ArticleCanadian pharmacists journal : CPJ = Revue des pharmaciens du Canada : RPC2014
Identification of inappropriate medication use in elderly patients with frequent emergency department visits.
Article in Canadian pharmacists journal : CPJ = Revue des pharmaciens du Canada : RPC, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Observational
- Emergency department visits of older adults within 30 days of discharge: analysis from the pharmacotherapy perspective.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2019Article
- Hospital readmissions, mortality and potentially inappropriate prescribing: a retrospective study of older adults discharged from hospital.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Article
- Hospitalization Risk and Potentially Inappropriate Medications among Medicare Home Health Nursing Patients.Journal of general internal medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the demographic and health care characteristics of elderly family health team patients who are frequent emergency department (ED) users, focusing on potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and access to primary care services.
designCross-sectional retrospective chart review.
settingAcademic family medicine clinic in Toronto, Ontario.
participantsA total of 46 elderly patients (age >65 years) with 4 or more visits to a University Health Network-affiliated ED between April 1, 2010, and March 31, 2011.
main outcome measuresUsing the validated STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Persons' potentially inappropriate Prescriptions) criteria, PIMs were identified. The primary objective was to determine whether PIMs were associated with more frequent ED use. The secondary objective was to determine whether patients who had previously undergone a clinic pharmacist-led medication review had fewer PIMs. We also determined the health characteristics of these patients at the time of their last ED visit of the study period. Utilization of primary care resources, both prior to and after ED visits, was determined.
resultsSixty-five percent of patients were taking at least 1 PIM. The total number of PIMs in the study population was 71. Having more PIMs was significantly correlated with a higher number of ED visits (r = 0.32, p < 0.05). Patients with a previous medication review had a similar number of PIMs compared with those without a review. The mean number of concurrent medications was 12.1 and the mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 3.7. Significant delay between hospital discharge and primary care follow-up (median 13 days) was observed.
conclusionElderly patients who are more frequent ED users have a greater number of PIMs. Primary care resources appear to be underused in this population.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.