Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Clinical relevance of potentially inappropriate medications and potential prescribing omissions according to explicit criteria—a validation study
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?
Clinical relevance of potentially inappropriate medications and potential prescribing omissions according to explicit criteria—a validation study
Do you wish to request the book?
Clinical relevance of potentially inappropriate medications and potential prescribing omissions according to explicit criteria—a validation study
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
Clinical relevance of potentially inappropriate medications and potential prescribing omissions according to explicit criteria—a validation study
2022
Overview
PurposeTo investigate the clinical relevance of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs), and to evaluate the association between PIMs/PPOs and inadequate drug treatment.MethodsPIMs/PPOs, concordantly identified by two physicians applying the STOPP/START criteria, the EU(7)-PIM list, and a Swedish set in 302 consecutive older primary care patients, were assessed regarding clinical relevance for the specific patient. The physicians determined, in consensus, whether an action related to the medication was medically justified prior to the next regular consultation. If so, the drug treatment was categorised as inadequate, and if not, the treatment was considered adequate.ResultsIn all, 259 (86%) patients had 1010 PIMs/PPOs, 150 (15%) of which, in 81 (27%) patients, were assessed as clinically relevant (kappa: 0.26). A total of 75 (50%) clinically relevant PIMs and PPOs were prioritised for medical action before the next regular consultation. Action-requiring clinically relevant PIMs most often concerned acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) for primary prevention (four out of 68 patients on ASA). The corresponding PPOs concerned beta-blockers in ischaemic heart disease (four out of 61 patients with this condition). When an overall medical perspective was applied, 164 (63%) out of 259 patients with PIMs/PPOs were assessed as having adequate treatment. In adjusted logistic regression, number of PIMs and/or PPOs and number of drugs were associated with inadequate drug treatment.ConclusionOne in seven PIMs/PPOs may be clinically relevant, half of these not of priority for medical action. Cautious interpretation is warranted when PIMs/PPOs are used as outcome measures.
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
