Reliability and validity of the Swedish indicator 'Drugs that should be avoided in older people'-an appraisal of a set of potentially inappropriate medications.

PURPOSE: To analyse the reliability and validity of the Swedish indicator 'Drugs that should be avoided in older people'. METHODS: From a previous study that included consecutive primary care patients ≥ 65 years of age, all patients ≥ 75 years of age were analysed. Two physicians independently screened their medication lists and medical records, applying the Swedish indicator which includes potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs): long-acting benzodiazepines, drugs with anticholinergic action, tramadol, propiomazine, codeine, and glibenclamide. The clinical relevance of identified PIMs was independently assessed. Thereafter, the physicians determined in consensus whether some medical action related to the drug treatment was medically justified and prioritised before the next regular visit. If so, the drug treatment was considered inadequate, and if not, adequate. RESULTS: A total of 1,146 drugs were assessed in 149 patients (75‒99 years, 62% female, 0‒20 drugs per patient). In 29 (19%) patients, at least one physician identified ≥ 1 PIM according to the indicator at issue; 24 (16%) patients were concordantly identified with ≥ 1 such PIM (kappa: 0.89). Of 26 PIMs concordantly identified, the physicians concordantly assessed four as clinically relevant and 12 as not clinically relevant (kappa: 0.17). After the consensus discussion, six (4%) patients had ≥ 1 PIM according to the studied indicator that merited action. Using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, the indicator did not outperform chance in identifying inadequate drug treatment: 0.56 (95% confidence interval: 0.46 to 0.66). CONCLUSION: The Swedish indicator has strong reliability regarding PIM detection but does not validly reflect the adequacy of drug treatment.

Revisiting the inter-rater reliability of drug treatment assessments according to the STOPP/START criteria.

AIMS: The aim of this study is to revisit the inter-rater reliability of drug treatment assessments according to the Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions (STOPP)/Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment (START) criteria. METHODS: Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) were independently identified by two physicians in two cohorts of older people (I: 200 hip fracture patients, median age 85 years, STOPP/START version 1; II: 302 primary care patients, median age 74 years, STOPP/START version 2). Kappa statistics were used to evaluate inter-rater agreement. RESULTS: In cohort I, a total of 782 PIMs/PPOs, related to 68 (78%) out of 87 criteria, were identified by at least one assessor, 500 (64%) of which were discordantly identified by the assessors, that is, by one assessor but not the other. For four STOPP criteria, all PIMs (n = 9) were concordantly identified. In cohort II, 955 PIMs/PPOs, related to 80 (70%) out of 114 criteria, were identified, 614 (64%) of which were discordantly identified. For three STOPP criteria, all PIMs (n = 3) were concordantly identified. For no START criterion, with ≥1 PPO identified, were all assessments concordant. The kappa value for PIM/PPO identification was 0.52 in both cohorts. In cohort II, the kappa was 0.37 when criteria regarding influenza and pneumococcal vaccines were excluded. Further analysis of discordantly identified PIMs/PPOs revealed methodological aspects of importance, including the data source used and criteria wording. CONCLUSIONS: When the STOPP/START criteria are applied in PIM/PPO research, reliability seems to be an issue not encountered in previous reliability studies.

Performance of 3 Sets of Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing in Older People to Identify Inadequate Drug Treatment.

Importance: Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) are used in research to reflect the quality of drug treatment in older people and have been suggested for inclusion in core outcome sets for evaluation of interventions for improved prescribing. Their validation so far, however, is primarily restricted to expert opinion-based processes. Objective: To evaluate the performance of 3 explicit PIM/PPO criteria sets as diagnostic tools to identify inadequate drug treatment in older patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study analyzed patients aged 65 years or older consecutively included from 2 primary health care centers from October to November 2017. Data were analyzed from February to August 2022. Exposures: The PIMs/PPOs were concordantly identified by 2 specialist physicians (2018-2019) retrospectively after a planned physician visit, using 3 European PIM/PPO criteria sets and without knowledge of this diagnostic study. Main Outcomes and Measures: Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, reflecting the ability of PIM/PPO criteria sets to identify the reference standard of inadequate drug treatment, determined by 2 specialist physicians in consensus. Inadequate drug treatment implied that additional action related to the medication could be medically justified before the next regular visit. Results: A total of 302 patients were analyzed (median age, 74 [IQR, 69-81] years; 178 women [59%]; median number of drugs in the medication list, 6 [IQR, 3-9]); 98 patients (32%) had inadequate drug treatment. A total of 0 to 8 PIMs/PPOs per patient were identified using the Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions (STOPP)/Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment (START) criteria, 0 to 6 with the European EU(7)-PIM list, and 0 to 12 with the Swedish set of indicators of prescribing quality. The areas under the ROC curve for the 3 sets to identify the reference standard for inadequate drug treatment were 0.60 (95% CI, 0.53-0.66) for the STOPP/START criteria, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.63-0.75) for the EU(7)-PIM list, and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67-0.80) for the Swedish set. For comparison, the area under the ROC curve was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.65-0.78) using the number of drugs in the medication list. Conclusions and Relevance: In this diagnostic study, the evaluated PIM/PPO sets had poor to fair performance as diagnostic tools to identify inadequate drug treatment, comparable with a simple count of the number of drugs in the medication list. These findings suggest that use of PIMs/PPOs as indicators of drug treatment quality in core outcome sets for the evaluation of interventions for improved prescribing may need reconsideration.

