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.
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy 01/2012; 34(1):165. DOI:10.1007/s11096-011-9602-2 · 1.27 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This study aims to compare the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medicines (PIMs) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) using several screening tools in an Irish community-dwelling older cohort, to assess if the prevalence changes over time and to determine factors associated with any change. This is a prospective cohort study of participants aged ≥65 years in The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA) with linked pharmacy claims data (n = 2051). PIM and PPO prevalence was measured in the year preceding participants' TILDA baseline interviews and in the year preceding their follow-up interviews using the Screening Tool for Older Persons' Prescriptions (STOPP), Beers criteria (2012), Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders (ACOVE) indicators and the Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (START). Generalised estimating equations were used to determine factors associated with change in prevalence over time. Depending on the screening tool used, between 19.8 % (ACOVE indicators) and 52.7 % (STOPP) of participants received a PIM at baseline, and PPO prevalence ranged from 38.2 % (START) to 44.8 % (ACOVE indicators), while 36.7 % of participants had both a PIM and PPO. Common criteria were aspirin for primary prevention (19.6 %) and omission of calcium/vitamin D in osteoporosis (14.7 %). Prevalence of PIMs and PPOs increased at follow-up (PIMs range 22-56.1 %, PPOs range 40.5-49.3 %), and this was associated with patient age, female sex, and numbers of medicines and chronic conditions. Sub-optimal prescribing is common in older patients. Ongoing prescribing review to optimise care is important, particularly as patients get older, receive more medicines or develop more illnesses.European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 02/2015; 71(4). DOI:10.1007/s00228-015-1815-1 · 2.70 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To construct and internally validate a risk score, the '80+ score', for revisits to hospital and mortality for older patients, incorporating aspects of pharmacotherapy. Our secondary aim was to compare the discriminatory ability of the score with that of three validated tools for measuring inappropriate prescribing: Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions (STOPP), Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (START) and Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI). Two acute internal medicine wards at Uppsala University hospital. Patient data were used from a randomised controlled trial investigating the effects of a comprehensive clinical pharmacist intervention. Data from 368 patients, aged 80 years and older, admitted to one of the study wards. Time to rehospitalisation or death during the year after discharge from hospital. Candidate variables were selected among a large number of clinical and drug-specific variables. After a selection process, a score for risk estimation was constructed. The 80+ score was internally validated, and the discriminatory ability of the score and of STOPP, START and MAI was assessed using C-statistics. Seven variables were selected. Impaired renal function, pulmonary disease, malignant disease, living in a nursing home, being prescribed an opioid or being prescribed a drug for peptic ulcer or gastroesophageal reflux disease were associated with an increased risk, while being prescribed an antidepressant drug (tricyclic antidepressants not included) was linked to a lower risk of the outcome. These variables made up the components of the 80+ score. The C-statistics were 0.71 (80+), 0.57 (STOPP), 0.54 (START) and 0.63 (MAI). We developed and internally validated a score for prediction of risk of rehospitalisation and mortality in hospitalised older people. The score discriminated risk better than available tools for inappropriate prescribing. Pending external validation, this score can aid in clinical identification of high-risk patients and targeting of interventions. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.BMJ Open 02/2015; 5(2):e007259. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007259 · 2.06 Impact Factor