possible to determine which part of the multifaceted
approach was most successful.
DISCUSSION
No current or updated narrative review of RCTs evaluating interventions to improve
prescribing in nursing homes was found in the literature search. In a review that was
published in 1990,1 only one RCT had been published on this topic at the time. Only 18
trials met the inclusion criteria for the present review. These 18 trials used a variety of
interventional approaches. Previous research assessing the process of prescribing has been
conducted in a variety of settings.1,511 The present review found that 15 (83.3%) of the 18
studies, regardless of the interventional approach taken, reported a significant improvement
in 1 prescribing-related process outcome. Unfortunately, clinical outcomes were much less
likely to be improved significantly, probably because the studies were underpowered to
detect such differences in multifactorial outcomes. One positive finding is that 3 recent
studies24,26,32 did examine medication-related adverse patient events.
It is interesting to note that 3 major medication classes for unique conditions were targeted
by the studies included in this review: (1) central nervous system (CNS) medications, (2)
anti-infectives, and (3) musculoskeletal system medications. The first class, CNS
medications, was studied in 4 of the trials.17,2022 Educational approaches were used in all
of these studies, and the targeted medications included neuroleptics, antipsychotics, and
antidepressants. This is an important target because ~50% of nursing home residents are
cognitively impaired.39 Thus, CNS medications should be used cautiously and with diligent
monitoring because of the potential to both worsen cognitive impairment and lead to falls.
Prescribing-related process outcomes were found to be improved in almost all of the studies;
specifically, a significant decrease (19%59%; all, P < 0.05) in the proportion of residents
taking CNS medications was reported in 3 of the 4 studies.17,20,22 Regarding clinical
outcomes, falls were measured in only one of the studies,21 with no significant difference
found between the intervention and control groups. It is important to note that simply
decreasing the number of CNS medications is not as clinically important as the potential
benefits of reducing falls and improving cognitive function without worsening of the
underlying disease process. Therefore, future studies should focus on measuring the clinical
outcomes associated with interventions targeted at these medication classes.
Anti-infectives, the second class examined, were assessed in 3 of the studies.19,23,34 Two
studies19,23 used an educational approach to improve prescribing by reeducating the
prescribers on appropriate antibiotics and duration of therapy for infections commonly found
in nursing homes (eg, UTIs, NHAP, skin and soft-tissue infections). One study34 used a
multifaceted approach. Two of the 3 studies23,34 measured clinical outcomes, but neither
study reported statistically significant results. One study34 measured hospital admissions and
mortality rates, whereas the other study23 measured the 30-day postintervention mortality
rate. It is promising that all of the studies found significant improvements in the
appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing after intervention based on the guidelines or
recommendations implemented in the trials.
As with any educational intervention, the possibility exists for the interventions effect to
decrease over time. Future studies should build on this research by identifying appropriate
clinical outcomes to measure as primary outcomes in the nursing home setting and by
Marcum et al.
Page 11
conducting follow-up studies to assess retention of the knowledge gained from the
