• Eur. J. Intern. Med. · Oct 2014

    Multicenter Study Comparative Study Observational Study

    Inappropriate prescribing to older patients admitted to hospital: a comparison of different tools of misprescribing and underprescribing.

    • Antonio San-José, Antonia Agustí, Xavier Vidal, Francesc Formiga, Alfonso López-Soto, Antonio Fernández-Moyano, Juana García, Nieves Ramírez-Duque, Olga H Torres, José Barbé, and Potentially Inappropriate Prescription in Older Patients in Spain (PIPOPS) Investigators' Project.
    • Internal Medicine Service, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain; Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Multimorbidity and Elderly Patients Group of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine, Spain. Electronic address: asanjose@vhebron.net.
    • Eur. J. Intern. Med. 2014 Oct 1; 25 (8): 710-6.

    PurposeThis study aims to assess inappropriate prescribing (IP) to elderly patients during the month prior to hospitalization and to compare different IP criteria.MethodsAn observational, prospective and multicentric study was carried out in the internal medicine services of seven Spanish hospitals. Patients aged 75years and older were randomly selected after hospital admission for a year. To assess potentially inappropriate medicines (PIMs), the Beers and STOPP criteria were used and to assess potentially prescribing omissions (PPOs), the START criteria and ACOVE-3 medicine quality indicators were used. An analysis to assess factors associated with IP was performed.Results672 patients [median age (Q1-Q3) 82 (79-86) years, 55.9% female] were included. Median prescribed medicines in the month prior to hospitalization were 10(Q1-Q3 7-13). The prevalence of IP was 87.6%, and 54.3% of patients had PIMs and PPOs concurrently. A higher prevalence rate of PIMs was predicted using the STOPP criteria than with the Beers criteria (p<0.001) and a higher prevalence of PPOs using the ACOVE-3 criteria than using the START criteria (p<0.001) was observed. Polypharmacy (≥ 10 medicines) was the strongest predictor of IP [OR=11.34 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.96-25.94], PIMs [OR=14.16, 95% CI 6.44-31.12], Beers-listed PIMs [OR=8.19, 95% CI 3.01-22.28] and STOPP-listed PIMs [OR=8.21, 95% CI 3.47-19.44]. PIMs was the strongest predictor of PPOs [OR=2.79, 95% CI 1.81-4.28].ConclusionsA high prevalence of polypharmacy and PIMs and PPOs were reported. More than half the patients had simultaneous PIMs and PPOs. The related factors to PIMs and PPOs were different.Copyright © 2014 European Federation of Internal Medicine. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,624,503 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.