BACKGROUND: Criteria to assess the appropriateness of prescriptions might serve as a helpful guideline during professional training and in daily practice, with the aim to improve a patient's pharmacotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To create a comprehensive and structured overview of existing tools to assess inappropriate prescribing. METHOD: Systematic literature search in Pubmed (1991-2013). The following properties of the tools were extracted and mapped in a structured way: approach (explicit, implicit), development method (consensus technique, expert panel, literature based), focused patient group, health care setting, and covered aspects of inappropriate prescribing. RESULTS: The literature search resulted in 46 tools to assess inappropriate prescribing.Twenty-eight (61%) of 46 tools were explicit, 8 (17%) were implicit and 10 (22%) used a mixed approach. Thirty-six (78%) tools named older people as target patients and 10 (22%) tools did not specify the target age group. Four (8.5%) tools were designed to detect inappropriate prescribing in hospitalised patients, 9 (19.5%) focused on patients in ambulatory care and 6 (13%) were developed for use in long-term care. Twenty-seven (59%) tools did not specify the health care setting. Consensus methods were applied in the development of 19 tools (41%), the others were based on either simple expert panels (13; 28%) or on a literature search (11; 24%). For three tools (7%) the development method was not described. CONCLUSION: This overview reveals the characteristics of 46 assessment tools and can serve as a summary to assist readers in choosing a tool, either for research purposes or for daily practice use.
BACKGROUND: Criteria to assess the appropriateness of prescriptions might serve as a helpful guideline during professional training and in daily practice, with the aim to improve a patient's pharmacotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To create a comprehensive and structured overview of existing tools to assess inappropriate prescribing. METHOD: Systematic literature search in Pubmed (1991-2013). The following properties of the tools were extracted and mapped in a structured way: approach (explicit, implicit), development method (consensus technique, expert panel, literature based), focused patient group, health care setting, and covered aspects of inappropriate prescribing. RESULTS: The literature search resulted in 46 tools to assess inappropriate prescribing.Twenty-eight (61%) of 46 tools were explicit, 8 (17%) were implicit and 10 (22%) used a mixed approach. Thirty-six (78%) tools named older people as target patients and 10 (22%) tools did not specify the target age group. Four (8.5%) tools were designed to detect inappropriate prescribing in hospitalised patients, 9 (19.5%) focused on patients in ambulatory care and 6 (13%) were developed for use in long-term care. Twenty-seven (59%) tools did not specify the health care setting. Consensus methods were applied in the development of 19 tools (41%), the others were based on either simple expert panels (13; 28%) or on a literature search (11; 24%). For three tools (7%) the development method was not described. CONCLUSION: This overview reveals the characteristics of 46 assessment tools and can serve as a summary to assist readers in choosing a tool, either for research purposes or for daily practice use.
Authors: N E Winslade; J M Bajcar; A M Bombassaro; C D Caravaggio; D K Strong; S K Yamashita Journal: Pharmacotherapy Date: 1997 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.705
Authors: Philip D Sloane; Ann L Gruber-Baldini; Sheryl Zimmerman; Mary Roth; Lea Watson; Malaz Boustani; Jay Magaziner; J Richard Hebel Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2004-10-11
Authors: Sture Rognstad; Mette Brekke; Arne Fetveit; Olav Spigset; Torgeir Bruun Wyller; Jørund Straand Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2009 Impact factor: 2.581
Authors: Stefan Varga; Matthew Alcusky; Scott W Keith; Sarah E Hegarty; Stefano Del Canale; Marco Lombardi; Vittorio Maio Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Marie-Laure Laroche; Thi Hong Van Ngo; Caroline Sirois; Amélie Daveluy; Michel Guillaumin; Marie-Blanche Valnet-Rabier; Muriel Grau; Barbara Roux; Louis Merle Journal: Eur Geriatr Med Date: 2021-03-20 Impact factor: 1.710
Authors: Marta Lavrador; Ana C Cabral; Isabel V Figueiredo; Manuel T Veríssimo; M Margarida Castel-Branco; Fernando Fernandez-Llimos Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2020-08-29