educational intervention.
The final medication class, musculoskeletal system medications, was examined in 2 studies.
18,33 One study18 addressed musculoskeletal pain using an educational intervention, and the
other study33 focused on osteoporosis management using a multifaceted approach. The trial
using an educational approach reported a significant decrease in the mean number of days of
NSAID use per week in the intervention group (decrease of 7.0 to 1.9 days; P < 0.001) and a
significant increase in the mean number of days of APAP use in the intervention group
(increase of 3.1 days; P < 0.001) compared with the control group.18 The multifacetedapproach trial reported that completion of an educational module (P = 0.001) and direct
physician contact by an academic detailer (P = 0.03) were significantly associated with
prescribing osteoporosis pharmacotherapy.33 Unfortunately, neither trial found a significant
improvement in a clinical outcome. Because osteoarthritis and osteoporosis are common
causes of disability and decreased quality of life among older adults,40,41 more attempts
should be made to improve prescribing for patients with these diseases. These 2 trials18,33
were only 3 to 6 months in length; longer studies might be needed to detect a difference in
musculoskeletal pain and/or falls.
This review has several potential limitations worth mentioning. Publication bias may exist
because negative studies are less likely to have been published. In addition, although the
PubMed, IPA, and EMBASE databases were searched for relevant articles, it is possible that
some studies may have been missed if they were indexed in other databases. To minimize
the chance of missing such studies, the authors manually searched the reference lists of the
identified articles, recent review articles, as well as their personal files to identify potential
studies for inclusion. The search strategy was also limited to the English language, to older
adults (=65 years of age), to nursing home residents, and to RCTs, because the intent of this
study was to evaluate the impact of interventions on older adults in the nursing home setting.
Using such strict inclusion criteria may limit the generalizability of this review.
CONCLUSIONS
Studies using various types of interventions have reported mixed findings with regard to
improving prescribing practices for older adults in nursing homes. Because of the
heterogeneous interventions that were used and the outcomes that were measured, it is
difficult to make a generalized conclusion. However, it is imperative to focus future research
on improving prescribing in nursing homes as the aging population continues to grow and
more medications reach the market. Furthermore, it is critical for future research to study
clinical outcomes and not just report process measures such as prescribing and monitoring.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by National Institute of Aging grants (R01AG027017, P30AG024827, T32AG021885,
K07AG033174, and R01AG034056), a National Institute of Mental Health grant (R34 MH082682), a National
Institute of Nursing Research grant (R01 NR010135), an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality grant (R01
HS017695), a Veterans Affairs Health Services Research grant (IIR-06-062), and a National Institutes of Health
Roadmap Multidisciplinary Clinical Research Career Development Award Grant (K12 RR023267).
References
1. Gurwitz JH, Soumerai SB, Avorn J. Improving medication prescribing and utilization in the nursing
home. J Am Geriatr Soc 1990;38:542552. [PubMed: 2185295]
2. Beers MH, Ouslander JG, Fingold SF, et al. Inappropriate medication prescribing in skilled-nursing
facilities. Ann Intern Med 1992;117:684689. [PubMed: 1308759]
Marcum et al.
Page 12

