PubMed · 9469106
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M L Maas, M Johnson. Outcome data accountability.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9469106/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
PURPOSE: To develop and compare three operational definitions of polypharmacy using a large prescription database. METHODS: We defined Cumulative polypharmacy as all prescriptions filled during a 178 day window--which captured 95% of eventual refills as calculated from Kaplan-Meier and cumulative incidence curves. Continuous polypharmacy was all prescriptions filled in two such windows 6 months apart. Simultaneous polypharmacy was the number of prescriptions active on a particular day, as determined by fill dates and amount of medication given. We applied these definitions to the outpatient prescription files of New England veterans and compared the resulting estimates of polypharmacy using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: 118,013 patients received at least one prescription between January 1998 and July 1999. Cumulative polypharmacy averaged 3.54 (SD = 4.95) medications and continuous polypharmacy averaged 1.96 (SD = 3.23). Examination of simultaneous polypharmacy over 40 2-week intervals revealed an average of 2.63 (CI 2.61-2.65), a minimum of 1.09 (CI 1.08-1.10) and maximum of 4.94 (CI 4.92-4.96). One arbitrarily selected observation point had an average of 3.87 (SD = 3.17). CONCLUSIONS: Our definitions of cumulative and continuous polypharmacy serve to set upper and lower bounds for the estimate of polypharmacy. Our method for simultaneous polypharmacy gives numbers that diverge in some respects, but it is better at showing transient changes in medications. The methods are complementary and allow exploration of various aspects of medication use, such as cumulative medication exposure over time, the influence of chronic medical problems, and the causes of rapid changes in medications.
BACKGROUND: Differences in prescribing behaviour among general practitioners (GPs). AIM: To formulate and validate clinical prescribing indicators based on general practice guidelines. DESIGN: Validatory study. SETTING: Pharmacies and general practices in the Netherlands in 2003. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 379 pharmacies, 947 general practices and 3.8 million patients. METHODS: A total of 51 potential indicators were formulated, based on medicinal recommendations from the evidence-based guidelines of the Dutch College of General Practitioners and the corresponding recommendations from the Commission Pharmaceutical Help of the Health Care Insurance Board. These indicators were submitted to an expert panel to assess content validity. The panel assessment was analysed using the RAND-UCLA appropriateness method (RAM). Then, for the remaining indicators, it was assessed to what extent these could be used to determine the prescribing behaviour of GPs and the level to which this behaviour varies among GPs. This was done using a prescribing analyses and cost (PACT) database that was compiled from prescription databases from 379 pharmacies, with all prescriptions from 1,434 GPs over an entire year to 3.8 million patients. RESULTS: The panel considered 34 of the 51 potential indicators to be valid with respect to providing an adequate reflection of the central recommendations in the guideline and in terms of relevance with respect to health gain and/or efficiency. Of these 34 indicators, 20 revealed considerable differences in the prescribing behaviour of GPs. CONCLUSION: On the basis of existing general practice guidelines, 20 prescribing indicators could be formulated that were assessed by an expert panel to be sufficiently valid and which could also discriminate the prescribing behaviour of GPs as reflected in the prescription databases of pharmacies.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.