Cargando…

Detecting Medication Risks among People in Need of Care: Performance of Six Instruments

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dreischulte, Tobias, Sanftenberg, Linda, Hennigs, Philipp, Zöllinger, Isabel, Schwaiger, Rita, Floto, Caroline, Sebastiao, Maria, Kühlein, Thomas, Hindenburg, Dagmar, Gagyor, Ildikó, Wildgruber, Domenika, Hausen, Anita, Janke, Christian, Hölscher, Michael, Teupser, Daniel, Gensichen, Jochen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9915255/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36767705
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032327
_version_ 1784885860099948544
author Dreischulte, Tobias
Sanftenberg, Linda
Hennigs, Philipp
Zöllinger, Isabel
Schwaiger, Rita
Floto, Caroline
Sebastiao, Maria
Kühlein, Thomas
Hindenburg, Dagmar
Gagyor, Ildikó
Wildgruber, Domenika
Hausen, Anita
Janke, Christian
Hölscher, Michael
Teupser, Daniel
Gensichen, Jochen
author_facet Dreischulte, Tobias
Sanftenberg, Linda
Hennigs, Philipp
Zöllinger, Isabel
Schwaiger, Rita
Floto, Caroline
Sebastiao, Maria
Kühlein, Thomas
Hindenburg, Dagmar
Gagyor, Ildikó
Wildgruber, Domenika
Hausen, Anita
Janke, Christian
Hölscher, Michael
Teupser, Daniel
Gensichen, Jochen
author_sort Dreischulte, Tobias
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9915255
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99152552023-02-11 Detecting Medication Risks among People in Need of Care: Performance of Six Instruments Dreischulte, Tobias Sanftenberg, Linda Hennigs, Philipp Zöllinger, Isabel Schwaiger, Rita Floto, Caroline Sebastiao, Maria Kühlein, Thomas Hindenburg, Dagmar Gagyor, Ildikó Wildgruber, Domenika Hausen, Anita Janke, Christian Hölscher, Michael Teupser, Daniel Gensichen, Jochen Int J Environ Res Public Health Article 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. MDPI 2023-01-28 /pmc/articles/PMC9915255/ /pubmed/36767705 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032327 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Dreischulte, Tobias
Sanftenberg, Linda
Hennigs, Philipp
Zöllinger, Isabel
Schwaiger, Rita
Floto, Caroline
Sebastiao, Maria
Kühlein, Thomas
Hindenburg, Dagmar
Gagyor, Ildikó
Wildgruber, Domenika
Hausen, Anita
Janke, Christian
Hölscher, Michael
Teupser, Daniel
Gensichen, Jochen
Detecting Medication Risks among People in Need of Care: Performance of Six Instruments
title Detecting Medication Risks among People in Need of Care: Performance of Six Instruments
title_full Detecting Medication Risks among People in Need of Care: Performance of Six Instruments
title_fullStr Detecting Medication Risks among People in Need of Care: Performance of Six Instruments
title_full_unstemmed Detecting Medication Risks among People in Need of Care: Performance of Six Instruments
title_short Detecting Medication Risks among People in Need of Care: Performance of Six Instruments
title_sort detecting medication risks among people in need of care: performance of six instruments
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9915255/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36767705
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032327
work_keys_str_mv AT dreischultetobias detectingmedicationrisksamongpeopleinneedofcareperformanceofsixinstruments
AT sanftenberglinda detectingmedicationrisksamongpeopleinneedofcareperformanceofsixinstruments
AT hennigsphilipp detectingmedicationrisksamongpeopleinneedofcareperformanceofsixinstruments
AT zollingerisabel detectingmedicationrisksamongpeopleinneedofcareperformanceofsixinstruments
AT schwaigerrita detectingmedicationrisksamongpeopleinneedofcareperformanceofsixinstruments
AT flotocaroline detectingmedicationrisksamongpeopleinneedofcareperformanceofsixinstruments
AT sebastiaomaria detectingmedicationrisksamongpeopleinneedofcareperformanceofsixinstruments
AT kuhleinthomas detectingmedicationrisksamongpeopleinneedofcareperformanceofsixinstruments
AT hindenburgdagmar detectingmedicationrisksamongpeopleinneedofcareperformanceofsixinstruments
AT gagyorildiko detectingmedicationrisksamongpeopleinneedofcareperformanceofsixinstruments
AT wildgruberdomenika detectingmedicationrisksamongpeopleinneedofcareperformanceofsixinstruments
AT hausenanita detectingmedicationrisksamongpeopleinneedofcareperformanceofsixinstruments
AT jankechristian detectingmedicationrisksamongpeopleinneedofcareperformanceofsixinstruments
AT holschermichael detectingmedicationrisksamongpeopleinneedofcareperformanceofsixinstruments
AT teupserdaniel detectingmedicationrisksamongpeopleinneedofcareperformanceofsixinstruments
AT gensichenjochen detectingmedicationrisksamongpeopleinneedofcareperformanceofsixinstruments
AT detectingmedicationrisksamongpeopleinneedofcareperformanceofsixinstruments