Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
País/Região como assunto
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Int J Clin Pharm ; 38(5): 1103-11, 2016 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27343120

RESUMO

UNLABELLED: Background Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) are often found in high proportion among the elderly population. The STOPP criteria have been suggested to detect more PIMs in European elderly than the Beers criteria. Objective This study aimed to determine the prevalence of PIMs and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) in a sample of Portuguese nursing homes residents. Setting Four elderly facilities in mainland Portugal Method A descriptive cross-sectional study was used. Elderly polypharmacy patients were included in the study and their medication (registered in patient clinical records) analysed using the Beers (2012 original version and 2008 version adapted to Portugal), STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions) and START (Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment) criteria. Data were analysed using univariate and bivariate descriptive statistics, considering a confidence interval of 95 %. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of PIMs and PPOs. Results The sample included 161 individuals, with a mean age of 84.7 years (SD = 6.35), 68.9 % being female. A total of 807 PIMs and 90 PPOs were identified through the application of the three set of criteria. The prevalence of PIMs using the most recent version of the Beers criteria was 85.1 and 42.1 % for independent and dependent of diagnosis, respectively. The Portuguese adaptation of this same tool indicated a lower prevalence of PIMs, 60.3 and 16.7 %, respectively. The prevalence of PIMs using the STOPP criteria was 75.4 %, whilst the prevalence of PPOs, using START, was 42.9 %. There were significant differences in the mean number of PIMs detected depending on the tool used. (p < 0.001). Conclusions The application of the studied criteria in an elderly sample enabled the identification of a notable amount of PIMs and PPOs, indicating there is room for improving the quality of care. The variation in prevalence indicates careful choice of the tool is a prerequisite for engaging in medication review. Using START/STOPP criteria enabled a more holistic approach to the quality of prescribing in the elderly, highlighting low levels of cardiovascular risk prevention and abuse of psychotropic drugs, aside with system failures largely preventable by electronic prescribing and alert generation.


Assuntos
Comportamento de Escolha , Revisão de Uso de Medicamentos/normas , Instituição de Longa Permanência para Idosos/normas , Prescrição Inadequada/efeitos adversos , Prescrição Inadequada/prevenção & controle , Casas de Saúde/normas , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Estudos Transversais , Revisão de Uso de Medicamentos/métodos , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Portugal/epidemiologia , Fatores de Risco
2.
Drugs Real World Outcomes ; 3(1): 89-97, 2016 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27747806

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Currently, people live longer but often with poor quality of life. The decrease in healthy life-years is partly attributable to the institution of polypharmacy to treat various comorbidities. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the study were to determine the prevalence and nature of drug-related problems (DRPs) in polypharmacy elderly patients residing in nursing homes and to test the acceptability of a pharmacist's intervention. METHODS: An exposure cohort was constituted in three Portuguese nursing homes, where all polypharmacy (five or more medicines) elderly patients (≥65 years of age) were analysed and then a random stratified sample was extracted to be subject to an intervention. Clinical and therapeutic data were collected and analysed for DRPs and classified according to the II Granada Consensus, by a pharmacist-led team. The intervention was the formulation of a pharmacist's recommendations to prescribers addressing clinically relevant DRPs, along with suggestions for therapy changes. RESULTS: The initial sample included 126 elderly patients taking 1332 medicines, where 2109 DRPs were identified. The exposure cohort included 63 patients, with comparable baseline data (p > 0.005). Manifest DRPs occurred in 31.7 % of the intervention group (mainly quantitative ineffectiveness-DRP 4), whereas potential DRPs were identified in 100 % of patients (mainly non-quantitative unsafe-DRP 5). Amongst the DRPs identified, 584 (56.7 %) were reported to prescribers (all types of DRPs) and 113 (11 %) to nurses (only non-quantitative ineffectiveness-DRP 3). A total of 539 pharmacist recommendations were presented to physicians, corresponding to 62 letters sent by mail, each including an average of 8.7 recommendations to solve DRPs present in intervention group (IG) patients. There was a high non-response rate (n = 34 letters; 54.8 %; containing 367 pharmacist recommendations; 68.1 %) and amongst recommendations receiving feedback, only 8.7 % of pharmacist recommendations made were accepted (n = 15). Positive responses were significantly associated with a lower number of recommendations made, whereas a higher number of recommendations increased the odds of no response (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A pharmacist-led medication review proved useful in identifying DRPs in elderly polypharmacy nursing home residents. Stronger bonds must be developed between healthcare professionals to increase patient safety in the vulnerable institutionalised elderly population.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA