Home › Research › Health systems and care delivery
Inappropriate medication prescribing in residential care/assisted living facilities
Philip D Sloane, Sheryl Zimmerman, Lori C Brown, Timothy J Ives, Joan F Walsh. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2002-06
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
The majority of RC/AL patients were taking five or more medications; 16.0% of these patients were receiving IPMs. The most common IPMs were oxybutynin, propoxyphene, diphenhydramine, ticlopidine, doxepin, and dipyridamole. In multivariate analyses, using generalized estimating equations, IPM use was associated with the number of medications received, smaller facility bed size, moderate licensed practical nurse turnover, absence of dementia, low monthly fees, and absence of weekly physician visits. IPMs remain a problem in long-term care, but rates in these RC/AL settings compare favorably with those reported for other frail older populations, suggesting that use of medications with severe adverse effects may be waning. Regular physician facility visits may improve prescribing, as will attention to high-risk groups such as individuals on multiple medications.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Sloane, P. D., Zimmerman, S., Brown, L. C., Ives, T. J., & Walsh, J. F. (2002). Inappropriate medication prescribing in residential care/assisted living facilities. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1532-5415.2002.50253.x
Vancouver
Sloane PD, Zimmerman S, Brown LC, Ives TJ, Walsh JF. Inappropriate medication prescribing in residential care/assisted living facilities. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2002. doi:10.1046/j.1532-5415.2002.50253.x. PMID: 12110058.
BibTeX
@article{sloane2002-12110058,
author = {Sloane, Philip D and Zimmerman, Sheryl and Brown, Lori C and Ives, Timothy J and Walsh, Joan F},
title = {{Inappropriate medication prescribing in residential care/assisted living facilities}},
journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
year = {2002},
doi = {10.1046/j.1532-5415.2002.50253.x},
pmid = {12110058},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1532-5415.2002.50253.x}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The majority of RC/AL patients were taking five or more medications; 16.0% of these patients were receiving IPMs.
- The most common IPMs were oxybutynin, propoxyphene, diphenhydramine, ticlopidine, doxepin, and dipyridamole.
- In multivariate analyses, using generalized estimating equations, IPM use was associated with the number of medications received, smaller facility bed size, moderate licensed practical nurse turnover, absence of dementia, low monthly fees, and absence of weekly physician visits.
- IPMs remain a problem in long-term care, but rates in these RC/AL settings compare favorably with those reported for other frail older populations, suggesting that use of medications with severe adverse effects may be waning.
- Regular physician facility visits may improve prescribing, as will attention to high-risk groups such as individuals on multiple medications.
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Effect size16.0%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for sample size, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 27 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2002 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 12110058) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 27 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100. |
| Total | 48 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Health systems and care delivery
Also tagged “assisted-living”
199 studies in the library carry the topic tag “assisted-living”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 199 tagged studies.