Kaufmann Carole P, Tremp Regina, Hersberger Kurt E, Lampert Markus L
Pharmaceutical Care Research Group, University of Basel, Klingelbergstrasse 50, 4056, Basel, Switzerland,
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2014 Jan;70(1):1-11. doi: 10.1007/s00228-013-1575-8. Epub 2013 Sep 10.
BACKGROUND: Criteria to assess the appropriateness of prescriptions might serve as a helpful guideline during professional training and in daily practice, with the aim to improve a patient's pharmacotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To create a comprehensive and structured overview of existing tools to assess inappropriate prescribing. METHOD: Systematic literature search in Pubmed (1991-2013). The following properties of the tools were extracted and mapped in a structured way: approach (explicit, implicit), development method (consensus technique, expert panel, literature based), focused patient group, health care setting, and covered aspects of inappropriate prescribing. RESULTS: The literature search resulted in 46 tools to assess inappropriate prescribing.Twenty-eight (61%) of 46 tools were explicit, 8 (17%) were implicit and 10 (22%) used a mixed approach. Thirty-six (78%) tools named older people as target patients and 10 (22%) tools did not specify the target age group. Four (8.5%) tools were designed to detect inappropriate prescribing in hospitalised patients, 9 (19.5%) focused on patients in ambulatory care and 6 (13%) were developed for use in long-term care. Twenty-seven (59%) tools did not specify the health care setting. Consensus methods were applied in the development of 19 tools (41%), the others were based on either simple expert panels (13; 28%) or on a literature search (11; 24%). For three tools (7%) the development method was not described. CONCLUSION: This overview reveals the characteristics of 46 assessment tools and can serve as a summary to assist readers in choosing a tool, either for research purposes or for daily practice use.
背景:评估处方适宜性的标准可作为专业培训和日常实践中的有益指导方针,旨在改善患者的药物治疗。 目的:全面、系统地概述现有评估不适当处方的工具。 方法:在PubMed(1991 - 2013年)中进行系统文献检索。提取这些工具的以下属性并进行结构化映射:方法(明确、隐含)、开发方法(共识技术、专家小组、基于文献)、关注的患者群体、医疗保健环境以及不适当处方涵盖的方面。 结果:文献检索得到46种评估不适当处方的工具。46种工具中有28种(61%)是明确的,8种(17%)是隐含的,10种(22%)采用混合方法。36种(78%)工具将老年人列为目标患者,10种(22%)工具未指定目标年龄组。4种(8.5%)工具旨在检测住院患者的不适当处方,9种(19.5%)关注门诊患者,6种(13%)是为长期护理而开发的。27种(59%)工具未指定医疗保健环境。19种工具(41%)的开发采用了共识方法,其他工具基于简单专家小组(13种;28%)或文献检索(11种;24%)。有3种工具(7%)未描述开发方法。 结论:本概述揭示了46种评估工具的特点,可作为总结,帮助读者选择工具,用于研究目的或日常实践。
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2014-1
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020-2-25
J Clin Pharm Ther. 2007-4
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2000-10
Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2025-10
J Pharm Policy Pract. 2025-8-27
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2012-2-24
Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2011-12-2
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2011-7
Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2010-12