Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Physicians’ perspectives on defining older adult patients and making appropriate prescribing decisions

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Drugs & Therapy Perspectives Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Older patients are major users of pharmacotherapy due to a higher incidence of health issues. However, there is evidence of age-biased prescribing, leading to over- or underprescribing of medication, and suboptimal clinical outcomes. Although many guidelines provide cautionary statements about the use of medicines in older patients, they fail to identify what this means in practice. There is no accepted definition of an older adult that appropriately characterises this patient group. As a result, there is potential for physicians to have variable interpretations of individuals within this patient population, leading to potential inconsistencies when making pharmacotherapeutic decisions.

Objective

The aim of this study was to explore how Australian medical physicians practically defined an older adult patient in the context of providing pharmacotherapeutic care to this population.

Methods

This was a two-stage study comprising a scenario-based questionnaire (quantitative phase) and semi-structured individual interviews (qualitative phase) with Australian physicians. Qualitative data was thematically analysed and manual inductive coding was used to generate core themes.

Results

A total of 15 physicians participated in the study. Overall, in regard to providing care to their older patients, the three key themes that emerged from physicians’ discussions were (1) using a number-based versus health status-based definition of an older patient; (2) patient ‘red flags’ influence prescribing decisions; and (3) lack of guideline support in prescribing for older patients. Most physicians ultimately defined older adult patients using a number-based description (i.e. age between 65 and 90 years) because they felt they needed some sort of ‘cut-off’ point to guide their decision making. However, in assessing an older patient, physicians considered a multitude of patient factors as influencers of their decision making during prescribing, including comorbidities, cognitive function, frailty, polypharmacy, etc., and did not solely focus on the patient’s age.

Conclusion

Physicians describe the complexity of decision making for older adult patients, and how this is influenced by a diverse range of factors, yet ultimately simplify the process by defaulting to number-based (age in years) guidelines and procedures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. “Multi dose, dose administration aid designed to assist people to correctly take their medication as prescribed” [32].

References

  1. Hubbard RE, O’Mahony MS, Woodhouse KW. Medication prescribing in frail older people. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;69(3):319–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Older, wiser, safer. NPS MedicineWise, MedicineWise News. 2013. Available at: http://www.nps.org.au/publications/health-professional/medicinewise-news/2013/older-wiser-safer. Accessed 29 Mar 2017.

  3. Gallagher P, Barry P, O’Mahony D. Inappropriate prescribing in the elderly. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2007;32(2):113–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Spinewine A, Swine C, Dhillon S, et al. Appropriateness of use of medicines in elderly inpatients: qualitative study. BMJ. 2005;331(7522):935.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. O’Mahony D, Gallagher PF. Inappropriate prescribing in the older population: need for new criteria. Age Ageing. 2008;37(2):138–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kievit W, van Hulst L, van Riel P, et al. Factors that influence rheumatologists’ decisions to escalate care in rheumatoid arthritis: results from a choice-based conjoint analysis. Arthritis Care Res. 2010;62(6):842–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Boyles PJ, Peterson GM, Bleasel MD, et al. Undertreatment of congestive heart failure in an Australian setting. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2004;29(1):15–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bajorek BV, Krass I, Ogle SJ, et al. The impact of age on antithrombotic use in elderly patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Aust J Ageing. 2002;21(1):36–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cahir C, Bennett K, Teljeur C, et al. Potentially inappropriate prescribing and adverse health outcomes in community dwelling older patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;77(1):201–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tommelein E, Mehuys E, Petrovic M, et al. Potentially inappropriate prescribing in community-dwelling older people across Europe: a systematic literature review. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;71(12):1415–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Singh S, Bajorek B. Defining ‘elderly’in clinical practice guidelines for pharmacotherapy. Pharm Pract. 2014;12:489.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Carpena-Ruiz M, Montero-Errasquín B, et al. Exclusion of older adults from ongoing clinical trials about type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013;61(5):734–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bellmunt J, Négrier S, Escudier B, et al. The medical treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer in the elderly: position paper of a SIOG Taskforce. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2009;69(1):64–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cho ER, Yoo J, Jee SH, Kim Y. Biological age as a useful index to predict seventeen-year survival and mortality in Koreans. BMC Geriatr. 2017;17(1):7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Jee H, Jeon BH, Kim YH, et al. Development and application of biological age prediction models with physical fitness and physiological components in Korean adults. Gerontology. 2012;58(4):344–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nakamura E, Miyao K. A method for identifying biomarkers of aging and constructing an index of biological age in humans. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2007;62(10):1096–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Meid AD, Lampert A, Burnett A, et al. The impact of pharmaceutical care interventions for medication underuse in older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;80(4):768–76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Vrdoljak D, Borovac JA. Medication in the elderly-considerations and therapy prescription guidelines. Acta Med Acad. 2015;44(2):159–68.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. House Standing Committee on Health and Ageing Inquiry into Dementia: Early diagnosis and Intervention Response by The Royal Australasian College of Physicians and the Australian and New Zealand Society for Geriatric Medicine to the Questions on Notice. In: The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) and the Australian and New Zealand Society for Geriatric Medicine (ANZSGM); 2012.

  20. Australian and New Zealand Society for Geriatric Medicine. Why train in Geriatric Medicine? 2017. Available at: http://www.anzsgm.org/training.asp. Accessed 25 Oct 2017.