3. Papaioannou A, Clarke JA, Campbell G, Bdard M. Assessment of adherence to renal dosing

guidelines in long-term care facilities. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000;48:14701473. [PubMed: 11083325]
4. Handler SM, Wright RM, Ruby CM, Hanlon JT. The epidemiology of medication-related adverse
events in nursing homes. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother 2006;4:264272. [PubMed: 17062328]
5. Hanlon JT, Lindblad CI, Hajjar ER, McCarthy TC. Update on drug-related problems in the elderly.
Am J Geriatr Pharmacother 2003;1:3843. [PubMed: 15555464]
6. Lee, D.; Majumdar, SR.; Lipton, HL., et al. Special applications of pharmacoepidemiology. In:
Strom, BL.; Kimmel, SE., editors. Textbook of Pharmacoepidemiology. Chichester, West Sussex,
UK; Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2006. p. 404-407.
7. Spinewine A, Schmader KE, Barber N, et al. Appropriate prescribing in elderly people: How well
can it be measured and optimised? Lancet 2007;370:173184. [PubMed: 17630041]
8. Nishtala PS, McLachlan AJ, Bell JS, Chen TF. Psychotropic prescribing in long-term care facilities:
Impact of medication reviews and educational interventions. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2008;16:621
632. [PubMed: 18669940]
9. Yourman L, Concato J, Agostini JV. Use of computer decision support interventions to improve
medication prescribing in older adults: A systematic review. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother
2008;6:119129. [PubMed: 18675770]
10. Ostini R, Hegney D, Jackson C, et al. Systematic review of interventions to improve prescribing.
Ann Pharmacother 2009;43:502513. [PubMed: 19261953]
11. Verrue CL, Petrovic M, Mehuys E, et al. Pharmacists interventions for optimization of medication
use in nursing homes: A systematic review. Drugs Aging 2009;26:3749. [PubMed: 19102513]
12. Ray WA, Taylor JA, Meador KG, et al. Reducing anti-psychotic drug use in nursing homes. A
controlled trial of provider education. Arch Intern Med 1993;153:713721. [PubMed: 8447709]
13. Hutt E, Ruscin JM, Corbett K, et al. A multifaceted intervention to implement guidelines improved
treatment of nursing home-acquired pneumonia in a state veterans home. J Am Geriatr Soc
2006;54:16941700. [PubMed: 17087696]
14. Monette J, Champoux N, Monette M, et al. Effect of an interdisciplinary educational program on
antipsychotic prescribing among nursing home residents with dementia. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry
2008;23:574579. [PubMed: 17968860]
15. Loeb M, Carusone SC, Goeree R, et al. Effect of a clinical pathway to reduce hospitalizations in
nursing home residents with pneumonia: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2006;295:2503
2510. [PubMed: 16757722]
16. Ruths S, Straand J, Nygaard HA, Aarsland D. Stopping antipsychotic drug therapy in demented
nursing home patients: A randomized, placebo-controlled studythe Bergen District Nursing
Home Study (BEDNURS). Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2008;23:889895. [PubMed: 18306150]
17. Avorn J, Soumerai SB, Everitt DE, et al. A randomized trial of a program to reduce the use of
psychoactive drugs in nursing homes. N Engl J Med 1992;327:168173. [PubMed: 1608408]
18. Stein CM, Griffin MR, Taylor JA, et al. Educational program for nursing home physicians and
staff to reduce use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs among nursing home residents: A
randomized controlled trial. Med Care 2001;39:436445. [PubMed: 11317092]
19. Monette J, Miller MA, Monette M, et al. Effect of an educational intervention on optimizing
antibiotic prescribing in long-term care facilities. J Am Geriatr Soc 2007;55:12311235. [PubMed:
17661962]
20. Fossey J, Ballard C, Juszczak E, et al. Effect of enhanced psychosocial care on antipsychotic use in
nursing home residents with severe dementia: Cluster randomised trial [published correction
appears in BMJ. 2006;332:761]. BMJ 2006;332:756761. [PubMed: 16543297]
21. Crotty M, Whitehead C, Rowett D, et al. An outreach intervention to implement evidence based
practice in residential care: A randomized controlled trial [IS-RCTN67855475]. BMC Health Serv
Res 2004;4:6. [PubMed: 15066200]
22. Schmidt I, Claesson CB, Westerholm B, et al. The impact of regular multidisciplinary team
interventions on psychotropic prescribing in Swedish nursing homes. J Am Geriatr Soc
1998;46:7782. [PubMed: 9434669]
Marcum et al.
Page 13

