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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |