Detection of potentially inappropriate prescribing in older patients with the GheOP³S-tool: completeness and clinical relevance

Reviewing Potentially Inappropriate Medication in Hospitalized Patients Over 65 Using Explicit Criteria: A Systematic Literature Review

“…89% of the clinical pharmacist recommendation by STOPP tool were accepted. 4 Kympers, 2019 41 Belgium Prospective observational single-centre study 60 Patients GheOP 3 s tool Pharmacist and communicated to the geriatrician. Not stated Medical records and some information were obtained from the geriatrician including age, gender living status.…”

“…Ten studies applied explicit tools on admission, 21 , 22 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 31–33 , 35 , 40 nine studies during the hospital stay, 20 , 23 , 24 , 30 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 46 , 47 and several studies did not report the stage of hospitalization in which the HCP used the tools. 25 , 38 , 39 , 41–45 …”

“…In eight studies, the PIM was detected using explicit tools and the recommendations were communicated orally to the attending physician, 20 , 21 , 24 , 26 , 33 , 35 , 36 , 44 while in four studies, the PIM was communicated in written form. 27 , 39 , 41 , 42 Two studies communicated the recommendation verbally and written to the attending physician. 31 , 32 Two studies used a computerized system to review PIM and communicated with the physician through an alert system, 28 , 45 while in the other two studies, the computerized system and was assessed by the hospital pharmacist to detect PIM and the results communicated verbally to the attending physician.…”

“… 33 , 37 , 41–43 Other common PIM included proton pump inhibitors (PPI), 22 , 26 digoxin, 45 NSAID, 30 , 37 , 40 and anticholinergics. 28 , 36 , 41 , 46 …”

“… 21 , 41 A study evaluated the relevance of the GheOP 3 S tool by two criteria: 1) by the severity of the detected PM, which was evaluated by the treating geriatrician depending on the impact of ADR that could result if the clinical pharmacist did not intervene, and 2) the value of the clinical pharmacist recommendations using a validated patient specific scoring system. 41 In the first evaluation of clinical relevance, it was shown that 182 (73%) of PIMs were serious and 67 (27%) were classified as significant. 41 The second evaluation of clinical relevance found six items (2%) classified as very significant and 235 (94%) as significant.…”