23. Naughton BJ, Mylotte JM, Ramadan F, et al. Antibiotic use, hospital admissions, and mortality
before and after implementing guidelines for nursing home-acquired pneumonia. J Am Geriatr Soc
2001;49:10201024. [PubMed: 11555061]
24. Gurwitz JH, Field TS, Rochon P, et al. Effect of computerized provider order entry with clinical
decision support on adverse drug events in the long-term care setting. J Am Geriatr Soc
2008;56:22252233. [PubMed: 19093922]
25. Field TS, Rochon P, Lee M, et al. Computerized clinical decision support during medication
ordering for long-term care residents with renal insufficiency. J Am Med Inform Assoc
2009;16:480485. [PubMed: 19390107]
26. Crotty M, Rowett D, Spurling L, et al. Does the addition of a pharmacist transition coordinator
improve evidence-based medication management and health outcomes in older adults moving
from the hospital to a long-term care facility? Results of a randomized, controlled trial. Am J
Geriatr Pharmacother 2004;2:257264. [PubMed: 15903284]
27. Zermansky AG, Alldred DP, Petty DR, et al. Clinical medication review by a pharmacist of elderly
people living in care homesrandomised controlled trial. Age Ageing 2006;35:586591.
[PubMed: 16905764]
28. Furniss L, Burns A, Craig SK, et al. Effects of a pharmacists medication review in nursing homes.
Randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2000;176:563567. [PubMed: 10974963]
29. Roberts MS, Stokes JA, King MA, et al. Outcomes of a randomized controlled trial of a clinical
pharmacy intervention in 52 nursing homes. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2001;51:257265. [PubMed:
11298072]
30. Thompson JF, McGhan WF, Ruffalo RL, et al. Clinical pharmacists prescribing drug therapy in a
geriatric setting: Outcome of a trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 1984;32:154159. [PubMed: 6693703]
31. Crotty M, Halbert J, Rowett D, et al. An outreach geriatric medication advisory service in
residential aged care: A randomised controlled trial of case conferencing. Age Ageing
2004;33:612617. [PubMed: 15385274]
32. Ulfvarson J, Adami J, Ullman B, et al. Randomized controlled intervention in cardiovascular drug
treatment in nursing homes. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2003;12:589593. [PubMed:
14558182]
33. Coln-Emeric CS, Lyles KW, House P, et al. Randomized trial to improve fracture prevention in
nursing home residents. Am J Med 2007;120:886892. [PubMed: 17904460]
34. Loeb M, Brazil K, Lohfeld L, et al. Effect of a multifaceted intervention on number of
antimicrobial prescriptions for suspected urinary tract infections in residents of nursing homes:
Cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2005;331:669. [PubMed: 16150741]
35. Cohen-Mansfield J. Agitated behaviors in the elderly. II. Preliminary results in the cognitively
deteriorated. J Am Geriatr Soc 1986;34:722727. [PubMed: 3760436]
36. Rochon PA, Field TS, Bates DW, et al. Computerized physician order entry with clinical decision
support in the long-term care setting: Insights from the Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care. J Am
Geriatr Soc 2005;53:17801789. [PubMed: 16181180]
37. Judge J, Field TS, DeFlorio M, et al. Prescribers responses to alerts during medication ordering in
the long term care setting. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006;13:385390. [PubMed: 16622171]
38. University Currency Converter. [Accessed May 10, 2010.]. http://www.xe.com/ucc
39. Rochon, PA.; Tjia, J.; Gill, SS.; Gurwitz, JH. Appropriate approach to prescribing. In: Halter, JB.;
Ouslander, JG.; Tinetti, ME., et al., editors. Hazzards Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology. 6.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Medical Pub Division; 2009. p. 289-302.
40. AGS Panel on Persistent Pain in Older Persons. The management of pain in older patients.
American Geriatrics Society. J Am Geriatr Soc 2009;57:13311346. [PubMed: 19573219]
41. National Osteoporosis Foundation. Clinicians Guide to Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis.
Washington, DC: National Osteoporosis Foundation; 2010.
Marcum et al.
Page 14
Table
Summary of randomized controlled trials designed to improve medication prescribing in nursing homes.1734
Trial
Randomization
Intervention
Duration of Intervention
Results*
Educational approaches

Avorn et al
(1992)17
6 Matched pairs of
nursing homes;
823 residents
Educational program, by
clinical pharmacist in
geriatric
psychopharmacology,
provided to physicians,
nurses, and nurses aides
5 Months
Process: Use of antipsychotic drugs was

discontinued in more residents in
intervention nursing homes than in control
homes (32% vs 14%; mean difference,
18%; 95% CI, 3% to 33%; P < 0.05);
other drugs were discontinued in more
intervention homes than in control homes:
hypnotics (45% vs 21%; mean difference,
24%; 95% CI, 54% to 5%; P = NS) and
long half-life BZDs (20% vs 9%; mean
difference, 11%; 95% CI, 38% to 15%; P
= NS); index scores of psychoactive drug
use (magnitude and appropriateness)
decreased significantly more in intervention
homes than in control homes (27% vs 8%; P
= 0.02)
Outcomes: Residents of intervention nursing
homes who were initially taking
antipsychotic drugs showed less
deterioration on several measures of
cognitive function than did residents of
control homes, but were more likely to
report depression (56% vs 27%; rate ratio =
2.0; 95% CI, 1.1 to 3.9; P < 0.05)
Stein et al
(2001)18
10 Matched pairs
of nursing homes;
147 residents
Educational program for

