| Title |
Potentially inappropriate prescribing in nursing home residents detected with the community pharmacist specific GheOP3S-tool
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11096-016-0366-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eline Tommelein, Els Mehuys, Mirko Petrovic, Annemie Somers, Charlotte Van Damme, Eva Pattyn, Kristof Mattelin, Koen Boussery |
| Abstract |
Background The Ghent Older People's Prescriptions community Pharmacy Screening (GheOP³S-)tool was recently developed to screen for potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP). Objective We aimed (1) to determine PIP prevalence in older nursing home (NH) residents with polypharmacy using the GheOP³S-tool and (2) to identify those PIPs that are most frequently detected. Method A cross-sectional study was carried out between February and June 2014 in 10 NHs in Belgium, supplied by a community pharmacy chain. For each NH, 40 residents (≥70 years, using ≥5 chronic drugs) were included. PIP prevalence was determined using the GheOP³S-tool. Results 400 NH residents were included [mean age (±SD) 86.2 (±6.3) years; median number of drugs (±IQR) 10 (7-12)]. A total of 1728 PIPs were detected in 387 (97 %) participants (Median 4; IQR 2-6). The most prevalent items can be assigned to three categories: long-term use of central nervous system drugs (i.e. benzodiazepines, antidepressants and antipsychotics), use of anticholinergic drugs (mutual combinations and with underlying constipation/dementia) and underuse of osteoporosis prophylaxis. Conclusion Screening for PIP by means of the GheOP³S-tool revealed a high prevalence of PIP among older NH residents with polypharmacy. This finding urges for initiatives on the patient-level, but also on a broader, institutional level. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 50% |
| Belgium | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 110 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 21 | 19% |
| Researcher | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 11% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 14% |
| Unknown | 36 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 26 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 9% |
| Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Psychology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Unknown | 37 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 March 2018.
All research outputs
#13,403,426
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#640
of 1,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,458
of 364,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#14
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,092 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 364,256 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.