The Quality of Pharmacologic Care for Vulnerable Older Patients

Context Prescription and management of medications are important issues for older adults. Contribution Among elders enrolled in two managed care organizations, most quality problems were related to failure to prescribe indicated medications; failure to monitor medications; and failure to provide medication along with proper documentation and education in concert with other physicians. Implications Prescribing inappropriate medications for older adults is less of an issue than other aspects of drug therapy. Quality improvement efforts should focus on avoiding errors of omission in prescribing indicated medications, monitoring, patient education, and follow-up. The Editors Pharmacotherapy is an essential component of medical treatment for older patients, but medications are also responsible for many adverse events in this group. Ninety percent of people 65 years of age or older take at least one medication (1). This age group, which represents only 13% of the population, accounts for one third of all prescription drug expenditures in the United States (2). Many older persons take multiple drugs for the treatment of several conditions, which increases the chance of adverse drug reactions, drugdrug interactions, and drugdisease interactions. The frequency of adverse drug events in elderly outpatients ranges from 10% to 35%, depending on the setting (3-5). Recognizing the magnitude of medication-related issues, panels of geriatric experts rate medication problems among the most important quality-of-care problems for older patients (6-8). Reflecting the severity and frequency of adverse drug events in older patients, many investigations have focused on the appropriateness of medication prescribing to elderly persons. Implicit review mechanisms include the Medication Appropriateness Index, which consists of 10 medication characteristics (including indication, effectiveness, and dosage) that a trained pharmacist reviewer can judge as appropriate, marginally appropriate, or inappropriate. An application of the Medication Appropriateness Index to elderly veterans taking 5 or more prescription medications found that 74% had at least 1 inappropriate aspect to their prescriptions (9, 10). Reviews using explicit criteria usually focus on medications that should be avoided in the care of older patients. The list of medications to avoid, which was developed by Beers and colleagues on the basis of a formal consensus of geriatric experts (11-13), has been applied to various groups of patients, revealing a high prevalence of inappropriate drug use (14-20). In addition, explicit criteria about drugdrug interactions, treatment duration, and drug contraindications were created by Tamblyn and colleagues and applied to medications prescribed to older patients in Canada (21). They found that more than half of older patients took at least one high-risk medication. Health policy efforts, on the other hand, have focused predominantly on finding ways to pay for the medication needed by older patients. Proposals aim to improve access to pharmacologic care but do not strive to develop mechanisms to evaluate or improve the quality of medication management for older patients. Improvement in access to medications without quality assurance may result in a mere increase in care without change in outcomes. To provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the quality of pharmacologic care for older patients, we systematically evaluated medication management for a sample of older patients by taking advantage of a set of explicit process of care quality indicators developed and implemented in the Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders (ACOVE) project (22). Whereas the earlier ACOVE analysis described overall quality of care and compared care quality for geriatric and medical conditions, this study focuses on pharmacologic care and identifies improvement needs in medication management. Our quality evaluation covered the continuum of pharmacologic care, from recognizing the indications for medications to choosing medication, prescribing appropriately, educating and documenting, and monitoring after prescribing. Methods The ACOVE project developed a set of explicit quality indicators to evaluate the care provided to vulnerable older persons (22-24). The system focuses on processes of care within the domains of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up and covers the spectrum of care contained in 22 conditions that are important in the care of older patients (7). The methods for selecting conditions and developing the quality indicators are described in detail elsewhere (7, 23). Methods included systematic literature reviews and multiple layers of expert judgment (23). The literature review resulted in proposal of candidate quality indicators, which were reviewed by an expert panel that rated each of the proposed quality indicators for validity and feasibility. This set was modified and approved by a clinical committee of national geriatric experts and by the American College of Physicians Task Force on Aging (24). From the final ACOVE set of quality indicators, 43 quality indicators (Table 1 and Appendix Table) that pertained to pharmacologic care and had more than 5 eligible patients are included in this analysis. Table 1. Medication Quality Indicators, Number of Eligible Patients, and Pass Rates Patients and Data Collection We assessed care provided to older persons who were enrolled in 2 managed care organizations. Each managed care organization, one in the U.S. Northeast and the other in the Southwest, had more than 20 000 senior enrollees and contracted with a network of providers to deliver care. A random sample of community-dwelling persons 65 years of age or older was drawn from enrollees in each managed care organization. Eligibility criteria included continuous enrollment in the managed care organization for at least 13 months, no out-of-plan care, and no active treatment for malignant conditions (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) during the period. In addition, persons who did not speak English were excluded because our interview instruments were not available in other languages. Among the enrollees, we targeted vulnerable elders, defined as persons 65 years of age and older who are at increased risk for death or functional decline. Vulnerable elders were identified on the basis of self-report (or proxy report) by using a brief screening survey (the Vulnerable Elders-13 [VE-13] Survey [25]) administered by telephone. The RAND Institutional Review Board approved the study protocol. Data were derived mainly from abstracting medical records. For participating patients, we identified all inpatient and outpatient medical records during the 13-month period of 1 July 1998 to 31 July 1999. These medical records were abstracted by trained nurses with experience in quality assessment. The abstractor considered all of a patient's medical records when assessing whether a patient was eligible for and received the indicated care processes. Information on eligibility for a quality indicator could be derived from one medical record (such as a primary care physician starting an appropriate antidepressant) and the care process delivered and documented from records in another setting (such as a psychiatric consultant escalating the antidepressant dosage in response to lack of improvement). A senior nurse-reviewer assessed each completed medical record abstract, and physician overreaders reviewed quality indicators that required a clinical assessment, such as whether there was follow-up to newly started long-term therapy with a medication or whether newly started therapy with a highly anticholinergic drug had acceptable alternatives. We evaluated inter-rater reliability by re-abstracting a random sample of 10% of the medical records. These records contained 698 quality indicators; 97% had identical eligibility and 95% demonstrated identical eligibility and score. Details of study enrollment and data collection can be found elsewhere (22). Because some aspects of care might not be adequately captured in the medical record (for example, patient education about medications), these data were supplemented by a quality-of-care interview with study participants (or, if necessary, their proxies). During the interview, patients were asked to list all of their medications. On the basis of conditions and medications reported during the interview, patients were asked about specific processes of care they had received. The interview was conducted by telephone between August and October 2000. To minimize recall bias, we asked about most recent care when implementing quality indicators that may include multiple events (for example, education about newly started therapy with a medication). Information was obtained from medical records for 37 quality indicators and from the patient interview for 6 quality indicators. For 4 quality indicators reported previously by using medical record data (22), we used interview data in this analysis because subsequent evaluation revealed that interview data on information transfer quality indicators yielded higher pass rates that were aligned with a priori hypotheses and provided more conservative estimates of quality of care. Statistical Analysis A quality indicator was scored for a patient if he or she met the eligibility criteria to receive the specified care process. The quality indicator was passed if the care process was implemented for the patient. If the medical record indicated that the patient declined the care process, the quality indicator was considered to be passed. On the other hand, if the patient had a prespecified contraindication to the care process (such as a patient with asthma who otherwise was eligible to receive a -blocker after a myocardial infarction), the patient was considered ineligible for the quality indicator. Quality scores were calculated as the proportion of eligible patients who received indicated care. I