Stephanie K Nothelle1, Ritu Sharma2, Allison H Oakes2, Madeline Jackson2, Jodi B Segal3. 1. Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. Electronic address: snothel1@jhmi.edu. 2. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD. 3. Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD; Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Services and Outcomes Research, Baltimore, MD.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) are widely used in institutionalized older adults, yet the key determinants that drive their use are incompletely characterized. METHODS: We systematically searched published literature within MEDLINE and Embase from January 1998 to March 2017. We searched for studies conducted in the United States that described determinants of PIM use in adults ≥60 years of age in a nursing home or residential care facility, in the emergency department (ED), or in the hospital. Paired reviewers independently screened abstracts and full-text articles, assessed quality, and extracted data. RESULTS: Among 30 included articles, 12 examined PIM use in the nursing home or residential care settings, 4 in the ED, 12 in acute care hospitals, and 2 across settings. The Beers criteria were most frequently used to identify PIM use, which ranged from 3.6% to 92.0%. Across all settings, the most common determinants of PIM use were medication burden and geographic region. In the nursing home, the most common additional determinants were younger age, and diagnoses of depression or diabetes. In both the ED and hospital, patients receiving care in the West, Midwest, and South, relative to the Northeast, were at greater risk of receiving a PIM. Very few studies examined clinician determinants of PIM use; geriatricians used fewer PIMs in the hospital than other clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Among older adults, those who are on many medications are at increased risk for PIM use across multiple settings. We propose that careful testing of interventions that target modifiable determinants are indicated to assess their impact on PIM use.
BACKGROUND: Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) are widely used in institutionalized older adults, yet the key determinants that drive their use are incompletely characterized. METHODS: We systematically searched published literature within MEDLINE and Embase from January 1998 to March 2017. We searched for studies conducted in the United States that described determinants of PIM use in adults ≥60 years of age in a nursing home or residential care facility, in the emergency department (ED), or in the hospital. Paired reviewers independently screened abstracts and full-text articles, assessed quality, and extracted data. RESULTS: Among 30 included articles, 12 examined PIM use in the nursing home or residential care settings, 4 in the ED, 12 in acute care hospitals, and 2 across settings. The Beers criteria were most frequently used to identify PIM use, which ranged from 3.6% to 92.0%. Across all settings, the most common determinants of PIM use were medication burden and geographic region. In the nursing home, the most common additional determinants were younger age, and diagnoses of depression or diabetes. In both the ED and hospital, patients receiving care in the West, Midwest, and South, relative to the Northeast, were at greater risk of receiving a PIM. Very few studies examined clinician determinants of PIM use; geriatricians used fewer PIMs in the hospital than other clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Among older adults, those who are on many medications are at increased risk for PIM use across multiple settings. We propose that careful testing of interventions that target modifiable determinants are indicated to assess their impact on PIM use.
Authors: David G Stevenson; Stacie B Dusetzina; A James O'Malley; Susan L Mitchell; Barbara J Zarowitz; Michael E Chernew; Joseph P Newhouse; Haiden A Huskamp Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Elliott S Fisher; David E Wennberg; Thérèse A Stukel; Daniel J Gottlieb; F L Lucas; Etoile L Pinder Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-02-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Joseph T Hanlon; Margaret B Artz; Carl F Pieper; Catherine I Lindblad; Richard J Sloane; Christine M Ruby; Kenneth E Schmader Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 3.154
Authors: Katrin Uhlig; Bruce Leff; David Kent; Sydney Dy; Klara Brunnhuber; Jako S Burgers; Sheldon Greenfield; Gordon Guyatt; Kevin High; Rosanne Leipzig; Cynthia Mulrow; Kenneth Schmader; Holger Schunemann; Louise C Walter; James Woodcock; Cynthia M Boyd Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-01-18 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Dedan Opondo; Saied Eslami; Stefan Visscher; Sophia E de Rooij; Robert Verheij; Joke C Korevaar; Ameen Abu-Hanna Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-08-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Esa Yh Chen; Janet K Sluggett; Jenni Ilomäki; Sarah N Hilmer; Megan Corlis; Leonie J Picton; Laura Dean; Christopher P Alderman; Nicholas Farinola; Joy Gailer; Jane Grigson; Andrew R Kellie; Peter Jc Putsey; Solomon Yu; J Simon Bell Journal: Clin Interv Aging Date: 2018-05-18 Impact factor: 4.458
Authors: Guohua Li; Howard F Andrews; Stanford Chihuri; Barbara H Lang; Cheng Shiun Leu; David P Merle; Abigail Gordon; Thelma J Mielenz; David Strogatz; David W Eby; Marian E Betz; Carolyn DiGuiseppi; Vanya C Jones; Lisa J Molnar; Linda L Hill Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Johanna Katharina Dellinger; Stefan Pitzer; Dagmar Schaffler-Schaden; Maria Magdalena Schreier; Laura Sandre Fährmann; Georg Hempel; Rudolf Likar; Jürgen Osterbrink; Maria Flamm Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 3.921