Purpose This study aims to systematically review studies describing screening tools that assess the risk for drug-related problems (DRPs) in older adults (≥ 60 years). The focus of the review is to compare DRP risks listed in different tools and describe their development methods and validation. Methods The systematic search was conducted using evidence-based medicine, Medline Ovid, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from January 1, 1985, to April 7, 2016. Publications describing general DRP risk assessment tools for older adults written in English were included. Disease, therapy, and drug-specific tools were excluded. Outcome measures included an assessment tool's content, development methods, and validation assessment. Results The search produced 15 publications describing 11 DRP risk assessment tools. Three major categories of risks for DRPs included (1) patient or caregiver related risks; (2) pharmacotherapy-related risks; and (3) medication use process-related risks. Of all the risks included in the tools only 8 criteria appeared in at least 4 of the tools, problems remembering to take the medication being the most common (n=7). Validation assessments varied and content validation was the most commonly conducted (n = 9). Reliability assessment was conducted for 6 tools, most commonly by calculating internal consistency (n = 3) and inter-rater reliability (n = 2). Conclusions The considerable variety between the contents of the tools indicates that there is no consensus on the risk factors for DRPs that should be screened in older adults taking multiple medicines. Further research is needed to improve the accuracy and timeliness of the DRP risk assessment tools.

Background: Home care (HC) clients are increasingly older, have many chronic diseases, and use multiple medicines and thus are at high risk for drug-related problems (DRPs). Objective: Establish the sensitivity of practical nurse (PN) administered DRP risk assessment tool (DRP-RAT) compared with geriatrician's assessment of the medical record. Identify the clinically most significant DRPs needing action. Methods: Twenty-six PNs working in HC of Härkätie Health Center in Lieto, Finland, 46 HC clients (≥65 years), and a geriatrician participated in this pilot study. The geriatrician reviewed HC clients' medications using 3 different methods. The reviews were based on the following: (1) the PN's risk screening (ie, PN-completed DRP-RAT) and medication list, (2) health center's medical records, and (3) methods 1 and 2 together. The main outcome was the number of "at-risk patients" (ie, the patient is at risk of clinically significant DRPs) by using each review method. Secondary outcomes were clinically most significant DRP-risk predicting factors identified by the geriatrician. Results: The geriatrician reviewed 45 clients' medications using all 3 methods. Based on PN-completed DRP-RAT and medication list, 93% (42/45) of the clients were classified as "at-risk patients." Two other review methods resulted in 45/45 (100%) "at-risk patients." Symptoms suggestive of adverse drug reactions were the most significant risk predicting factors. Small sample size limits the generalizability of the results. Conclusions: The PN-completed DRP-RAT was able to provide clinically important timely patient information for clinical decision making. DRP-RAT could make it possible to more effectively involve PNs in medication risk management among older HC clients.