Search

Although potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) is associated with risk of harm due to adverse effects, it is frequently prescribed for elderly patients. The aim of this qualitative multi-center study was to gain insight into contextual factors that might lead to chronic PIM use. We conducted semi-structured interviews with elderly patients with or without chronic PIM use (patient interviews: n = 52). Patients were between 86 and 96 years old. The participants were recruited from the AgeCoDe study. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts of the interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Deductive and inductive categories were determined. We found contextual factors related to the patient and related to patient-general practitioner (GP) communication that might lead to chronic PIM use (i.e., positive features of PIM, maintaining characteristics of medication intake, barriers to deprescribe PIM, external actors supporting PIM intake, system-related factors). Besides certain health-related behaviours (e.g., own obligation to report to GP) and medication-related attitudes and knowledge (e.g., awareness of side effects and interaction of medicines), patient-GP-interactions that were characterised by mutual agreements on drugs (e.g., concerning dosage or discontinuation of a drug) might be advantageous to reduce the probability of chronic PIM use. The results might assist in the development of guidelines and educational programs aiming to reduce PIM use in the elderly.

Background Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) is defined as medication with uncertain therapeutic effects and/or potential adverse drug reactions outweighing the clinical benefits. The prescription rate of PIM for oldest-old patients is high despite the existence of lists of PIM (e.g. the PRISCUS list) and efforts to raise awareness. This study aims at identifying general practitioners’ views on PIM and aspects affecting the (long-term) use of PIM. Methods As part of the CIM-TRIAD study, we conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews with 47 general practitioners, discussing 25 patients with and 22 without PIM (according to the PRISCUS list). The interview guideline included generic and patient-specific questions. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. We content analyzed the interviews using deductive and inductive category development. Results The majority of the general practitioners were not aware of the PRISCUS list. Agents deemed potentially inappropriate from the general practitioners’ point of view and the PRISCUS list are not completely superimposable. General practitioners named their criteria to identify appropriate medication for elderly patients (e.g. renal function, cognitive state) and emphasized the importance of monitoring. We identified prescription- (e.g. benzodiazepines on alternative private prescription), medication- (e.g. subjective perception that PIM has no alternative), general practitioner- (e.g. general practitioner relies on specialists), patient- (e.g. “demanding high-user”, positive subjective benefit-risk-ratio) and system-related aspects (e.g. specialists lacking holistic view, interface problems) related to the (long term) use of PIM. Conclusions While the PRISCUS list does not seem to play a decisive role in general practice, general practitioners are well aware of risks associated with PIM. Our study identifies some starting points for a safer handling of PIM, e.g. stronger dissemination of the PRISCUS list, better compensation of medication reviews, “positive lists”, adequate patient information, multifaceted interventions and improved communication between general practitioners and specialists. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-017-0595-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.