physicians and nursing
home staff, including risks/
benefits of NSAIDs in
elderly and algorithm that
substituted APAP, topical
agents, and
nonpharmacologic
measures for treatment of
noninflammatory
musculoskeletal pain
3 Months
Process: Mean number of days of NSAID

use in the 7-day periods before the baseline
and 3-month assessments decreased from
7.0 to 1.9 days in intervention subjects and
from 7.0 to 6.2 days in control subjects (P <
0.001); APAP use in the 7 days before the 3month assessment increased by 3.1 days in
residents of intervention homes compared
with 0.31 day in residents of control homes
(P < 0.001)
Outcomes: Similar proportion of subjects in
control (32.5%) and intervention (35.4%)
groups had worsening of their arthritis pain
score (P = NS)
Monette et
al (2007)19
36 Physicians
from 8 long-term
care facilities
Mailing antibiotic
guidelines to physicians
along with their antibiotic
prescribing profile covering
the previous 3 months
(targeted infections were
UTIs, lower respiratory
tract infections, skin and
soft-tissue infections, and
septicemia); each antibiotic
was classified as adherent
or nonadherent to the
guidelines
4 Months
Process: Physicians in the experimental

group were 64% less likely to prescribe
nonadherent antibiotics than were those in
the control group at the end of the
intervention period (OR = 0.36; 95% CI,
0.180.73; P < 0.05)
Fossey et al
(2006)20
6 Paired nursing
homes (12
specialist nursing
homes); 349
residents
Training and support

intervention delivered to
nursing home staff
focusing on alternatives to
drugs for management of
agitated behavior in
dementia
10 Months
Process: At 12 months, the proportion of

residents taking neuroleptics in the
intervention homes (23.0%) was
significantly lower than that in the control
homes (42.1%) (mean reduction in
neuroleptic use, 19.1%; 95% CI, 0.5%
37.7%; P = 0.045)
Outcomes: No significant differences were
found in the levels of agitated or disruptive
behavior between residents of intervention
and control homes
Marcum et al.
Page 15

Trial
Randomization
Intervention
Results*
Crotty et al
(2004)21
20 Residential
care facilities; 897
residents at
baseline and 902
residents at
follow-up (715
residents with data
at both time
points)
Two outreach visits,

delivered by a pharmacist,
providing relevant evidence
and detailed audit
information about fall rates,
psychotropic drug
prescribing, and stroke
risk-reduction practices
7 Months
Process: No significant differences between

groups for psychotropic drug use before or
after the intervention, except for
significantly greater use of as required
antipsychotics in the intervention group than
in the control group (RR = 4.95; 95% CI,
1.6914.50; P < 0.05); no significant
difference between groups in the number of
residents at risk of stroke on aspirin at
follow-up (RR = 0.54; 95% CI, 0.291.00)
Outcomes: No significant differences
between the intervention and control groups
for the 3-month fall rate (RR = 1.17; 95%
CI, 0.861.58)
Schmidt et
al (1998)22
33 Long-term care
facilities; 1854
residents
Pharmacist outreach
program designed to
influence drug use through
improved teamwork among
physicians, pharmacists,
nurses, and nurses aides
12 Months
Process: Significant decrease in the

prescribing of antipsychotics (19%; P =
0.007), BZDs (37%; P < 0.001), and
tricyclic antidepressants (59%; P < 0.001) in
the intervention group compared with the
control group; orders for more acceptable
antidepressants increased in the intervention
group (584% increase in SSRI use; P <
0.001) and in the control group (315%
increase in SSRI use; P < 0.001); no
significant reductions were found in other
drug classes
Naughton et
al (2001)23
10 SNFs; 2375
residents
Continuing-education
intervention for treatment
of NHAP, including small
group consensus process
limited to physicians and a
similar intervention that
included physicians and
nurses within randomly
selected SNFs
6 Months
Process: Nonsignificant improvement in

