Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Detecting Medication Risks among People in Need of Care: Performance of Six Instruments
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Detecting Medication Risks among People in Need of Care: Performance of Six Instruments
Do you wish to request the book?
Detecting Medication Risks among People in Need of Care: Performance of Six Instruments
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Detecting Medication Risks among People in Need of Care: Performance of Six Instruments
2023
Overview
Introduction: Numerous tools exist to detect potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) and potential prescribing omissions (PPO) in older people, but it remains unclear which tools may be most relevant in which setting. Objectives: This cross sectional study compares six validated tools in terms of PIM and PPO detection. Methods: We examined the PIM/PPO prevalence for all tools combined and the sensitivity of each tool. The pairwise agreement between tools was determined using Cohen’s Kappa. Results: We included 226 patients in need of care (median (IQR age 84 (80–89)). The overall PIM prevalence was 91.6 (95% CI, 87.2–94.9)% and the overall PPO prevalence was 63.7 (57.1–69.9%)%. The detected PIM prevalence ranged from 76.5%, for FORTA-C/D, to 6.6% for anticholinergic drugs (German-ACB). The PPO prevalences for START (63.7%) and FORTA-A (62.8%) were similar. The pairwise agreement between tools was poor to moderate. The sensitivity of PIM detection was highest for FORTA-C/D (55.1%), and increased to 79.2% when distinct items from STOPP were added. Conclusion: Using a single screening tool may not have sufficient sensitivity to detect PIMs and PPOs. Further research is required to optimize the composition of PIM and PPO tools in different settings.
Publisher
MDPI AG,MDPI
