Potentially inappropriate prescribing in older patients discharged from acute care hospitals to residential aged care facilities

Background The frequency of prescribing potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in older patients remains high despite evidence of adverse outcomes from their use. Little is known about whether admission to hospital has any effect on appropriateness of prescribing. Objectives This study aimed to identify the prevalence and nature of PIMs and explore the association of risk factors for receiving a PIM. Methods This was a prospective study of 206 patients discharged to residential aged care facilities (RACFs) from acute care. All patients were aged at least 70 years and were admitted between July 2005 and May 2010; their admission and discharge medications were evaluated. Results Mean patient age was 84.8 ± 6.7 years; the majority (57%) were older than 85 years and mean (SD) Frailty Index was 0.42 (0.15). At least one PIM was identified in 112 (54.4%) patients on admission and 102 (49.5%) patients on discharge. Of all medications prescribed at admission (1728), 10.8% were PIMs and at discharge of 1759 medications, 9.6% were PIMs. Of total 187 PIMs on admission, 56 (30%) were stopped and 131 were continued; 32 new PIMs were introduced. Of the potential risk factors considered, in-hospital cognitive decline and frailty status were the only significant predictors of PIMs. Conclusion Although, admission to hospital is an opportunity to review the indications for specific medications, a high prevalence of inappropriate drug use was observed. The only associations with PIM use were the frailty status and in-hospital cognitive decline. Additional studies are needed to further evaluate this association.

Potentially inappropriate prescribing in older patients admitted to acute care hospitals and discharged to residential aged care facilities

Background The frequency of prescribing potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in older patients remains high regardless of the evidence of adverse outcomes from their use. This study aims to identify the prevalence and nature of PIMs at admission to acute care and at discharge to residential aged care facilities (RACFs) using the recently updated Beers’ Criteria. We also aim to identify if polypharmacy, age, gender and the frailty status of patients are independent risk factors for receiving a PIM. Methods This was a retrospective study of 206 patients discharged to RACFs from acute care. All patients were aged at least70 years and were admitted between July 2005 and May 2010; their admission and discharge medications were evaluated. Frailty status was measured as the Frailty Index (FI), adding each individual’s deficits and dividing by the total number of deficits considered, with FI 0.25 used as the cut-off between “fit” and “frail”. Results Mean patient age was 84.8 ± 6.7 years; the majority (57%) were older than 85 years and approximately 90% were frail. Patients were prescribed a mean of 7.2 regular medications at admission and 8.1 on discharge. At least one PIM was identified in 112 (54.4%) patients on admission and 102 (49.5%) patients on discharge. Of all medications prescribed at admission (1728), 10.8% were PIMs and at discharge of 1759 medications, 9.6% were PIMs. Of the total 187 PIMs on admission, 56 (30%) were stopped, and 131 were continued; 32 new PIMs were introduced. Commonly prescribed PIMs at both admission and discharge were central nervous system, cardiovascular and gastrointestinal drugs and analgesics. Of the potential risk factors, frailty status was the only significant predictor of PIMs at both admission and discharge (p = 0.016). Conclusion A high prevalence of unnecessary drug use was observed in frail older patients on admission to acute care hospitals and on discharge to RACFs. The only association with PIM use was the frailty status of patients. Further studies are needed to further evaluate this association.

Strategies to prevent potentially inappropriate prescribing and adverse drug reactions in older patients

INTRODUCTION: Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is a major contributor to adverse drug reactions and overall increased healthcare costs. The aim of this thesis was to identify, develop and implement strategies with the potential to prevent PIP and ADRs in older patients. METHODS: A systematic review of the qualitative literature (Meta-synthesis); A qualitative study in Irish hospitals; A randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess the impact of an online educational module on doctors’ prescribing knowledge and confidence; Exploration of the potential for a frailty index score to enable doctors identify patients at increased risk of PIP and ADRs; Exploration of the potential for the SHiM tool to enable doctors to optimise prescribing for older patients. RESULTS: The meta-synthesis identified four key concepts: (i) Desire to please the patient; (ii) Feeling of being forced to prescribe; (iii) Tension between experience and guidelines; (iv) Prescriber fear. Similar themes also emerged from the qualitative study. In the RCT, the online educational module resulted in a highly significant 22% difference in test scores between intervention and control groups. The studies exploring the frailty index score showed a significant positive relationship between a patient’s frailty status and their likelihood of experiencing PIP/ADRs. Patients above a frailty threshold of 0.16 were at least twice as likely to experience PIP/ADRs. SHiM was found to be a useful tool in terms of reconciling patients’ medications. However, the evidence for it being capable of preventing clinically relevant adverse events was poor. CONCLUSION:Qualitative research in this thesis has proposed novel theories relating to the causative factors of PIP in older patients. In doing so, it has identified several areas for intervention and laid down a road map for future research.

