| Title |
Implementing a screening tool to improve prescribing in hospitalized older patients: a pilot study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11096-017-0563-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anne-Laure Sennesael, Olivia Dalleur, Séverine Henrard, Charline Artoisenet, Didier Schoevaerdts, Anne Spinewine |
| Abstract |
Background The use of STOPP-START criteria during hospitalization reduced inappropriate medications in randomized controlled trials. Objective To evaluate whether the implementation of a screening tool (short version of STOPP-START criteria) in routine geriatric practice reduces potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) and potential prescribing omissions (PPO) at discharge. Methods We conducted a retrospective interrupted time series analysis. Four periods were selected between February and September 2013: (1) baseline situation; (2) screening tool made available to physicians; (3) 3 months later; (4) weekly meetings with junior doctors and a clinical pharmacist to review treatments according to the tool. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with prescribing improvement from admission to discharge. Results We included 120 patients (median age 85 years). The prevalence of PIMs and PPOs on admission was 56% (67/120) and 51% (61/120) respectively. Hospitalization improved prescribing appropriateness in 49% of patients with PIMs (33/67) and 39% of patients with PPOs (24/61). The use of the screening tool by way of multidisciplinary meetings was a predictor of PIMs reduction at discharge. Conclusions The sole distribution of a screening tool in a geriatric unit did not reduce PIMs and PPOs. Multidisciplinary meetings to review treatments should be encouraged. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 46 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 15% |
| Unknown | 19 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 10 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 20% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 16 | 35% |
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 14 December 2017.
All research outputs
#13,223,020
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#626
of 1,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,647
of 438,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#12
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,101 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 438,115 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.