prescribing of parenteral antibiotics in
accordance with the guidelines in the
intervention group (physician plus nurses),
from 50% before intervention to 81.8% after
intervention; physician-only group improved
from 64.5% to 69.0%; after secondary
multivariate analysis, significantly more of
the postintervention episodes of NHAP were
treated with parenteral antibiotics in
accordance with the guidelines (P < 0.02)
Outcomes: No significant difference in 30day postintervention mortality rate for
episodes with guideline indications for oral
antibiotics or for parenteral antibiotics
Computerized decision-support systems
Gurwitz et
al (2008)24
2 Long-term care
facilities; 1118
residents of 29
units
Clinical decision-support
system designed for
preventing ADEs
12 Months at one study

site and 6 months at the
other
Process: 411 ADEs (152 [37.0%] deemed

preventable) occurred over 3803 residentmonths of observation in the intervention
units vs 340 ADEs (126 [37.1%] deemed
preventable) over 3257 resident-months in
the control units; adjusted rate ratios were
1.06 (95% CI, 0.921.23) for all ADEs and
1.02 (95% CI, 0.811.30) for preventable
events (both, P = NS)
Field et al
(2009)25
1 Long-term care
facility; 833
residents in 22
units
Clinical decision-support
system designed to
improve prescribing for
residents with renal
insufficiency
12 Months
Process: Proportions of dose alerts (for

which the final drug orders were
appropriate) were similar between the
intervention and control units (RR = 0.95;
95% CI, 0.831.1; P = NS); proportion of
maximum frequency alerts (RR = 2.4; 95%
CI, 1.44.4; P < 0.05), alerts for drugs that
should be avoided (RR = 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4
5.0; P < 0.05), and alerts to acquire missing
information (RR = 1.8; 95% CI, 1.13.4; P
< 0.05) for which the final drug orders were
appropriate were significantly higher in the
intervention group than in the control group
Addition of a pharmacist
transition coordinator for
the transfer from hospital to
8 Weeks
Process: Intervention not associated with a

significant change in MAI score from
baseline (mean, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.84.6 at
Clinical pharmacy
Crotty et al
(2004)26
85 Long-term care
facilities; 110
residents
Marcum et al.
Trial
Page 16
Randomization
Intervention
long-term care facility,

including medicationmanagement transfer
summaries from hospitals,
timely coordinated
medication reviews by
accredited community
pharmacists, and case
conferences with
physicians and pharmacists
Results*
baseline vs 2.5; 95% CI, 1.43.7 at 8
weeks); however, MAI score worsened in
the control group (mean, 3.7; 95% CI, 2.2
5.2 vs 6.5; 95% CI, 3.99.1; P = 0.007, for
comparison between intervention and
control mean scores at 8 weeks)
Outcomes: Intervention group showed a
significant protective effect of the
intervention against worsening pain (RR =
0.55; 95% CI, 0.320.94; P = 0.023) and
hospital usage (RR = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.15
0.99; P = 0.035), but did not differ
significantly from control residents in terms
of ADEs (RR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.661.68),
falls (RR = 1.19; 95% CI, 0.711.99),
worsening mobility (RR = 0.39; 95% CI,
0.131.15), worsening behaviors (RR =
0.52; 95% CI, 0.251.10), or increased
confusion (RR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.281.22)

Zermansky
et al
(2006)27
65 Nursing
homes; 661
residents
Clinical medication review

by a pharmacist with
patient and clinical records
6 Months
Process: Mean number of drug changes per

resident was 3.1 for the intervention group
and 2.4 for the control group (P < 0.001);
75.6% (565/747) of pharmacist
recommendations were accepted by the GP;
76.6% (433/565) of the accepted
recommendations were implemented
Outcomes: Mean number of falls per
resident was 0.8 for the intervention group
and 1.3 for the control group (P < 0.001); no
significant differences were found in GP
consultations per resident (mean, 2.9 and
2.8), hospitalizations (mean, 0.2 and 0.3),
deaths (51/331 [15.4%] and 48/330
[14.5%]), Barthel score (mean, 9.8 and 9.3),
SMMSE score (mean, 13.9 and 13.8),
number of drugs per resident (mean, 6.7 and
6.9), or cost of drugs per resident (mean,
42.24 and 42.94 [~$62.79 and $63.83 in
US$, respectively]38 per 28 days)
Furniss et al
(2000)28
14 Nursing
homes; 330
residents
Active medication review