Potentially inappropriate prescribing in an Irish elderly population in primary care.

AIMS Screening tools have been formulated to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing (IP) in older people. Beers’ criteria are the most widely used but have disadvantages when used in Europe. New
IP screening tools called Screening Tool of Older Person’s Prescriptions (STOPP) and Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (START) have been developed to identify potential IP and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs). The aim was to measure the prevalence rates of potential IP and PPOs in primary care using Beers’ criteria, STOPP and START.

METHODS
Case records of 1329 patients 65 years old from three general practices in one region of southern Ireland were studied. The mean age SD of the patients was 74.9 6.4 years, 60.9% were female. Patients’current diagnoses and prescription medicines were reviewed and the Beers’ criteria, STOPP and START tools applied.

RESULTS
The total number of medicines prescribed was 6684; median number of medicines per patient was ?ve (range 1–19). Overall, Beers’ criteria identi?ed 286 potentially inappropriate prescriptions in 18.3% (243) of patients, whilst the corresponding IP rate identi?ed by STOPP was 21.4% (284), in respect of 346 potentially inappropriate prescriptions. A total of 333 PPOs were identi?ed in 22.7% (302) of patients using the START tool.

CONCLUSION
Potentially inappropriate drug prescribing and errors of drug omission are highly prevalent among older people living in the community. Prevention strategies should involve primary care doctors and community pharmacists.

Potentially inappropriate prescribing in older residents in Irish nursing homes

STOPP/START was formulated to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) in older people. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of PIP and PPO in older Irish patients in residential care using STOPP/START.

Effectiveness of medicines review with web-based pharmaceutical treatment algorithms in reducing potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people in primary care:a cluster randomized trial (OPTI-SCRIPT study protocol)

Potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people is common in primary care and can result in increased morbidity, adverse drug events, hospitalizations and mortality. In Ireland, 36% of those aged 70 years or over received at least one potentially inappropriate medication, with an associated expenditure of over €45 million.The main objective of this study is to determine the effectiveness and acceptability of a complex, multifaceted intervention in reducing the level of potentially inappropriate prescribing in primary care.

A prevalence study of potentially inappropriate prescribing in Irish long-term care residents

Older individuals often suffer from multiple co-morbidities and are particularly vulnerable to potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP). One method of defining instances of PIP is to use validated, evidence-based, explicit criteria. Two sets of criteria have gained international recognition: the Screening Tool of Older Persons' potentially inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP) and Beers' criteria.

Addressing potentially inappropriate prescribing in older patients: development and pilot study of an intervention in primary care (the OPTI-SCRIPT study)

Background: Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in older people is common in primary care and can result in increased morbidity, adverse drug events, hospitalizations and mortality. The prevalence of PIP in Ireland is estimated at 36% with an associated expenditure of over [euro sign]45 million in 2007. The aim of this paper is to describe the application of the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework to the development of an intervention to decrease PIP in Irish primary care.

Methods: The MRC framework for the design and evaluation of complex interventions guided the development of the study intervention. In the development stage, literature was reviewed and combined with information obtained from experts in the field using a consensus based methodology and patient cases to define the main components of the intervention. In the pilot stage, five GPs tested the proposed intervention. Qualitative interviews were conducted with the GPs to inform the development and implementation of the intervention for the main randomised controlled trial.

Results: The literature review identified PIP criteria for inclusion in the study and two initial intervention components - academic detailing and medicines review supported by therapeutic treatment algorithms. Through patient case studies and a focus group with a group of 8 GPs, these components were refined and a third component of the intervention identified - patient information leaflets. The intervention was tested in a pilot study. In total, eight medicine reviews were conducted across five GP practices. These reviews addressed ten instances of PIP, nine of which were addressed in the form of either a dose reduction or a discontinuation of a targeted medication. Qualitative interviews highlighted that GPs were receptive to the intervention but patient preference and time needed both to prepare for and conduct the medicines review, emerged as potential barriers. Findings from the pilot study allowed further refinement to produce the finalised intervention of academic detailing with a pharmacist, medicines review with web-based therapeutic treatment algorithms and tailored patient information leaflets.

Conclusions: The MRC framework was used in the development of the OPTI-SCRIPT intervention to decrease the level of PIP in primary care in Ireland. Its application ensured that the intervention was developed using the best available evidence, was acceptable to GPs and feasible to deliver in the clinical setting. The effectiveness of this intervention is currently being tested in a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.

Trial registration: Current controlled trials ISRCTN41694007.© 2013 Clyne et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing and prescribing omissions in Irish adults: findings from the Irish LongituDinal Study on Ageing (TILDA)

Purpose: We sought to estimate the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIP) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) using a subset of the STOPP/START criteria in a population based sample of Irish adults aged ≥65 years using data from The Irish LongituDinal Study on Ageing (TILDA).

Methods: A subset of 26 PIP indicators and 10 PPO indicators from the STOPP/START criteria were applied to the TILDA dataset. PIP/PPO prevalence according to individual STOPP/START criteria and the overall prevalence of PIP/PPO were estimated. The relationship between PIP and PPOs and polypharmacy, age, gender and multimorbidity was examined using logistic regression.

Results: The overall prevalence of PIP in the study population (n = 3,454) was 14.6 %. The most common examples of PIP identified were NSAID with moderate-severe hypertension (200 participants; 5.8 %) and aspirin with no history of coronary, cerebral, or peripheral vascular symptoms or occlusive event (112 participants; 3.2 %). The overall prevalence of PPOs was 30 % (n = 1,035). The most frequent PPO was antihypertensive therapy where systolic blood pressure consistently >160 mmHg (n = 341, 9.9 %), There was a significant association between PIP and PPO and polypharmacy when adjusting for age, sex and multimorbidity (adjusted OR 2.62, 95 % CI 2.05–3.33 for PIP and adjusted OR 1.46, 95 % CI 1.23–1.75 for prescribing omissions).

Conclusion: Our findings indicate prescribing omissions are twice as prevalent as PIP in the elderly using a subset of the STOPP/START criteria as an explicit process measure of potentially inappropriate prescribing and prescribing omissions. Polypharmacy was independently associated with both PPO and PIP. Application of such screening tools to prescribing decisions may reduce unnecessary medication, related adverse events, healthcare utilisation and cost.

Potentially inappropriate prescribing among older people in the United Kingdom

Background: Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in older people is associated with increases in morbidity, hospitalisation and mortality. The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of and factors associated with PIP, among those aged ≥70 years, in the United Kingdom, using a comprehensive set of prescribing indicators and comparing these to estimates obtained from a truncated set of the same indicators.

Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study was carried out in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), in 2007. Participants included those aged ≥ 70 years, in CPRD. Fifty-two PIP indicators from the Screening Tool of Older Persons Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP) criteria were applied to data on prescribed drugs and clinical diagnoses. Overall prevalence of PIP and prevalence according to individual STOPP criteria were estimated. The relationship between PIP and polypharmacy (≥4 medications), comorbidity, age, and gender was examined. A truncated, subset of 28 STOPP criteria that were used in two previous studies, were further applied to the data to facilitate comparison.

Results: Using 52 indicators, the overall prevalence of PIP in the study population (n = 1,019,491) was 29%. The most common examples of PIP were therapeutic duplication (11.9%), followed by use of aspirin with no indication (11.3%) and inappropriate use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) (3.7%). PIP was strongly associated with polypharmacy (Odds Ratio 18.2, 95% Confidence Intervals, 18.0-18.4, P < 0.05). PIP was more common in those aged 70–74 years vs. 85 years or more and in males. Application of the smaller subset of the STOPP criteria resulted in a lower PIP prevalence at 14.9% (95% CIs 14.8-14.9%) (n = 151,598). The most common PIP issues identified with this subset were use of PPIs at maximum dose for > 8 weeks, NSAIDs for > 3 months, and use of long-term neuroleptics.

Conclusions: PIP was prevalent in the UK and increased with polypharmacy. Application of the comprehensive set of STOPP criteria allowed more accurate estimation of PIP compared to the subset of criteria used in previous studies. These findings may provide a focus for targeted interventions to reduce PIP.

STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 2

PURPOSE: screening tool of older people's prescriptions (STOPP) and screening tool to alert to right treatment (START) criteria were first published in 2008. Due to an expanding therapeutics evidence base, updating of the criteria was required.

METHODS: we reviewed the 2008 STOPP/START criteria to add new evidence-based criteria and remove any obsolete criteria. A thorough literature review was performed to reassess the evidence base of the 2008 criteria and the proposed new criteria. Nineteen experts from 13 European countries reviewed a new draft of STOPP & START criteria including proposed new criteria. These experts were also asked to propose additional criteria they considered important to include in the revised STOPP & START criteria and to highlight any criteria from the 2008 list they considered less important or lacking an evidence base. The revised list of criteria was then validated using the Delphi consensus methodology.

RESULTS: the expert panel agreed a final list of 114 criteria after two Delphi validation rounds, i.e. 80 STOPP criteria and 34 START criteria. This represents an overall 31% increase in STOPP/START criteria compared with version 1. Several new STOPP categories were created in version 2, namely antiplatelet/anticoagulant drugs, drugs affecting, or affected by, renal function and drugs that increase anticholinergic burden; new START categories include urogenital system drugs, analgesics and vaccines.

CONCLUSION: STOPP/START version 2 criteria have been expanded and updated for the purpose of minimizing inappropriate prescribing in older people. These criteria are based on an up-to-date literature review and consensus validation among a European panel of experts.