International expert panel's potentially inappropriate prescribing cascades (PIPC) list.

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Paula A Rochon, Denis O'Mahony, Antonio Cherubini, Graziano Onder, Mirko Petrovic, Kieran Dalton, Lisa M McCarthy, Shelley A Sternberg, Donna R Zwas, Nathan M Stall, Christina E Reppas-Rindlisbacher, Nathalie van der Velde, Sarah N Hilmer, Wei Wu, Joyce Li, Amy Ly, Jerry H Gurwitz
{"title":"International expert panel's potentially inappropriate prescribing cascades (PIPC) list.","authors":"Paula A Rochon, Denis O'Mahony, Antonio Cherubini, Graziano Onder, Mirko Petrovic, Kieran Dalton, Lisa M McCarthy, Shelley A Sternberg, Donna R Zwas, Nathan M Stall, Christina E Reppas-Rindlisbacher, Nathalie van der Velde, Sarah N Hilmer, Wei Wu, Joyce Li, Amy Ly, Jerry H Gurwitz","doi":"10.1007/s41999-025-01215-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Prescribing cascades contribute to potentially inappropriate prescribing, especially among older adults. With the prescribing cascade framework maturation, it is important to distinguish potentially inappropriate from potentially appropriate prescribing cascades. The objective was to create a comprehensive consensus list of Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing Cascades (PIPCs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prescribing cascade inventory was compiled using published lists. An international panel of 12 experts in geriatric medicine and pharmacology was selected. Panelists participated in a Delphi consensus process completing two questionnaire rounds and one discussion round.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 107 proposed prescribing cascades were identified. After Questionnaire Round 1, 56 prescribing cascades achieved a rating of agree or strongly agree by ≥ 75% of the panelists and were included in the PIPC list. For 32 of the 107 proposed cascades, 50-74% of panelists provided a rating of agree or strongly agree, and were moved to Round 2. In Questionnaire Round 2, 9 of 32 proposed cascades achieved a rating of agree or strongly agree by ≥ 75% of panelists and were included in the final PIPC list. For 14 prescribing cascades, 50-74% of panelists provided a rating of agree or strongly agree, and were included in the Discussion Round. After discussion, no additional prescribing cascades were included.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>An explicit list of 65 PIPCs was created using a rigorous Delphi consensus process conducted by international experts on pharmacotherapy for older adults. The PIPC list provides a crucial tool for clinicians and researchers to detect potentially inappropriate prescribing patterns and to foster efforts to improve medication safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":49287,"journal":{"name":"European Geriatric Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Geriatric Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41999-025-01215-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Prescribing cascades contribute to potentially inappropriate prescribing, especially among older adults. With the prescribing cascade framework maturation, it is important to distinguish potentially inappropriate from potentially appropriate prescribing cascades. The objective was to create a comprehensive consensus list of Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing Cascades (PIPCs).

Methods: A prescribing cascade inventory was compiled using published lists. An international panel of 12 experts in geriatric medicine and pharmacology was selected. Panelists participated in a Delphi consensus process completing two questionnaire rounds and one discussion round.

Results: A total of 107 proposed prescribing cascades were identified. After Questionnaire Round 1, 56 prescribing cascades achieved a rating of agree or strongly agree by ≥ 75% of the panelists and were included in the PIPC list. For 32 of the 107 proposed cascades, 50-74% of panelists provided a rating of agree or strongly agree, and were moved to Round 2. In Questionnaire Round 2, 9 of 32 proposed cascades achieved a rating of agree or strongly agree by ≥ 75% of panelists and were included in the final PIPC list. For 14 prescribing cascades, 50-74% of panelists provided a rating of agree or strongly agree, and were included in the Discussion Round. After discussion, no additional prescribing cascades were included.

Conclusion: An explicit list of 65 PIPCs was created using a rigorous Delphi consensus process conducted by international experts on pharmacotherapy for older adults. The PIPC list provides a crucial tool for clinicians and researchers to detect potentially inappropriate prescribing patterns and to foster efforts to improve medication safety.

国际专家小组的潜在不当处方级联(PIPC)清单。
目的:处方级联有助于潜在的不适当处方,特别是在老年人中。随着处方级联框架的成熟,区分潜在不合适的和潜在合适的处方级联是很重要的。目的是建立一个全面的潜在不适当处方级联(PIPCs)的共识清单。方法:采用已公布的处方清单编制处方级联量表。选出了一个由12名老年医学和药理学专家组成的国际小组。小组成员参与了德尔菲共识过程,完成了两轮问卷调查和一轮讨论。结果:共确定了107个拟处方级联。在第一轮问卷调查后,56个处方级联被≥75%的专家组成员评为同意或非常同意,并被纳入PIPC列表。对于107个提议的级联中的32个,50-74%的小组成员提供了同意或非常同意的评级,并进入第二轮。在第2轮问卷调查中,32个提议的级联中有9个获得了≥75%的专家组成员的同意或强烈同意的评级,并被纳入最终的PIPC列表。对于14个处方级联,50-74%的小组成员提供了同意或非常同意的评级,并被纳入讨论轮。经过讨论,没有包括额外的处方级联。结论:65种PIPCs的明确清单是通过严格的德尔菲共识过程创建的,该过程是由国际专家对老年人药物治疗进行的。PIPC清单为临床医生和研究人员发现可能不适当的处方模式和促进改善药物安全的努力提供了一个重要工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Geriatric Medicine
European Geriatric Medicine GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
114
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: European Geriatric Medicine is the official journal of the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EUGMS). Launched in 2010, this journal aims to publish the highest quality material, both scientific and clinical, on all aspects of Geriatric Medicine. The EUGMS is interested in the promotion of Geriatric Medicine in any setting (acute or subacute care, rehabilitation, nursing homes, primary care, fall clinics, ambulatory assessment, dementia clinics..), and also in functionality in old age, comprehensive geriatric assessment, geriatric syndromes, geriatric education, old age psychiatry, models of geriatric care in health services, and quality assurance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信