Clinical relevance of potentially inappropriate medications and potential prescribing omissions according to explicit criteria-a validation study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the clinical relevance of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs), and to evaluate the association between PIMs/PPOs and inadequate drug treatment. METHODS: PIMs/PPOs, concordantly identified by two physicians applying the STOPP/START criteria, the EU(7)-PIM list, and a Swedish set in 302 consecutive older primary care patients, were assessed regarding clinical relevance for the specific patient. The physicians determined, in consensus, whether an action related to the medication was medically justified prior to the next regular consultation. If so, the drug treatment was categorised as inadequate, and if not, the treatment was considered adequate. RESULTS: In all, 259 (86%) patients had 1010 PIMs/PPOs, 150 (15%) of which, in 81 (27%) patients, were assessed as clinically relevant (kappa: 0.26). A total of 75 (50%) clinically relevant PIMs and PPOs were prioritised for medical action before the next regular consultation. Action-requiring clinically relevant PIMs most often concerned acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) for primary prevention (four out of 68 patients on ASA). The corresponding PPOs concerned beta-blockers in ischaemic heart disease (four out of 61 patients with this condition). When an overall medical perspective was applied, 164 (63%) out of 259 patients with PIMs/PPOs were assessed as having adequate treatment. In adjusted logistic regression, number of PIMs and/or PPOs and number of drugs were associated with inadequate drug treatment. CONCLUSION: One in seven PIMs/PPOs may be clinically relevant, half of these not of priority for medical action. Cautious interpretation is warranted when PIMs/PPOs are used as outcome measures.

Drug interaction alerts in older primary care patients, and related medically justified actions.

PURPOSE: To describe presented interaction alerts in older patients, and the extent to which these require further medical action for the specific patient or are already being addressed. METHODS: Interaction alerts presented at a physician consultation, for 274 consecutive primary care patients treated with two or more drugs (median age: 75 years; 59% female), were extracted. These alerts are based on Janusmed, a decision support integrated in the medical records that provides recommendations for managing the interactions. One general practitioner (GP) and one GP/clinical pharmacologist determined in retrospect, first independently and then in consensus, whether the alerts justified further medical action, considering each patient's health condition. RESULTS: In all, 405 drug interaction alerts in 151 (55%) patients were triggered. Medical action in response was deemed medically justified for 35 (9%) alerts in 26 (17%) patients. These actions most often involved a switch to a less interacting drug from the same drug class (n = 10), a separate intake (n = 9), or the ordering of a laboratory test (n = 8). Out of 531 actions suggested by the alert system, only 38 (7%) were applicable to the specific patient, as, for instance, laboratory parameters were already being satisfactorily monitored or a separate intake implemented. CONCLUSIONS: More than every other older patient receives drug treatment that triggers drug interaction alerts. Nine in ten alerts were already being addressed or were not relevant in the clinical setting, whereas, for the remaining tenth, some medical action, that for unknown reasons had not been taken, was reasonable. These findings show that interaction alerts are questionable as indicators of problematic prescribing.

