4.2 Article

Inappropriate prescribing in older residents of Australian care homes

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2710.2009.01151.x

关键词

Australia; Beers criteria; inappropriate prescribing; McLeod criteria; older patients

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>What is known and objective: The incidence of inappropriate prescribing is higher amongst the older age group than the younger population. Inappropriate prescribing potentially leads to drug-related problems such as adverse drug reactions. We aimed to determine the prevalence of inappropriate prescribing in residents of Tasmanian (Australia) residential care homes using Beers and McLeod criteria. Methods: Patient demographics, medical conditions and medications were collected from medical records. The patients who fulfilled either Beers or McLeod criteria were identified and the characteristics of these patients were then compared. Results: Data for 2345 residents were collected between 2006 and 2007. There were 1027 (43 center dot 8%) patients prescribed at least one inappropriate medication. Beers criteria identified more patients (828 patients, 35 center dot 3%) as being prescribed inappropriate medication compared with McLeod criteria (438 patients, 18 center dot 7%). Patients taking psychotropic medication/s, more than six medications or diagnosed with five or more medical conditions were more likely to be prescribed an inappropriate medication (P < 0 center dot 001). The most frequently identified inappropriate medications included benzodiazepines, amitriptyline, oxybutynin and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. What is new and conclusion: Inappropriate prescribing, as defined by either Beers criteria or McLeod criteria, is relatively common in Australian nursing homes. The prevalence of inappropriate prescribing, and factors influencing it, are consistent with other countries. Both Beers and McLeod criteria are a general guide to prescribing, and do not substitute for professional judgment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据