Potentially inappropriate medication prescribing by nurse practitioners and physicians.


Journal

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
ISSN: 1532-5415
Titre abrégé: J Am Geriatr Soc
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7503062

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
07 2021
Historique:
revised: 06 02 2021
received: 30 10 2020
accepted: 03 03 2021
pubmed: 23 3 2021
medline: 12 10 2021
entrez: 22 3 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use is a risk factor for hospitalization and mortality. However, there were few studies focusing on the impact of provider type on PIM use. We aimed to estimate the initial and refill PIM prescribing rate for physician visits and nurse practitioner (NP) visits and the impact of provider type on PIM prescribing. We used 100% Texas Medicare data to define physician visits and NP visits in 2016. The rate of visits with a PIM prescription from the same provider was measured, distinguishing between initial and refill prescription to estimate the PIM rate and adjusted odds ratio (OR) by provider type. There were 24.1 per 1000 visits with a prescription for a PIM: 9.0 per 1000 visits for an initial PIM and 15.1 per 1000 visits for a refill PIM. A visit to an NP was less likely to result in an initial (OR = 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.70-0.79) or refill (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.51-0.57) PIM. The association of lower odds of receiving a prescription for an initial PIM from an NP was substantially stronger among black enrollees than white enrollees (OR = 0.44, 95%CI = 0.30-0.65 for blacks and OR = 0.73, 95%CI = 0.68-0.78 for white enrollees). The association of an NP provider with lower odds of receiving a PIM refill was more pronounced in older patients and in those with more comorbidities. NPs prescribed fewer initial PIMs and were less likely to refill a PIM after an outpatient visit than physicians. The lower odds of receiving PIMs during an NP visit varied by age, race/ethnicity, rurality, and number of comorbidities.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use is a risk factor for hospitalization and mortality. However, there were few studies focusing on the impact of provider type on PIM use.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to estimate the initial and refill PIM prescribing rate for physician visits and nurse practitioner (NP) visits and the impact of provider type on PIM prescribing.
RESEARCH DESIGN
We used 100% Texas Medicare data to define physician visits and NP visits in 2016. The rate of visits with a PIM prescription from the same provider was measured, distinguishing between initial and refill prescription to estimate the PIM rate and adjusted odds ratio (OR) by provider type.
RESULTS
There were 24.1 per 1000 visits with a prescription for a PIM: 9.0 per 1000 visits for an initial PIM and 15.1 per 1000 visits for a refill PIM. A visit to an NP was less likely to result in an initial (OR = 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.70-0.79) or refill (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.51-0.57) PIM. The association of lower odds of receiving a prescription for an initial PIM from an NP was substantially stronger among black enrollees than white enrollees (OR = 0.44, 95%CI = 0.30-0.65 for blacks and OR = 0.73, 95%CI = 0.68-0.78 for white enrollees). The association of an NP provider with lower odds of receiving a PIM refill was more pronounced in older patients and in those with more comorbidities.
CONCLUSIONS
NPs prescribed fewer initial PIMs and were less likely to refill a PIM after an outpatient visit than physicians. The lower odds of receiving PIMs during an NP visit varied by age, race/ethnicity, rurality, and number of comorbidities.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33749843
doi: 10.1111/jgs.17120
pmc: PMC8273104
mid: NIHMS1684891
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1916-1924

Subventions

Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : P30 AG024832
Pays : United States
Organisme : AHRQ HHS
ID : R01 HS020642
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : P30-AG024832
Pays : United States
Organisme : AHRQ HHS
ID : R01HS020642
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

© 2021 The American Geriatrics Society.

Références

Med Care. 2015 Sep;53(9):776-83
pubmed: 26270826
Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 Jul;32(7):1236-43
pubmed: 23836739
Age Ageing. 2017 Jul 1;46(4):607-613
pubmed: 28064169
Policy Polit Nurs Pract. 2017 May;18(2):84-94
pubmed: 28766986
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012 Apr;60(4):616-31
pubmed: 22376048
BMC Geriatr. 2019 May 29;19(1):154
pubmed: 31142286
Pharmacotherapy. 2018 Apr;38(4):417-427
pubmed: 29457258
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014 Dec;62(12):2261-72
pubmed: 25516023
Nurse Pract. 2017 Jan 20;42(1):18-46
pubmed: 28002144
Fam Pract. 2016 Dec;33(6):572-579
pubmed: 27543795
Arch Intern Med. 1997 Jul 28;157(14):1531-6
pubmed: 9236554
Int J Clin Pharm. 2020 Jun;42(3):911-922
pubmed: 32390088
Am J Med. 2018 Mar;131(3):276-283.e2
pubmed: 28893514
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015 Nov;63(11):2227-46
pubmed: 26446832
Arch Intern Med. 1991 Sep;151(9):1825-32
pubmed: 1888249
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013 Jul;22(7):728-34
pubmed: 23494811
Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2015 Sep;16(5):513-27
pubmed: 25482424
Health Serv Res. 2019 Feb;54(1):187-197
pubmed: 30284237
BMC Geriatr. 2011 Nov 30;11:79
pubmed: 22129458
Med Care. 2016 Jan;54(1):81-9
pubmed: 26565526
JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Apr;176(4):473-82
pubmed: 26998708
Nurs Outlook. 2017 Nov - Dec;65(6):679-688
pubmed: 28803624
PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e43617
pubmed: 22928004
Med Care Res Rev. 2012 Apr;69(2):158-75
pubmed: 21976416
BMJ Open. 2014 Dec 08;4(12):e006544
pubmed: 25488097
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019 Apr;67(4):674-694
pubmed: 30693946
PLoS One. 2019 Jun 13;14(6):e0218174
pubmed: 31194800
JAMA. 2019 Jan 1;321(1):102-105
pubmed: 30620363
Med Care. 2005 Nov;43(11):1130-9
pubmed: 16224307
Drugs Real World Outcomes. 2016 Sep;3(3):289-296
pubmed: 27747828
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jul 16;7:CD001271
pubmed: 30011347
Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2020 Jun 12;11:2042098620933741
pubmed: 32587680
Health Serv Res. 2018 Feb;53(1):405-429
pubmed: 28024315
Int J Pharm Pract. 2019 Oct;27(5):408-423
pubmed: 30964225
Med Care. 2018 Jun;56(6):484-490
pubmed: 29613873

Auteurs

Lin-Na Chou (LN)

Office of Biostatistics, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA.
Department of Preventive Medicine and Population Health, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA.

Yong-Fang Kuo (YF)

Office of Biostatistics, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA.
Department of Preventive Medicine and Population Health, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA.
Department in Internal Medicine, Division of Geriatrics and Palliative Care, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA.
Sealy Center on Aging, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA.

Mukaila A Raji (MA)

Department in Internal Medicine, Division of Geriatrics and Palliative Care, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA.
Sealy Center on Aging, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA.

James S Goodwin (JS)

Department in Internal Medicine, Division of Geriatrics and Palliative Care, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA.
Sealy Center on Aging, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH