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 https://universe-intern.unibas.ch. 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
Abstract

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
edoc-URL http://edoc.unibas.ch/dok/A6223423
Full Text on edoc No
Digital Object Identifier DOI 10.1007/s00228-013-1575-8
PubMed ID http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24019054
ISI-Number WOS:000329095900001
Document type (ISI) Journal Article, Review
 
   

MCSS v5.8 PRO. 0.321 sec, queries - 0.000 sec ©Universität Basel  |  Impressum   |    
19/05/2024