What Factors Predict Potentially Inappropriate Primary Care Prescribing in Older People?
- 144 Downloads
Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in older people has been identified as a substantial problem, but few large population-based studies have investigated the underlying factors that predict it.
To: (i) examine trends in PIP in UK older primary care patients; and (ii) assess factors associated with PIP.
An analysis of routine, anonymized, computerized patient records of 201 UK general practices providing data to the DIN-LINK database between 1996 and 2005, which included approximately 230 000 registered patients per year aged ≥65 years. The main outcome measures were the number of different drugs prescribed per patient annually and the percentage of patients prescribed a PIP drug (modified 2003 Beers criteria). These were assessed for all drugs, and then for selected sub-classes (analgesics, antidepressants and sedatives/anxiolytics).
Whilst the number of drugs prescribed per patient increased, the percentage of subjects receiving a PIP drug declined from 32.2% in 1996 to 28.3% in 2005, largely due to a fall in co-proxamol (dextropropoxyphene/paracetamol [acetaminophen]) prescribing. In 2005, female gender, being older, more socioeconomically deprived or in a care home were strongly associated with PIP. However, the number of drugs prescribed was strongly associated with these variables and the strongest predictor of PIP; adjusting for number of drugs dramatically reduced the strength of all other associations except female gender with PIP. Factors predicting PIP in drug sub-groups were similarly reduced when adjusted for polypharmacy. However, some age trends remained: in the oldest group (aged ≥85 years), PIP of analgesics was less likely (odds ratio [OR] = 0.70, 95% CI 0.66, 0.75) while PIP of antidepressants was more likely (OR =1.39, 95% CI 1.28, 1.51).
PIP amongst older people in the UK, although declining, remains at a high level. The association of PIP with age, deprivation and care homes is largely explained by the higher overall prescribing rates in these groups. The overall rise in prescribing emphasizes that polypharmacy does not necessarily increase PIP and attempts to reduce PIP by focusing on polypharmacy have not been successful. Reductions in PIP have previously been achieved by introducing national guidelines (e.g. co-proxamol), but might also be achieved by alerting practitioners at the point of prescribing.
KeywordsCare Home Doxazosin Read Code Potentially Inappropriate Prescribe Outcome Framework
This study was funded by the Bupa Foundation.
Nicky Richards is a former director of Cegedim Strategic Data, which markets DIN-LINK data to pharmaceutical companies. The other authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.
This study was approved by the National Health Service Research Ethics Committee for Wandsworth (reference 05/Q0803/162).
- 14.Department of Health. The GMS contract. Anex A quality indicators: 2003 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Policyandguidance/Organisationpolicy/Primarycare/Primarycarecontracting/GMS/DH_4125637 [Accessed 2007 Aug 15]
- 16.Carey IM, Cook DG, De Wilde S, et al. Implications of the problem orientated medical record (POMR) for research using electronic GP databases: a comparison of the Doctors Independent Network Database (DIN) and the General Practice Research Database (GPRD). BMC Fam Pract 2003; 4: 14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.De Wilde S, Carey IM, Bremner SA, et al. A comparison of the recording of 30 common childhood conditions in the Doctor’s Independent Network and General Practice Research Databases. Health Stat Q 2004; (22): 21–31Google Scholar
- 18.ACORN user guide. London: CACI Limited, 2001Google Scholar
- 19.Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Indices of deprivation 2004. Summary (revised): 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/446/Indicesofdeprivation2004revised_id1128446.pdf [Accessed 2007 Aug 17]
- 21.Withdrawal of co-proxamol products and interim updated prescribing information: 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/pl-a/documents/drugsafetymessage/con019461.pdf [Accessed 2007 Aug 17]
- 27.McCormick A, Fleming D, Chariten J. Morbidity statistics from general practice: fourth national study 1991–1992: MB5 no. 3. London: HMSO, 1995Google Scholar
- 31.Department of Health. National service framework for older people. 2001 May 24 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4003066 [Accessed 2008 Jun 12]
- 33.Commission on Human Medicines. Withdrawal of co-proxamol. In: Current problems in pharmacovigilance. Vol. 31. 2006 May, page 11 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&d-DocName=CON2023860&RevisionSelectionMethod=Lates-tReleased [Accessed 2008 Jun 12]