Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
ImportanceThe use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) is widespread yet continues to receive little attention in outpatient services.ObjectiveTo estimate the overall prevalence of PIM use in outpatient services.Data SourcesPubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched to identify relevant studies published from January 1, 1990, to November 21, 2022.Study SelectionObservational studies that reported the prevalence of PIM use among older patients in outpatient services were screened.Data Extraction and SynthesisTwo reviewers independently selected eligible articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to pool the prevalence estimates.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe global patterns in the prevalence of PIM use among older patients in outpatient services were estimated, and the temporal trends and regional differences in PIM use were investigated.ResultsA total of 94 articles with 132 prevalence estimates were analyzed, including nearly 371.2 million older participants from 17 countries. Overall, the pooled prevalence of PIM use was 36.7% (95% CI, 33.4%-40.0%). Africa had the highest prevalence of PIM use (47.0%; 95% CI, 34.7%-59.4%), followed by South America (46.9%; 95% CI, 35.1%-58.9%), Asia (37.2%; 95% CI, 32.4%-42.2%), Europe (35.0%; 95% CI, 28.5%-41.8%), North America (29.0%; 95% CI, 22.1%-36.3%), and Oceania (23.6%; 95% CI, 18.8%-28.8%). In addition, the prevalence of PIM use is highest in low-income areas. Use of PIMs among older patients has become increasingly prevalent in the past 2 decades.Conclusions and RelevanceThis study of patterns of PIM use by different groups, such as geographic regions and World Bank countries, suggests noticeable geographic environment and economic income differences in the burden of PIMs in outpatient services. Furthermore, the high prevalence trend in the past 2 decades indicates that the global burden of PIM use continues to be worthy of attention.
ImportanceThe use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) is widespread yet continues to receive little attention in outpatient services.ObjectiveTo estimate the overall prevalence of PIM use in outpatient services.Data SourcesPubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched to identify relevant studies published from January 1, 1990, to November 21, 2022.Study SelectionObservational studies that reported the prevalence of PIM use among older patients in outpatient services were screened.Data Extraction and SynthesisTwo reviewers independently selected eligible articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to pool the prevalence estimates.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe global patterns in the prevalence of PIM use among older patients in outpatient services were estimated, and the temporal trends and regional differences in PIM use were investigated.ResultsA total of 94 articles with 132 prevalence estimates were analyzed, including nearly 371.2 million older participants from 17 countries. Overall, the pooled prevalence of PIM use was 36.7% (95% CI, 33.4%-40.0%). Africa had the highest prevalence of PIM use (47.0%; 95% CI, 34.7%-59.4%), followed by South America (46.9%; 95% CI, 35.1%-58.9%), Asia (37.2%; 95% CI, 32.4%-42.2%), Europe (35.0%; 95% CI, 28.5%-41.8%), North America (29.0%; 95% CI, 22.1%-36.3%), and Oceania (23.6%; 95% CI, 18.8%-28.8%). In addition, the prevalence of PIM use is highest in low-income areas. Use of PIMs among older patients has become increasingly prevalent in the past 2 decades.Conclusions and RelevanceThis study of patterns of PIM use by different groups, such as geographic regions and World Bank countries, suggests noticeable geographic environment and economic income differences in the burden of PIMs in outpatient services. Furthermore, the high prevalence trend in the past 2 decades indicates that the global burden of PIM use continues to be worthy of attention.
Background Unintentional changes to patients’ medicine regimens and drug non-adherence are discovered by medication reconciliation. High numbers of outpatient visits and medication reconciliation being time-consuming, make it challenging to perform medication reconciliation for all outpatients. Therefore, we aimed to get insight into the proportion of outpatient visits in which information obtained with medication reconciliation led to additional drug-related actions. Methods In October and November 2018, we performed a cross-sectional observational study at the rheumatology outpatient clinic. Based on a standardized data collection form, outpatient visits were observed by a pharmacy technician trained to observe and report all drug-related actions made by the rheumatologist. Afterwards, the nine observed rheumatologists and an expert panel, consisting of two rheumatologists and two pharmacists, were individually asked which drug information reported on the drug list composed by medication reconciliation was required to perform the drug-related actions. The four members of the expert panel discussed until consensus was reached about their assessment of the required information. Subsequently, a researcher determined if the required information was available in digital sources: electronic medical record (electronic prescribing system plus physician’s medical notes) or Dutch Nationwide Medication Record System. Results Of the 114 selected patients, 83 (73%) patients were included. If both digital drug sources were available, patient’s input during medication reconciliation resulted in additional information to perform drug-related actions according to the rheumatologist in 0% of the visits and according to the expert panel in 14%. If there was only access to the electronic medical record, the proportions were 8 and 29%, respectively. Patient’s input was especially required for starting a new drug and discussing drug-related problems. Conclusions If rheumatologists only had access to the electronic medical record, in 1 out of 3 visits the patient provided additional information during medication reconciliation which was required to perform a drug-related action. When rheumatologists had access to two digital sources, patient’s additional input during medication reconciliation was at most 14%. As the added value of patient’s input was highest when rheumatologists prescribe a new drug and/or discuss a drug-related problem, it may be considered that rheumatologists only perform medication reconciliation during the visit when performing one of these actions.
Increased life expectancy along with an increasing share of elderly and senile patients in the structure of the population make the tasks of longer healthy life expectancy pressing. A set of activities aimed at optimization of management of patients within the framework of gerontological practice should include elimination and prevention of diagnostic and therapeutic errors. The basic risk factors of medical errors include high heterogeneity of elderly and senile patients, overburdened healthcare system, polypharmacy, including due to parallel prescription of drugs to the same patient by multiple medical professionals, concomitant diseases, and high comorbidity, measured by the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Mismanagement of elderly patients can result both from underestimated severity of the patient’s conditions, and from hyperdiagnostics. Typical errors of pharmacotherapy include use of potentially inappropriate medications, potential prescribing omissions, simultaneous prescription of drugs with high risk of clinically significant interactions, incorrect selection of dosage without taking into account the renal failure, which is associated with high risk of toxic effects. Affordability of medical aid for an elderly patient is another important social aspect influencing the patient’s quality of life. As far as basic ethical principles of management of elderly and senile patients go, it is necessary to respect independence, well-being and justice for the patients regarding possible obtaining of qualitative medical aid as compared with other age groups.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.