Both New and Chronic Potentially Inappropriate Medications Continued at Hospital Discharge Are Associated With Increased Risk of Adverse Events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Admission to hospital provides the opportunity to review patient medications; however, the extent to which the safety of drug regimens changes after hospitalization is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) prescribed to patients at hospital discharge and their association with the risk of adverse events 30 days after discharge. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary care hospitals within the McGill University Health Centre Network in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Patients from internal medicine, cardiac, and thoracic surgery, aged 65 years and older, admitted between October 2014 and November 2016. MEASURES: Abstracted chart data were linked to provincial health databases. PIMs were identified using AGS (American Geriatrics Society) Beers Criteria®, STOPP, and Choosing Wisely statements. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox models were used to assess the association between PIMs and adverse events. RESULTS: Of 2,402 included patients, 1,381 (57%) were male; median age was 76 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 70-82 years); and eight discharge medications were prescribed (IQR = 2-8). A total of 1,576 (66%) patients were prescribed at least one PIM at discharge; 1,176 (49%) continued a PIM from prior to admission, and 755 (31%) were prescribed at least one new PIM. In the 30 days after discharge, 218 (9%) experienced an adverse drug event (ADE) and 862 (36%) visited the emergency department (ED), were rehospitalized, or died. After adjustment, each additional new PIM and continued community PIM were respectively associated with a 21% (odds ratio [OR] = 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.01-1.45) and a 10% (OR = 1.10; 95% CI = 1.01-1.21) increased odds of ADEs. They were also respectively associated with a 13% (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.13; 95% CI = 1.03-1.26) and a 5% (HR = 1.05; 95% CI = 1.00-1.10) increased risk of ED visits, rehospitalization, and death. CONCLUSIONS: Two in three hospitalized patients were prescribed a PIM at discharge, and increasing numbers of PIMs were associated with an increased risk of ADEs and all-cause adverse events. Improving hospital prescribing practices may reduce the frequency of PIMs and associated adverse events. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1184-1192, 2020.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".