Data Entry: Please note that the research database will be replaced by UNIverse by the end of October 2023. Please enter your data into the system Thanks

Login for users with Unibas email account...

Login for registered users without Unibas email account...

Inappropriate prescribing : a systematic overview of published assessment tools
JournalArticle (Originalarbeit in einer wissenschaftlichen Zeitschrift)
ID 2361325
Author(s) Kaufmann, Carole P; Tremp, Regina; Hersberger, Kurt E; Lampert, Markus L
Author(s) at UniBasel Kaufmann, Carole
Hersberger, Kurt
Lampert, Markus Leopold
Year 2014
Title Inappropriate prescribing : a systematic overview of published assessment tools
Journal European journal of clinical pharmacology
Volume 70
Number 1
Pages / Article-Number 1-11
Keywords Drug-related problems, inappropriate prescribing, assessment tool, drug safety

Criteria to assess the appropriateness of prescriptions might serve as a helpful guideline during professional training and in daily practice, with the aim to improve a patient's pharmacotherapy.; To create a comprehensive and structured overview of existing tools to assess inappropriate prescribing.; Systematic literature search in Pubmed (1991-2013). The following properties of the tools were extracted and mapped in a structured way: approach (explicit, implicit), development method (consensus technique, expert panel, literature based), focused patient group, health care setting, and covered aspects of inappropriate prescribing.; The literature search resulted in 46 tools to assess inappropriate prescribing.Twenty-eight (61%) of 46 tools were explicit, 8 (17%) were implicit and 10 (22%) used a mixed approach. Thirty-six (78%) tools named older people as target patients and 10 (22%) tools did not specify the target age group. Four (8.5%) tools were designed to detect inappropriate prescribing in hospitalised patients, 9 (19.5%) focused on patients in ambulatory care and 6 (13%) were developed for use in long-term care. Twenty-seven (59%) tools did not specify the health care setting. Consensus methods were applied in the development of 19 tools (41%), the others were based on either simple expert panels (13; 28%) or on a literature search (11; 24%). For three tools (7%) the development method was not described.; This overview reveals the characteristics of 46 assessment tools and can serve as a summary to assist readers in choosing a tool, either for research purposes or for daily practice use.

Publisher Springer
ISSN/ISBN 0031-6970
Full Text on edoc No
Digital Object Identifier DOI 10.1007/s00228-013-1575-8
PubMed ID
ISI-Number WOS:000329095900001
Document type (ISI) Journal Article, Review

MCSS v5.8 PRO. 0.321 sec, queries - 0.000 sec ©Universität Basel  |  Impressum   |