Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing risk of adverse drug reactions in the elderly: a feasibility study

  • Research Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background Adverse drug reactions are common in Australian general practice and can be a cause of, or contribute to, preventable hospital admissions. Developing practical tools to assist in identifying patients who are at high risk of serious adverse drug reactions is an important step in preventing these hospitalisations. Objective The aims of the study were to apply the Prediction of Hospitalisation due to Adverse Drug Reactions in Elderly Community-Dwelling Patients (PADR-EC) Score to assess the risk of medication-related hospitalisation among patients aged ≥ 65 years attending a rural general practice, and to investigate general practitioners’ acceptance of the PADR-EC Score. Setting The project was based in a multicentre rural general practice in southern Tasmania, Australia. Method We conducted a cross-sectional study wherein the PADR-EC score was administered to patients aged ≥ 65 years attending a general practice. A focus group of general practice doctors was conducted and thematic analysis of the transcript used to explore their views regarding the utility of the PADR-EC score. Main Outcome Measures Successful application of the PADR-EC Score and an evaluation of general practitioners' acceptance of the PADR-EC Score are the two outcome measures of the project. Results The PADR-EC score was applied by the practice pharmacist and reported to GPs for 428 patients aged ≥ 65 years, with 24.8% classified as high-risk. The focus group found the PADR-EC score helped raise awareness of the risk of adverse drug reactions in the general practice setting. Doctors demonstrated good understanding of the PADR-EC Score and there were no negative reactions to the delivery model used. No changes to prescribing were implemented directly as a result of the PADR-EC Score, but more caution was used when doctors provided their usual clinical care. Conclusion Doctors used the PADR-EC score to complement their decision making. The PADR-EC Score was used as a reminder to review existing medication lists, follow-up on pathology results that may impact drug treatment and assess patients for prevalent ADRs. Further research is needed to validate the PADR-EC score in this setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian Demographic Statistics [Webpage]. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2016 [updated 22 June 2017; cited 2018 May 20]. Available from: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/3101.0Feature%20Article1Jun%202016.

  2. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia’s Health 2016. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2016. Contract No.: ISBN 978-1-74249-924-6 (PDF).

  3. Elliott R. Problems with medication use in the elderly: an Australian perspective. J Pharm Pract Res. 2006;36(1):58–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Parekh N, Ali K, Stevenson JM, Graham Davies J, Schiff R, Van der Cammen T, et al. Incidence and cost of medication harm in older adults following hospital discharge: a multicentre prospective study in the UK. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018;84(8):1789–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mazzaglia G, Roti L, Corsini G, Colombini A, Maciocco G, Marchionni N, et al. Screening of older community-dwelling people at risk for death and hospitalization: the Assistenza Socio-Sanitaria in Italia project. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55(12):1955–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Roughhead L, Semple S, Rosenfeld E. Literature review: medication safety in Australia. Sydney: Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Admitted patient care 2016–2017: Australian hospital statistics. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2018. Contract No.: ISBN 978-1-76054-347-1 (PDF).

  8. Nair NP, Chalmers L, Peterson GM, Bereznicki BJ, Castelino RL, Bereznicki LR. Hospitalization in older patients due to adverse drug reactions: the need for a prediction tool. Clin Interv Aging. 2016;11:497–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Nair NP, Chalmers L, Connolly M, Bereznicki BJ, Peterson GM, Curtain C, et al. Prediction of hospitalization due to adverse drug reactions in elderly community-dwelling patients (The PADR-EC score). PLoS ONE. 2016;11(10):e0165757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Department of Health. ASGC remoteness areas (2006). Canberra: Australian Government; 2006 [updated 2006; cited 2017 October 16]. Available from: http://www.doctorconnect.gov.au/internet/otd/Publishing.nsf/Content/locator.

  11. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Census of population and housing: socio-economic indexes for areas (SEIFA), Australia, 2016. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2016 [updated 27/03/2018; cited 2018 August 16]. Available from: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2033.0.55.001Main+Features12016?OpenDocument.

  12. Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold J. Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47(11):1245–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Census of population and housing: socio-economic indexes for areas (SEIFA), Australia, 2016. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2018 [cited 2018 September 13]. 2033.0.55.001 [Available from: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2033.0.55.001~2016~Main%20Features~SOCIO-ECONOMIC%20INDEXES%20FOR%20AREAS%20(SEIFA)%202016~1.

  14. Hesse-Biber SN. Mixed methods research: merging theory with practice. New York: Guilford Press; 2010. p. c2010.

    Google Scholar 

  15. QSR International Pty Ltd. NVivo 10. 10 ed. 2014.

  16. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. O’Connor MN, Gallagher P, O’Mahony D. Inappropriate prescribing. Drugs Aging. 2012;29(6):437–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gallagher P, O’Mahony D. STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Persons’ potentially inappropriate Prescriptions): application to acutely ill elderly patients and comparison with Beers’ criteria. Age Ageing. 2008;37(6):673–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Price M, Davies I, Rusk R, Lesperance M, Weber J. Applying STOPP guidelines in primary care through electronic medical record decision support: randomized control trial highlighting the importance of data quality. JMIR Med Inf. 2017;5(2):38–48.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dimitrow MS, Airaksinen MS, Kivelä SL, Lyles A, Leikola SN. Comparison of prescribing criteria to evaluate the appropriateness of drug treatment in individuals aged 65 and older: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59(8):1521–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding

The investigators have no financial interest in this project or its outcomes.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Huon Valley Health Centre, 85 Main Road, Huonville, TAS, 7050, Australia

    Andrew Ridge

  2. School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia

    Kate Macintyre & Luke Bereznicki

  3. Health Services Innovation Tasmania, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia

    Alex Kitsos

  4. College of Health, Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand

    Linda Murray

Authors
  1. Andrew Ridge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kate Macintyre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alex Kitsos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Linda Murray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Luke Bereznicki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Ridge.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. AR was employed part time by the Huon Valley Health Centre.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 18 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ridge, A., Macintyre, K., Kitsos, A. et al. Assessing risk of adverse drug reactions in the elderly: a feasibility study. Int J Clin Pharm 41, 1483–1490 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-019-00908-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-019-00908-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation