Drug Safety Profiles of Geriatric Patients Referred to Consultation Psychiatry in the Emergency Department—A Retrospective Cohort Study

Author:

Schulze Westhoff Martin1ORCID,Schröder Sebastian1,Heck Johannes2ORCID,Brod Torben3,Winkelmann Marcel4,Bleich Stefan1,Frieling Helge1,Jahn Kirsten1,Wedegärtner Felix1,Groh Adrian1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Psychiatry, Social Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany

2. Institute for Clinical Pharmacology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany

3. Emergency Department, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany

4. Trauma Department, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany

Abstract

Objective Geriatric patients account for a significant proportion of the collective treated by psychiatric consultation service in hospitals. In the Emergency Department (ED), psychotropic drugs are frequently recommended, notwithstanding their extensive side-effect profiles. This study sought to investigate medication safety of geriatric patients referred to psychiatric consultation service in the ED. Methods Medication lists of 60 patients from the general internal medicine and trauma surgery EDs referred to psychiatric consultation service were analyzed. Utilizing PRISCUS list and Fit fOR The Aged (FORTA) classification, prescriptions of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) were assessed. Results 84 drugs were newly prescribed following psychiatric consultations. The total number of drugs per patient was 5.4 ± 4.2 before psychiatric consultation and 6.5 ± 4.2 thereafter ( p < .001). 22.6 % of the newly recommended drugs were PIMs according to the PRISCUS list, while 54.8 % were designated as therapeutic alternatives to PIMs. 54.8 % and 20.2 % of the newly recommended drugs were FORTA category C and D drugs, respectively. An average of 1.2 ± 1.7 drug–drug interactions (DDIs) existed before psychiatric consultation and 1.3 ± 1.9 DDIs thereafter ( p = .08). Conclusion The majority of newly recommended drugs by psychiatric consultation service in the ED were designated as suitable therapeutic alternatives to PIMs according to the PRISCUS list, but had comparatively unfavorable ratings according to the FORTA classification, demonstrating discrepancies between these two PIM classification systems. Physicians delivering psychiatric consultation services in the ED should not solely rely on one PIM classification system.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Psychiatry and Mental health,Geriatrics and Gerontology,Neurology (clinical)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3