4.7 Article

Potentially inappropriate prescribing including under-use amongst older patients with cognitive or psychiatric co-morbidities

期刊

AGE AND AGEING
卷 39, 期 3, 页码 373-381

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afq031

关键词

inappropriate prescription; omission of prescription; STOPP START; health literacy; older adults

资金

  1. Department of Rehabilitation and Geriatric (DRG)
  2. Geneva Medical School

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Participants: one hundred fifty consecutive inpatients with mental co-morbidities hospitalised for acute medical illness (mean age 80 +/- 9, 70% of women) were considered for the study. Measurements: IP and PO were prospectively indentified according to STOPP/START criteria at hospital admission. Results: over 95% were taking >= 1 medication (median = 7) which amounted to 1,137 prescriptions. The prevalence of IP was 77% and PO was 65%. The most frequent encountered IP concerned drugs adversely affecting fallers (25%) and antiaggregants therapy without atherosclerosis (14%). PO concerned antidepressants with moderate/severe depression (20%) and calcium-vitamin D supplementation (18%). Independent predictors for IP were increased number of concomitant drugs (odds ratio [OR] 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-1.89), being cognitively impaired (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.55-2.24), and having fallen in the preceding 3 months (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.52-2.61) or hospitalised in the preceding year (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02-1.23). Concerning PO, psychiatric disorder (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.42-2.01) and increase level of co-morbidities (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.48-1.99) were identified. Living in an institutional setting was a predictive maker for both IP (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.27-1.74) and PO (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.32-1.91). Conclusion: IP and PO were highly prevalent raising the need of a greater health literacy concerning geriatric conditions in non-geriatrician practitioners who care elderly as well as in the community, in hospital and institutional settings for improving quality and safety in prescribing medication.

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

4.7
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