Association between recorded medication reviews in primary care and adequate drug treatment management - a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between a recorded procedure code for a medication review and adequate drug treatment management, and to explore factors associated with this code. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study; two primary health care centres, in Region Västra Götaland, Sweden. SUBJECTS: A total of 302 consecutive patients (≥65 years old, 59% female; median number of drugs: six) requiring a non-urgent consultation with a physician in October-November 2017. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Adequate drug treatment management (treatment that did not require any further action), determined in consensus by two specialists in family medicine blinded to the medication review code. RESULTS: Adequate drug treatment management was, overall, less common in those with a recorded medication review over the last year: 63% versus 73% (p = 0.047). This negative association was evident among patients aged 65-74 years: 49% versus 74% (p = 0.003), but absent in those ≥75 years old: 67% versus 70% (p = 0.77). Recommendations from consensus included the search for additional information to be able to make a decision regarding initiation or withdrawal of a drug (n = 53), withdrawal of a drug (n = 41), or ordering a laboratory test (n = 25). Factors associated with a recorded procedure code included age above the remuneration limit of 75 years (odds ratio: 9.8; 95% confidence interval 5.0-19), type 2 diabetes (3.0 (1.5-6.2)), hypertension (2.4 (1.2-4.8)), and depression (2.5 (1.02-6.0)). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a recorded medication review was not positively associated with adequate drug treatment management but was associated with the age limit for remuneration, and some chronic diseases.Key pointsTo improve drug treatment in older people in primary care, a remuneration system linked to recorded medication reviews has been introduced.In this study, fewer patients with than without a recorded medication review (63% versus 73%) had adequate drug treatment management.A recorded medication review was ten times more common in those ≥75 years, that is, the age limit for remuneration.Recorded codes for medication reviews were also common in those with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and depression.

Attitudes and behaviour towards psychotropic drug prescribing in Swedish primary care: a questionnaire study.

BACKGROUND: The prescribing of psychotropic drugs, i.e. antidepressants, sedatives (anxiolytics, hypnotics), and antipsychotics is considerable and a large proportion is prescribed by general practitioners (GPs). There are concerns about dependency and medicalisation, and treatment decisions in psychiatry may appear arbitrary. Increased knowledge of GPs' opinions on the prescribing of psychotropics may lead to more rational use of these drugs. We aimed to quantify GPs' attitudes, beliefs and behaviour towards various aspects of psychotropic drug prescribing. METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed to physicians in all 199 GP practices in Region Västra Götaland, Sweden. The questions concerned determinants of psychotropic drug prescribing that had been identified in a previous, qualitative study. RESULTS: Questionnaires from 516 physicians (64% of whom were specialists in family medicine, 21% interns in family medicine, 15% others) at 152 GP practices (59% of which were state owned, 72% in an urban area, with a median of 7808 registered patients) were returned (estimated response rate: 48%). A majority - 62% - of GPs found it easier to start prescribing psychotropic drugs than to stop (95% confidence interval, 57%, 66%) vs. 8% (6%, 10%). Most GPs considered psychotherapy more suitable than psychotropic drugs in cases of mild psychiatric disease: 81% (77%, 84%) vs. 4% (3%, 6%). The problems treated with psychotropic drugs were considered to be mostly socioeconomic, or mostly medical, by similar proportions of physicians: 38% (34%, 42%) vs. 40% (36%, 45%). GPs were on average satisfied with their levels of antidepressant and sedative prescribing in relation to medical needs. More GPs regarded their prescribing of antipsychotics as being too low rather than too high: 33% (28%, 39%) vs. 7% (4%, 10%). CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates the complexities of psychiatric drug treatment in primary care and identifies potential drivers of increased prescribing of psychotropics. The manifold factors, medical and non-medical, that affect prescribing decisions may explain a sense of arbitrariness surrounding psychotropic drug treatment. This notwithstanding, GPs seem mostly content with their prescribing.

"Psychiatry is not a science like others" - a focus group study on psychotropic prescribing in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Psychotropic drug prescribing is problematic and knowledge of factors affecting the initiation and maintenance of such prescribing is incomplete. Such knowledge could provide a basis for the design of interventions to change prescribing patterns for psychotropics. The aim of this study was to explore the views of general practitioners (GPs), GP interns, and heads of primary care units on factors affecting the prescribing of psychotropic drugs in primary care. METHODS: We performed four focus group discussions in Gothenburg, Sweden, with a total of 21 participants (GPs, GP interns, and heads of primary care units). The focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using manifest content analysis. RESULTS: Three different themes emerged from the focus group discussions. The first theme Seeking care for symptoms, reflects the participants' understanding of why patients approach primary care and comprised categories such as knowledge, attitudes, and society and the media. The second theme, Lacking a framework, resources, and treatment alternatives, which reflects the conditions for the physician-patient interaction, comprised categories such as economy and resources, technology, and organizational aspects. The third theme, Restricting or maintaining prescriptions, with the subthemes Individual factors and External influences, reflects the physicians' internal decision making and comprised categories such as emotions, knowledge, and pharmaceutical industry. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study indicate that a variety of factors may affect the prescribing of psychotropic medications in primary care. Many factors were related to characteristics of the patient, the physician or their interaction, rather than the patients' medical needs per se. The results may be useful for interventions to improve psychotropic prescribing in primary care.