An observational study in Medicines Optimisation, sponsored by University College, London. Completed at 1 site in United Kingdom. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2018-03-29.
Sponsored by University College, London · Observational
The purpose of this study is to develop a prediction-tool, the Medicines Optimisation Assessment Tool (MOAT), to assist hospital pharmacists identify patients at highest risk of preventable medication related problems (MRPs). This has the potential to permit pharmacists to identify and focus on the small number of patients (approximately 6%) who are likely to experience a significant MRP while in hospital.
The purpose of this study is to develop a prediction-tool, the Medicines Optimisation Assessment Tool (MOAT), to assist hospital pharmacists identify patients at highest risk of preventable medication related problems (MRPs).
The MOAT will be developed following recommendations of the PROGnosis RESearch Strategy (PROGRESS) partnership. A prospective cohort study of 1,500 patients will be used to develop the MOAT from the medical wards of two UK hospitals. Data will be collected on prognostic factors (selected based on a review of published literature and expert opinion) for each patient, together with details of MRPs that occur. All MRPs will be reviewed by an expert panel who will grade for severity and preventability using recognised criteria. Multivariable logistic regression models will be used to determine the relationship between potential risk factors such as polypharmacy, renal impairment, and the use of 'high risk' medicines, and the study outcome of preventable medication related problems that are at least moderate in severity. Bootstrapping will be used to adjust the MOAT for optimism, and predictive performance will be assessed using calibration and discrimination. A simplified scoring system will also be developed, which will be assessed for sensitivity and specificity.
The intention of this research is to develop a prediction-tool (the MOAT), which has the potential to be adopted widely into clinical practice. If the initial research is successful in producing a prediction-tool with good predictive performance further research will be carried out to assess how feasible it would be to use the MOAT in practice, the potential efficiency savings, and an assessment of clinical risk to patients through use of the MOAT.
University College, London is the lead sponsor of 632 studies on the registry; 145 are open to participants now.
Of its 6 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 2 (33%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Patients admitted to the Medical Division (General, Emergency, and Elderly Medicine) at the Luton and Dunstable University Hospital and Watford General Hospital
Exclusion Criteria:
Number of MRPs experienced by study participants
The outcome measure (i.e. all MRPs) will be graded for severity and preventability, then multivariate analysis such as logistic regression models will be used to determine the relationship between predictors (prognostic factors) and the outcome (MRPs which are at least moderate in severity and preventable). The objective will be to find the best combinations of predictors that are highly sensitive for detecting the outcome measure while achieving the maximum possible specificity.
Time frame: Through study completion (discharge from hospital), an average of 6 days
Feasibility of using the MOAT (content validity and ease of use)
Content validity will be assessed to ensure that clinicians consider the items in the MOAT to be clinically sensible, no obvious items are missing, the method of grouping the individual predictors is reasonable, and the items seem appropriate for the purpose of the tool. Ease of use depends on the length of time needed to apply the tool and the simplicity of interpretation. A consensus development technique will be used to generate consensus on content validity and simplicity of interpretation. Time to apply the MOAT will be assessed by observation.
Time frame: 18 months
Potential efficiency savings
The impact of the MOAT in terms of potential workload for pharmacists will be informed by the number of patients who screen positive (from internal validation). This will indicate the proportion of patients who would be expected to require review by a pharmacist, i.e. the total number that pharmacists would need to see to identify those at highest risk of MRPs.
Time frame: 18 months
Potential clinical risk to patients through use of the MOAT
Patients who experience an MRP but would be excluded from pharmacist review by the MOAT (i.e. false negatives) will be reviewed in detail to identify the potential clinical risk (i.e. severity of missed events).
Time frame: 18 months
Plan to share: No
This study is completed, as verified in Oct 2017. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
University College, London