Longitudinal cohort study of discrepancies between prescribed and administered polypharmacy rates: implications for National Aged Care Quality Indicator Programs.

IF 5.6 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMJ Quality & Safety Pub Date : 2024-07-16 DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2023-017042
Nasir Wabe, Rachel Urwin, Karla Seaman, Johanna I Westbrook
{"title":"Longitudinal cohort study of discrepancies between prescribed and administered polypharmacy rates: implications for National Aged Care Quality Indicator Programs.","authors":"Nasir Wabe, Rachel Urwin, Karla Seaman, Johanna I Westbrook","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2023-017042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Polypharmacy is frequently used as a quality indicator for older adults in Residential Aged Care Facilities (RACFs) and is measured using a range of definitions. The impact of data source choice on polypharmacy rates and the implications for monitoring and benchmarking remain unclear. We aimed to determine polypharmacy rates (≥9 concurrent medicines) by using prescribed and administered data under various scenarios, leveraging electronic data from 30 RACFs.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A longitudinal cohort study of 5662 residents in New South Wales, Australia. Both prescribed and administered polypharmacy rates were calculated biweekly from January 2019 to September 2022, providing 156 assessment times. 12 different polypharmacy rates were computed separately using prescribing and administration data and incorporating different combinations of items: <i>medicines and non-medicinal products</i>, <i>any medicines</i> and <i>regular medicines</i> across four scenarios: no, 1-week, 2-week and 4-week look-back periods. Generalised estimating equation models were employed to identify predictors of discrepancies between prescribed and administered polypharmacy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Polypharmacy rates among residents ranged from 33.9% using data on administered <i>regular medicines</i> with no look-back period to 63.5% using prescribed <i>medicines and non-medicinal products</i> with a 4-week look-back period. At each assessment time, the differences between prescribed and administered polypharmacy rates were consistently more than 10.0%, 4.5%, 3.5% and 3.0%, respectively, with no, 1-week, 2-week and 4-week look-back periods. Diabetic residents faced over two times the likelihood of polypharmacy discrepancies compared with counterparts, while dementia residents consistently showed reduced likelihood across all analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found notable discrepancies between polypharmacy rates for prescribed and administered medicines. We recommend a review of the guidance for calculating and interpreting polypharmacy for national quality indicator programmes to ensure consistent measurement and meaningful reporting.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2023-017042","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Polypharmacy is frequently used as a quality indicator for older adults in Residential Aged Care Facilities (RACFs) and is measured using a range of definitions. The impact of data source choice on polypharmacy rates and the implications for monitoring and benchmarking remain unclear. We aimed to determine polypharmacy rates (≥9 concurrent medicines) by using prescribed and administered data under various scenarios, leveraging electronic data from 30 RACFs.

Method: A longitudinal cohort study of 5662 residents in New South Wales, Australia. Both prescribed and administered polypharmacy rates were calculated biweekly from January 2019 to September 2022, providing 156 assessment times. 12 different polypharmacy rates were computed separately using prescribing and administration data and incorporating different combinations of items: medicines and non-medicinal products, any medicines and regular medicines across four scenarios: no, 1-week, 2-week and 4-week look-back periods. Generalised estimating equation models were employed to identify predictors of discrepancies between prescribed and administered polypharmacy.

Results: Polypharmacy rates among residents ranged from 33.9% using data on administered regular medicines with no look-back period to 63.5% using prescribed medicines and non-medicinal products with a 4-week look-back period. At each assessment time, the differences between prescribed and administered polypharmacy rates were consistently more than 10.0%, 4.5%, 3.5% and 3.0%, respectively, with no, 1-week, 2-week and 4-week look-back periods. Diabetic residents faced over two times the likelihood of polypharmacy discrepancies compared with counterparts, while dementia residents consistently showed reduced likelihood across all analyses.

Conclusion: We found notable discrepancies between polypharmacy rates for prescribed and administered medicines. We recommend a review of the guidance for calculating and interpreting polypharmacy for national quality indicator programmes to ensure consistent measurement and meaningful reporting.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
多药处方率与用药率差异的纵向队列研究:对国家老年护理质量指标计划的影响。
背景:多重药物治疗经常被用作老年护理机构(RACF)中老年人的质量指标,并使用一系列定义进行测量。数据来源的选择对多药方用药率的影响以及对监测和基准的影响仍不清楚。我们的目标是利用来自 30 家 RACF 的电子数据,在各种情况下使用处方和用药数据来确定多药滥用率(同时使用的药物≥9 种):方法:对澳大利亚新南威尔士州的 5662 名居民进行纵向队列研究。从 2019 年 1 月到 2022 年 9 月,每两周计算一次处方和给药的多种药物使用率,共提供 156 次评估时间。利用处方和用药数据分别计算了 12 种不同的多药滥用率,并纳入了不同的项目组合:药品和非医药产品、任何药品和常规药品,涉及四种情况:无回溯期、1 周回溯期、2 周回溯期和 4 周回溯期。我们采用了广义估计方程模型来确定处方药和管理药之间差异的预测因素:居民的多药使用率从使用常规药物数据的 33.9%(无回溯期)到使用处方药和非医药产品数据的 63.5%(有 4 周回溯期)不等。在每个评估时间段,处方药和给药的多种药物使用率之间的差异始终分别超过 10.0%、4.5%、3.5% 和 3.0%(无回溯期、1 周、2 周和 4 周)。糖尿病住院患者出现多种药物治疗差异的可能性是同类住院患者的两倍多,而痴呆症住院患者在所有分析中出现差异的可能性始终较低:我们发现处方药和给药的多种药物使用率之间存在明显差异。我们建议对国家质量指标计划的多药性计算和解释指南进行审查,以确保一致的测量和有意义的报告。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Quality & Safety
BMJ Quality & Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
104
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement. The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.
期刊最新文献
Common contributing factors of diagnostic error: A retrospective analysis of 109 serious adverse event reports from Dutch hospitals. Raising the barcode: improving medication safety behaviours through a behavioural science-informed feedback intervention. A quality improvement project and difference-in-difference analysis. Improving medication safety in both adults and children: what will it take? Measuring gist-based perceptions of medication benefit-to-harm ratios. Development of the Patient-Reported Indicator Surveys (PaRIS) conceptual framework to monitor and improve the performance of primary care for people living with chronic conditions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1