Tau Ming Liew1,2, Cia Sin Lee3, Kuan Liang Goh Shawn3, Zi Ying Chang3. 1. Department of Geriatric Psychiatry, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore tau_ming_liew@imh.com.sg. 2. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore. 3. SingHealth Polyclinics, Singapore.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is a common yet preventable medical error among older persons in primary care. It is uncertain whether PIP produces adverse outcomes in this population, however. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to pool the adverse outcomes of PIP specific to primary care. METHOD: We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, and previous review articles for studies related to "older persons," "primary care," and "inappropriate prescribing." Two reviewers selected eligible articles, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was conducted to pool studies with similar PIP criteria and outcome measures. RESULTS: Of the 2,804 articles identified, we included 8 articles with a total of 77,624 participants. All included studies had cohort design and low risk of bias. Although PIP did not affect mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.05), it was significantly associated with the other available outcomes, including emergency room visits (RR 1.63; 95% CI, 1.32-2.00), adverse drug events (RR 1.34; 95% CI, 1.09-1.66), functional decline (RR 1.53; 95% CI, 1.08-2.18), health-related quality of life (standardized mean difference -0.26; 95% CI, -0.36 to -0.16), and hospitalizations (RR 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.44). A majority of the pooled estimates had negligible heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis provides consolidated evidence on the wide-ranging impact of PIP among older persons in primary care. It highlights the need to identify PIP in primary care, calls for further research on PIP interventions in primary care, and points to the need to consider potential implications when deciding on the operational criteria of PIP.
PURPOSE: Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is a common yet preventable medical error among older persons in primary care. It is uncertain whether PIP produces adverse outcomes in this population, however. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to pool the adverse outcomes of PIP specific to primary care. METHOD: We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, and previous review articles for studies related to "older persons," "primary care," and "inappropriate prescribing." Two reviewers selected eligible articles, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was conducted to pool studies with similar PIP criteria and outcome measures. RESULTS: Of the 2,804 articles identified, we included 8 articles with a total of 77,624 participants. All included studies had cohort design and low risk of bias. Although PIP did not affect mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.05), it was significantly associated with the other available outcomes, including emergency room visits (RR 1.63; 95% CI, 1.32-2.00), adverse drug events (RR 1.34; 95% CI, 1.09-1.66), functional decline (RR 1.53; 95% CI, 1.08-2.18), health-related quality of life (standardized mean difference -0.26; 95% CI, -0.36 to -0.16), and hospitalizations (RR 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.44). A majority of the pooled estimates had negligible heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis provides consolidated evidence on the wide-ranging impact of PIP among older persons in primary care. It highlights the need to identify PIP in primary care, calls for further research on PIP interventions in primary care, and points to the need to consider potential implications when deciding on the operational criteria of PIP.
Keywords:
adverse outcomes; aged; family physicians; family practice; general practice; general practitioners; inappropriate prescribing; medication errors; meta-analysis; primary health care; systematic review
Authors: Barbara Clyne; Ciaran Fitzgerald; Aisling Quinlan; Colin Hardy; Rose Galvin; Tom Fahey; Susan M Smith Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Anne Spinewine; Kenneth E Schmader; Nick Barber; Carmel Hughes; Kate L Lapane; Christian Swine; Joseph T Hanlon Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-07-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Sara Mucherino; Manuela Casula; Federica Galimberti; Ilaria Guarino; Elena Olmastroni; Elena Tragni; Valentina Orlando; Enrica Menditto Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-31 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: F Correard; M Montaleytang; M Costa; M Astolfi; K Baumstarck; S Loubière; K Amichi; P Auquier; P Verger; P Villani; S Honore; A Daumas Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Akshaya S Bhagavathula; Kota Vidyasagar; Manik Chhabra; Muhammed Rashid; Rishabh Sharma; Deepak K Bandari; Daniela Fialova Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2021-05-19 Impact factor: 5.810