  21. Postgraduate Medical Council of Victoria. Intern Year. 2017. Available at: http://www.pmcv.com.au/accreditation/intern-year. Accessed 25 Oct 2017.

  22. Australian Aged Care Quality Agency. Nurse practitioners. Australian Government. 2014. Available at: https://www.aacqa.gov.au/providers/promoting-quality/better-practice-awards/2014-better-practice-award-winners/nurse-practitioners. Accessed 15 Dec 2017.

  23. Bajramovic J, Emmerton L, Tett SE. Perceptions around concordance: focus groups and semi-structured interviews conducted with consumers, pharmacists and general practitioners. Health Expec. 2004;7(3):221–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Population Composition: Regional population ageing. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2006. Available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/ABS@.nsf/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/851dece969d9182cca2570ec000a2501!OpenDocument. Accessed 15 Dec 2016.

  25. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006;18(1):59–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Data Saturation—numbers left out in the rain, or something else? NSF Consulting. 2017. Available at: http://nsfconsulting.com.au/data-saturation/. Accessed 25 Oct 2017.

  27. Lundebjerg NE, Trucil DE, Hammond EC, et al. When it comes to older adults, language matters: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society adopts Modified American Medical Association style. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65(7):1386–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Thomas DR. A general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis. Am J Eval. 2006;27(2):237–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cooper S, Endacott R. Generic qualitative research: a design for qualitative research in emergency care? Emerg Med J. 2007;24(12):816–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. The four main approaches. Alzheimer Europe, Luxembourg. 2009. Available at: http://www.alzheimer-europe.org/Research/Understanding-dementia-research/Types-of-research/The-four-main-approaches. Accessed 28 Mar 2017.

  31. Hansen M, O’Brien K, Meckler G, et al. Understanding the value of mixed methods research: the Children’s Safety Initiative-Emergency Medical Services. Emerg Med J. 2016;33(7):489–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Webster-pak Community: Dispensing procedures manual. Manrex Pty Ltd, Leichhardt. 2014. Available at: http://www.webstercare.com.au/files/Webster-pak_Community_Dispensing_Procedures_Manual_v3.pdf.

  33. March A. Perspective: consistency, continuity, and coordination—the 3Cs of seamless patient care. The Commonwealth Fund; 2006 [updated 15/12/17]. Available from: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/newsletters/quality-matters/2006/june/perspectiveconsistency-continuity-and-coordination-the-3cs-of-seamless-patient-care.

  34. VanderWalde N, Hurria A, Jagsi R. Improving consistency and quality of care for older adults with cancer: the challenges of developing consensus guidelines for radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;98(4):721–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Campbell NL, Boustani MA, Skopelja EN, et al. Medication adherence in older adults with cognitive impairment: a systematic evidence-based review. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2012;10(3):165–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Adams WL, McIlvain HE, Lacy NL, et al. Primary Care for elderly people: why do doctors find it so hard? Gerontologist. 2002;42(6):835–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mutasingwa DR, Ge H, Upshur RE. How applicable are clinical practice guidelines to elderly patients with comorbidities? Can Fam Physician. 2011;57(7):e253–62.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Boyd CM, Darer J, Boult C, et al. Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases. JAMA. 2005;294(6):716–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Scott IA, Hilmer SN, Reeve E, et al. Reducing inappropriate polypharmacy: the process of deprescribing. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(5):827–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Reeve E, Shakib S, Hendrix I, et al. The benefits and harms of deprescribing. Med J Aust. 2014;201(7):386–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Garfinkel D, Mangin D. Feasibility study of a systematic approach for discontinuation of multiple medications in older adults: addressing polypharmacy. Arch Int Med. 2010;170(18):1648–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Iyer S, Naganathan V, McLachlan AJ, et al. Medication withdrawal trials in people aged 65 years and older. Drugs Aging. 2008;25(12):1021–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Reeve E, Wiese MD. Benefits of deprescribing on patients’ adherence to medications. Int J Clin Pharm. 2014;36(1):26–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Orimo H, Ito H, Suzuki T, et al. Reviewing the definition of “elderly”. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2006;6(3):149–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Singh S, Bajorek B. Defining ‘elderly’ in clinical practice guidelines for pharmacotherapy. Pharm Pract. 2014;12(4):489.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Singh S, Bajorek B. Pharmacotherapy in the ageing patient: the impact of age per se (a review). Ageing Res Rev. 2015;24(Part B):99–110.

  47. Sanderson W, Scherbov S. Rethinking age and ageing. Washington: Population Reference Bureau; 2008. Contract No. 4.

  48. Rockwood K, Mitnitski A. Frailty in relation to the accumulation of deficits. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2007;62(7):722–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Gunderson A, Tomkowiak J, Menachemi N, et al. Rural physicians’ attitudes toward the elderly: evidence of ageism? Qual Manag Health Care. 2005;14(3):167–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None to declare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia

    Natalia Krzyzaniak, Shamsher Singh & Beata Bajorek

Authors
  1. Natalia Krzyzaniak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shamsher Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Beata Bajorek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natalia Krzyzaniak.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Natalia Krzyzaniak, Shamsher Singh and Beata Bajorek have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Krzyzaniak, N., Singh, S. & Bajorek, B. Physicians’ perspectives on defining older adult patients and making appropriate prescribing decisions. Drugs Ther Perspect 34, 174–185 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40267-018-0484-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40267-018-0484-4

Search

Navigation