by a pharmacist
8 Months
Process: The mean number of drugs

prescribed decreased in both the intervention
group (5.1 at baseline vs 4.2 at 8 months)
and the control group (4.9 at baseline vs 4.4
at 8 months); however, the difference
between the 2 groups was not statistically
significant
Outcomes: Deterioration in cognitive
function was greater in the intervention
group than in the control group (mean
MMSE score, 12.5 and 17.1, respectively; P
= NS); significantly more behavioral
disturbance was reported in the intervention
group than in the control group (mean
CRBRS score, 19.4 vs 14.5; P = 0.02); no
significant changes were reported in
depression (mean GDS score, 3.86 vs 4.41)
or quality of life (mean BASDEC score,
3.77 vs 3.26); the number of deaths was
significantly lower in the intervention group
during the intervention period (4 vs 14; P =
0.028) but not during the study period as a
whole (26 vs 28)
Roberts et
al (2001)29
13 Intervention
homes, 905
residents; 39
control homes,
2325 residents
Clinical pharmacy program

involving development of
professional relationships,
nurse education on
medication issues, and
individualized medication
reviews
12 Months
Process: Use of BZDs, NSAIDs, laxatives,

histamine H2-receptor antagonists/antacids
was significantly reduced in the intervention
group compared with the control group
(change in number of prescription items/
year/1000 residents [trial period minus
baseline period], intervention minus control:
875, 239, 451, 285, and 82,
respectively; all, P < 0.05); no significant
Marcum et al.
Trial
Page 17
Randomization
Intervention
Results*
differences in the use of digoxin or diuretics

were noted between the groups (change in
number of prescription items/year/1000
residents [trial period minus baseline
period], intervention minus control: 12 and
355, respectively; P = NS); overall drug
use in the intervention group was reduced by
14.8% relative to the controls (data not
reported; P = NS)
Outcomes: No significant changes in
morbidity indices or survival rates between
the 2 groups
Thompson
et al
(1984)30
1 SNF; 152
residents (139
residents assessed
during the study
year)
Clinical pharmacist
prescribing and monitoring
under the supervision of a
family practitioner
12 Months
Process: Intervention group had a

significantly lower mean number of drugs
per resident (5.7) than the control group
(7.1; P = 0.04)
Outcomes: Intervention group had a lower
number of deaths than did the control group
(3/67 [4.48%] vs 10/72 [13.89%]; P = NS);
intervention group had a significantly higher
number of residents being discharged to
lower levels of care than did the control
group (8/67 [11.94%] vs 2/72 [2.78%]; P =
0.03)
Multidisciplinary approaches
Crotty et al
(2004)31
10 High-level
aged-care
facilities; 154
residents
Two multidisciplinary case

conferences involving the
residents GP, a
geriatrician, a pharmacist,
and residential care staff to
create a medical problem
list for the intervention
residents
3 Months
Process: Medication appropriateness

improved in the intervention group (mean
change in MAI score, 4.1; 95% CI, 2.1 to
6.1) vs control (0.4; 95% CI, 0.4 to 1.2; P
< 0.001); significant reduction in the mean
MAI score for BZDs in the intervention
compared with control group (0.73; 95% CI,
0.16 to 1.30 vs 0.38; 95% CI, 1.02 to
0.27, respectively; P = 0.017)
Outcomes: Resident behaviors were
unchanged after the intervention
Ulfvarson et
al (2003)32
9 Nursing homes;
80 residents
Medication reviews by a
specialist in clinical
pharmacology and a
specialist in cardiology
3 Months
Process: Intervention led to changes in drug

