Ability to detect potentially inappropriate prescribing in older patients: comparative analysis between PIM-Check and STOPP/STARTv2.

PURPOSE: Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is a source of preventable adverse drug events. The objective of this study was a comparative analysis (quantitative and qualitative) between two tools used to detect PIP, PIM-Check and STOPP/START. METHODS: First, a qualitative analysis (QAC) was conducted to evaluate the concordance between the criteria, which constitute PIM-Check and the gold standard STOPP/START. Second, a retrospective comparative and observational study was performed on the list of treatment at the admission of 50 older patients hospitalized in an acute geriatric ward of a university hospital in Switzerland in 2016 using both tools. RESULTS: The QAC has shown that 50% (57 criteria) of STOPP/START criteria are fully or partially concordant with those of PIM-Check. The retrospective study was performed on 50 patients aged 87 years, suffering from 5 co-morbidities (min-max 1-11) and treated by of 8 drugs (min-max 2-16), as medians. The prevalence of the detected PIP was 80% by PIM-Check and 90% by STOPP/START. Medication review shows that 4.2 PIP per patient were detected by PIM-Check and 3.5 PIP by STOPP/START among which 1.9 PIP was commonly detected by both tools, as means. PIM-Check detected more PIP related to cardiology, angiology, nephrology, and endocrinology in older patients but missed the PIP related to geriatric syndromes (e.g., fall, dementia, Alzheimer) detected by STOPP/START. CONCLUSIONS: By using PIM-Check in geriatric settings, some PIP will not be detected. It is considered as a limitation for this tool in this frail population but brings a certain complementarity in other areas of therapy not covered by STOPP/START.

Impact of Pharmaceutical Interventions in Hospitalized Patients: A Comparative Study Between Clinical Pharmacists and an Explicit Criteria-Based Tool.

BACKGROUND: It has been well recognized that pharmaceutical interventions (PIs) can prevent patient harm related to prescribing errors. Various tools have been developed to facilitate the detection and the reduction of inappropriate prescriptions and some have shown benefit on clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical, economical, and organizational impact of interventions generated by clinical pharmacists in hospitalized patients, and to evaluate the performance of an explicit tool, the Potentially Inappropriate Medication Checklist for Patients in Internal Medicine (PIM-Check), in detecting each pharmacist's intervention. METHODS: A cohort retrospective study was conducted on hospitalized patients. The impact of PIs based on pharmacists' standard examination was evaluated using the Clinical, Economic, and Organizational (CLEO) tool. The performance of PIM-Check in detecting each intervention was assessed by conducting a retrospective medication review based on available information collected from patients' records. A qualitative analysis was also conducted to identify the types of PIs that PIM-Check failed to detect. RESULTS: The study was performed on 162 patients with a median age of 68 years (interquartile range = 46-77 years) and a median hospital stay of 5 days (interquartile range = 4-7 days). The pharmacists generated 1.9 PIs per patient (n = 304) of which 31% were detected by PIM-Check. The acceptance rate of the interventions by physicians was 84% (n = 255). Among the accepted interventions, 53% (n = 136) had a clinical impact graded CL ≥ 2C (moderate or major), whereas the majority of them were not detected by PIM-Check (63%; 86 out of 136). In addition, 46% of accepted interventions (n = 117) were associated with a cost decrease, among which 62% were not detected by PIM-Check (73 out of 117). The qualitative analysis shows that PIM-Check mostly failed to detect PIs related to dose adjustment, overprescribing, and therapy monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: According to the CLEO tool evaluation of PIs, our results show that clinical pharmacists' interventions are associated with improved clinical outcomes. In comparison with pharmacists' interventions, PIM-Check failed in detecting the majority of interventions associated with a moderate or major impact.

A comparison of two tools to screen potentially inappropriate medication in internal medicine patients.

WHAT IS KNOWN: Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) is an important issue for inpatient management; it has been associated with safety problems, such as increases in adverse drugs events, and with longer hospital stays and higher healthcare costs. OBJECTIVE: To compare two PIM-screening tools-STOPP/START and PIM-Check-applied to internal medicine patients. A second objective was to compare the use of PIMs in readmitted and non-readmitted patients. METHOD: A retrospective observational study, in the general internal medicine ward of a Swiss non-university hospital. We analysed a random sample of 50 patients, hospitalized in 2013, whose readmission within 30 days of discharge had been potentially preventable, and compared them to a sample of 50 sex- and age-matched patients who were not readmitted. PIMs were screened using the STOPP/START tool, developed for geriatric patients, and the PIM-Check tool, developed for internal medicine patients. The time needed to perform each patient's analysis was measured. A clinical pharmacist counted and evaluated each PIM detected, based on its clinical relevance to the individual patient's case. The rates of screened and validated PIMs involving readmitted and non-readmitted patients were compared. RESULTS: Across the whole population, PIM-Check and STOPP/START detected 1348 and 537 PIMs, respectively, representing 13.5 and 5.4 PIMs/patient. Screening time was substantially shorter with PIM-Check than with STOPP/START (4 vs 10 minutes, respectively). The clinical pharmacist judged that 45% and 42% of the PIMs detected using PIM-Check and STOPP/START, respectively, were clinically relevant to individual patients' cases. No significant differences in the rates of detected and clinically relevant PIM were found between readmitted and non-readmitted patients. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Internal medicine patients are frequently prescribed PIMs. PIM-Check's PIM detection rate was three times higher than STOPP/START's, and its screening time was shorter thanks to its electronic interface. Nearly half of the PIMs detected were judged to be non-clinically relevant, however, potentially overalerting the prescriber. These tools can, nevertheless, be considered useful in daily practice. Furthermore, the relevance of any PIM detected by these tools should always be carefully evaluated within the clinical context surrounding the individual patient.