Saija Leikola

Comparison of Prescribing Criteria to Evaluate the Appropriateness of Drug Treatment in Individuals Aged 65 and Older: A Systematic Review

Because inappropriate prescribing is prevalent in individuals aged 65 and older, various criteria to assess it have been developed. This studys aim was to systematically review articles that describe criteria for assessing inappropriate prescribing in individuals aged 65 and older and to define the circumstances of their use (explicit/implicit), origins, development processes, and content. A systematic search was conducted on MEDLINE and PubMed (1990–2010) and augmented with a manual search. Original articles written in English were included if they described the development of the criteria and were aimed at people aged 65 and older. Articles that described criteria applicable only in hospital settings, specific drugs, or a particular disease or condition were excluded. Sixteen of 535 articles met the inclusion criteria. They described 14 criteria, half originating in the United States. The English‐language restriction limited the search results. Most criteria were explicit, consensus validated, based totally or partly on Beers criteria, and focused on pharmacological appropriateness of prescribing and some were old. Drug‐ and disease‐oriented explicit criteria require regular updating and are country specific. Implicit, person‐specific criteria are universal and do not need updating, although their use requires up‐to‐date professional skills. Unlike explicit criteria, implicit criteria have been validated in people. Some of the 14 criteria were noncomprehensive, mainly because of the intended purpose. To conclude, different criteria exist for optimizing prescribing for individuals aged 65 and older. Possible deficiencies must be recognized and trade‐offs made when selecting criteria for use. In the future, more‐comprehensive and ‐timely criteria are needed.

Potentially inappropriate medication use among Finnish non-institutionalized people aged ≥65 years: a register-based, cross-sectional, national study.

BackgroundThe Beers criteria and their modifications are the most frequently used tools for measuring potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use among older people. The prevalence of such use in various settings has been high, but no data have been reported for an entire national non-institutionalized elderly population, nor is there information on the reimbursement costs for those medications.ObjectiveTo determine the prevalence of PIM use according to the Beers 2003 criteria, independent of diagnoses, among Finnish non-institutionalized people aged ≥65 years, and the reimbursement costs for these medications.MethodsA register-based cross-sectional national study used drug reimbursement data from Finland’s Social Insurance Institution (SII). These data cover the entire non-institutionalized population aged ≥65 years in 2007. The number of persons who received reimbursements for each PIM according to the Beers 2003 criteria and the total annual reimbursement costs for PIMs were calculated. Indirect costs were excluded.ResultsOf the non-institutionalized population aged ≥65 years in Finland (n = 841 509), 14.7% (n = 123 545) had received PIMs according to the Beers 2003 criteria. Temazepam >15 mg/day was clearly the most commonly reimbursed PIM (4.4% of the population aged ≥65 years), followed by amitriptyline (2.0%) and diazepam (1.8%). The SII paid drug reimbursements of €2.9 million for PIMs, which was 0.7% of the total drug reimbursements (€421 million) for people aged ≥65 years in Finland in 2007.ConclusionsThe use of PIMs among outpatients aged ≥65 years in Finland (14.7%) was less than in several earlier large-scale studies in other countries (17–42%) and reimbursement costs were modest, mainly as a result of the limited availability in Finland of medicines identified as PIMs by the Beers 2003 criteria. However, benzodiazepines were commonly used and actions to improve medication safety should target reducing their use.

Medication review practices in European countries

BACKGROUND Medication review procedures have been developed in many countries to improve rational and safe medication use. The similarities, comprehensiveness, and effectiveness of these procedures has not been assessed, or compared. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to explore medication review practices in European countries. METHODS An online survey was sent to 32 European countries (all 28 European Union countries and 4 other European countries) by email to one person in each country known to be aware of medication review practices in their country in May 2011. The informants were identified through Pharmaceutical Group of European Union. To complement and validate the information received through Pharmaceutical Group of European Union, medication review experts involved in Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe were contacted. The survey assessed comprehensiveness of the medication review procedures classified according to 3 types in terms of settings; access to patient clinical information; patient involvement; availability of documentation and information; collaboration with the physician; quality control, and training required. RESULTS Almost two thirds (64%) of the 25 European countries which responded (response rate 78%) indicated having at least one type of medication review procedure in their country. In the community setting prescription (type I) and adherence (type II) medication reviews were the most common (established in 9 and 11 countries, respectively). More comprehensive type III clinical medication reviews requiring access to clinical patient information were still rare, and just being established in 6 countries. CONCLUSIONS Medication review procedures are becoming common in health care throughout Europe, however improving their comprehensiveness would require better access to patient information for those professionals conducting clinical medication reviews. In addition to benchmarking, the inventory can enhance cooperation between countries and stakeholders involved in medication review practice development nationally and internationally.

Feasibility of a practical nurse administered risk assessment tool for drug-related problems in home care:

Aim: To evaluate feasibility of a practical nurse-administered Drug-related Problem Risk Assessment Tool among home care clients ⩾65 years. Methods: Altogether, 36 practical nurses participated in the study. They were trained about the purpose and use of the tool. The training consisted of a day long interactive workshop and involved reviewing four self-selected clients’ medications using the tool (one as a pre-assignment before and three as post-assignments after the workshop). The data of this study were collected during the training. Triangulation, i.e. combination of methods and data, was used to evaluate the feasibility of the tool. Quantitative data were gathered from returned post-assignment tools and qualitative data from face-to-face discussions and open questions in feedback forms the practical nurses returned after the training. Results: Practical nurses spent 10–45 minutes reviewing one client’s medication using the tool (mean 20±8). They identified reliably 88% of the risk medicines used by the clients listed in the tool. Of the respondents (n=23) of the feedback forms, 43% reported that they felt it easy or quite easy to answer the questions of the tool. Generic names of medicines, time constraints, home-care workers’/client’s lack of interest to client’s pharmacotherapy and short client contacts were the most common barriers to use the tool. Conclusions: The Drug-Related Problem Risk Assessment Tool turned out to be feasible among practical nurses. The brief training on the content and use of the tool seems to be sufficient for ensuring reliable use of the tool.