STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions) and START (Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment). Consensus validation.
ABSTRACT Older people experience more concurrent illnesses, are prescribed more medications and suffer more adverse drug events than younger people. Many drugs predispose older people to adverse events such as falls and cognitive impairment, thus increasing morbidity and health resource utilization. At the same time, older people are often denied potentially beneficial, clinically indicated medications without a valid reason. We aimed to validate a new screening tool of older persons' prescriptions incorporating criteria for potentially inappropriate drugs called STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions) and criteria for potentially appropriate, indicated drugs called START (Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right, i.e. appropriate, indicated Treatment).
A Delphi consensus technique was used to establish the content validity of STOPP/START. An 18-member expert panel from academic centers in Ireland and the United Kingdom completed two rounds of the Delphi process by mail survey. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by determining the kappa-statistic for measure of agreement on 100 data-sets.
STOPP is comprised of 65 clinically significant criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people. Each criterion is accompanied by a concise explanation as to why the prescribing practice is potentially inappropriate. START consists of 22 evidence-based prescribing indicators for commonly encountered diseases in older people. Inter-rater reliability is favorable with a kappa-coefficient of 0.75 for STOPP and 0.68 for START.
STOPP/START is a valid, reliable and comprehensive screening tool that enables the prescribing physician to appraise an older patient's prescription drugs in the context of his/her concurrent diagnoses.
- SourceAvailable from: Daniel Ari Mendelson[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Osteoporotic fractures are an increasing problem in the world due to the ageing of the population. Different models of orthogeriatric co-management are currently in use worldwide. These models differ for instance by the health-care professional who has the responsibility for care in the acute and early rehabilitation phases. There is no international consensus regarding the best model of care and which outcome parameters should be used to evaluate these models. The goal of this project was to identify which outcome parameters and assessment tools should be used to measure and compare outcome changes that can be made by the implementation of orthogeriatric co-management models and to develop recommendations about how and when these outcome parameters should be measured. It was not the purpose of this study to describe items that might have an impact on the outcome but cannot be influenced such as age, co-morbidities and cognitive impairment at admission. METHODS: Based on a review of the literature on existing orthogeriatric co-management evaluation studies, 14 outcome parameters were evaluated and discussed in a 2-day meeting with panellists. These panellists were selected based on research and/or clinical expertise in hip fracture management and a common interest in measuring outcome in hip fracture care. RESULTS: We defined 12 objective and subjective outcome parameters and how they should be measured: mortality, length of stay, time to surgery, complications, re-admission rate, mobility, quality of life, pain, activities of daily living, medication use, place of residence and costs. We could not recommend an appropriate tool to measure patients' satisfaction and falls. We defined the time points at which these outcome parameters should be collected to be at admission and discharge, 30 days, 90 days and 1 year after admission. CONCLUSION: Twelve objective and patient-reported outcome parameters were selected to form a standard set for the measurement of influenceable outcome of patients treated in different models of orthogeriatric co-managed care.Injury 11/2013; 44(11-11):1403-12. DOI:10.1016/j.injury.2013.06.018 · 2.46 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The original Medication Appropriateness Index was validated for elderly and polymedicated patients, both in hospital and outpatient contexts. However, no studies have applied this questionnaire in patients with multiple chronic conditions. The objective of this study is to assess the reliability of a modified Medication Appropriateness Index questionnaire in a population of patients with multiple chronic conditions. METHODS: We selected patients with multiple chronic conditions who were included in an integrated care project conducted at the Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío. To determine inter-observer reliability, each professional (internist or hospital pharmacy specialist) applied the questionnaire under the same conditions and with the same resources. To determine intra-observer reliability, each physician applied the tool at baseline and two months later. We measured inter- and intra-observer reliability using the kappa coefficient. The proportion of overall agreement was also determined. RESULTS: We obtained a weak overall kappa (k=0.38) for inter-observer reliability and moderate (k=0.52) and very good (k=0.84) values for intra-observer reliability of the internist and specialist in hospital pharmacy, respectively. The proportion of overall agreement is very high in all three situations: 96%, 98%, and 99%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite its limitations, the Medication Appropriateness Index questionnaire modified by our group can be used, as a reliable method, to assess the appropriateness of pharmacotherapy in patients with multiple chronic conditions.European Journal of Internal Medicine 02/2013; DOI:10.1016/j.ejim.2013.01.020 · 2.30 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The healthcare models developed for patients with multiple chronic diseases agree on the need for improving drug therapy in these patients. The issues of patient compliance, appropriateness of prescriptions and the reconciliation process are of vital importance for patients receiving multiple drug treatment. To identify and select the most appropriate tools for measuring treatment compliance and appropriateness in multiple-disease patients, as well as the best reconciliation strategy. The study used the Delphi methodology. We identified compliance and appropriateness questionnaires and scales, as well as functional organisation models for reconciliation that had been used in patients with multiple chronic conditions. Based on the strength of the evidence, their usefulness in these patients and ease of use, the panel selected the most appropriate ones. We selected 46 indications for the panel: 5 on compliance, 20 on appropriateness, and 31 on reconciliation. The tool considered most appropriate and with a high degree of agreement was the "Adherence to Refills and Medication Scale" questionnaire. For appropriateness, the Medication Appropriateness Index questionnaire was considered appropriate. The STOPP/START criteria were the most appropriate. The greatest degree of agreement regarding reconciliation was on the information that needed to be collected and the variables considered as discrepancies. The "Adherence to Refills and Medication Scale" questionnaire for compliance, the STOPP/START criteria, the Medication Appropriateness Index questionnaire for appropriateness and the development of a specific strategy for reconciliation were considered appropriate for the assessment of drug therapy in patients with multiple chronic conditions.European Journal of Internal Medicine 09/2012; 23(6):506-12. DOI:10.1016/j.ejim.2012.06.007 · 2.30 Impact Factor