therapy for 40 residents; advice was
followed by the responsible physician for 19
residents
Outcomes: No significant changes from
baseline to follow-up were found in the
mean total scores of any questionnaire (ie,
symptoms related to heart failure, adverse
reactions to cardiovascular drugs, quality of
life, activities of daily living)
Multifaceted approaches
ColnEmeric et al
(2007)33
67 Nursing
homes; 606
residents
6-Pronged intervention:
continuing-education
modules, reminders, audit
and feedback, academic
detailing, case-based
teleconferencing, and an
osteoporosis toolkit
6 Months
Process: No significant improvements

observed in any of the quality indicators; use
of osteoporosis pharmacotherapy or hip
protectors improved by 8.0% in the
intervention group and 0.6% in the control
group; completion of the educational
module (OR = 4.8; 95% CI, 1.912.0; P =
0.001) and direct physician contact by an
academic detailer (OR = 4.5; 95% CI, 1.1
18.2; P = 0.03) were significantly associated
with prescribing osteoporosis
pharmacotherapy
Loeb et al
(2005)34
24 Nursing
homes; 4217
residents (with
outcomes
measured)
Diagnostic and treatment

algorithm for UTIs
implemented at the nursing
home level, using small
group interactive session
for nurses, videotapes,
written material, outreach
visits, and one-on-one
interviews with physicians
12 Months
Process: Fewer courses of antimicrobials for

suspected UTIs per 1000 resident-days were
prescribed in the intervention nursing homes
than in the usual-care homes (1.17 vs 1.59
courses; weighted mean difference, 0.49;
95% CI, 0.93 to 0.06; P < 0.05);
proportion of total antimicrobials prescribed
for suspected UTIs in the intervention
homes was significantly lower than in the
Marcum et al.
Trial
Page 18
Randomization
Intervention
Results*
usual-care homes (28% vs 39% of

antimicrobial courses; weighted mean
difference, 9.6%; 95% CI, 16.9% to
2.4%; P < 0.05)
Outcomes: No significant differences found
in hospital admissions or mortality rates
between the study arms
BZD = benzodiazepine; APAP = acetaminophen; UTI = urinary tract infection; OR = odds ratio; RR = relative risk; SSRI = selective serotonin
reuptake inhibitor; SNF = skilled nursing facility; NHAP = nursing home acquired pneumonia; ADE = adverse drug event; MAI = Medication
Appropriateness Index (range, 018); GP = general practitioner; SMMSE = Standardized Mini-Mental State Examination (range, 030); MMSE =
Mini-Mental State Examination (range, 030); CRBRS = Crichton-Royal Behaviour Rating Scale (range, 031); GDS = Geriatric Depression Scale
(range, 015); BASDEC = Brief Assessment Schedule Depression Cards (range, 021).
*
Process measures of appropriate prescribing and patient health outcomes.


Interventions in Nursing Homes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interventions in Nursing Homes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interventions in Nursing Homes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NIH Public Access

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

Interventions to Improve Suboptimal Prescribing in Nursing

Department of Biomedical Informatics, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh,

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Department of Pharmacy and Therapeutics, School of Pharmacy, and Department of

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

MethodsThe PubMed, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and EMBASE databases were

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

these studies reported statistically significant improvements in 1 aspect of suboptimal

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 22.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 22.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 22.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

A study by Schmidt et al22 assessed the impact of a pharmacist outreach program on

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Naughton et al23 compared a continuing-education strategy for the treatment of nursing

Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 22.

Computerized Decision-Support Systems

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

A study by Gurwitz et al24 evaluated the efficacy of a computerized provider order-entry

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

A study by Field et al25 determined whether a computerized provider order-entry system

Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 22.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

A study by Zermansky et al27 assessed the impact of a pharmacist-conducted clinical

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

A study by Ulfvarson et al32 assessed the impact of medication reviews conducted by a

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Coln-Emeric et al33 conducted a single-blinded, 6-month RCT in 67 nursing facilities in 2

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 22.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 22.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

3. Papaioannou A, Clarke JA, Campbell G, Bdard M. Assessment of adherence to renal dosing

Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 22.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 22.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Process: Use of antipsychotic drugs was