Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Defining an ‘older’ patient in the context of therapeutic decision making: perspectives of Australian pharmacists and nurses

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

Abstract

Objective

Our aim was to explore Australian nurses and pharmacist’s perspectives on defining an ‘older’ patient in the context of decision making around pharmacotherapy.

Design

A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews, facilitated by a purpose-designed interview guide.

Setting

Practitioners were recruited from the primary care (i.e. registered community pharmacists, registered community nurses, general practice nurses) and tertiary care settings (i.e. referral hospitals, specialist clinics).

Participants

Non-prescribing health professionals directly involved in medication management (i.e. nurses, pharmacists) with experience in caring for older patients.

Results

This exploratory study identified three key themes: (1) defining ‘older’ patients is difficult, given the heterogeneity of the population; (2) age is more than a number and, therefore, cannot be used alone for tailoring and managing a patient’s treatment; and (3) a contemporary definition of an ‘older’ patient needs to be integrated into guidelines for treating aged patients. Overall, Australian nurses and pharmacists shared similar perspectives about defining an ‘older’ patient, favouring holistic assessments of individual patients.

Conclusions

Non-prescribing health practitioners, such as nurses and pharmacists, advocate an individualised approach, rather than a number-based approach, to decision making in older patients.

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

References

  1. Ageing and health: fact sheet No 404. 2015. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs404/en/. Accessed 25 Sept 2016.

  2. Le Couteur DG, Ford GA, McLachlan AJ. Evidence, ethics and medication management in older people. J Pharm Pract Res. 2010;40(2):148–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Spinewine A, Schmader KE, Barber N, et al. Appropriate prescribing in elderly people: how well can it be measured and optimised? Lancet. 2007;370(9582):173–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gallagher S, Bennett KM, Halford JC. A comparison of acute and long-term health-care personnel’s attitudes towards older adults. Int J Nurs Pract. 2006;12(5):273–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gnavi R, Migliardi A, Demaria M, et al. Statins prescribing for the secondary prevention of ischaemic heart disease in Torino, Italy: a case of ageism and social inequalities. Eur J Public Health. 2007;17(5):492–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jacobson TA. Overcoming ‘ageism’ bias in the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia: a review of safety issues with statins in the elderly. Drug Saf. 2006;29(5):421–48.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lee JK, Alshehri S, Kutbi HI, et al. Optimizing pharmacotherapy in elderly patients: the role of pharmacists. Integr Pharm Res Pract. 2015;4:101–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lu WH, Wen YW, Chen LK, et al. Effect of polypharmacy, potentially inappropriate medications and anticholinergic burden on clinical outcomes: a retrospective cohort study. CMAJ. 2015;187(4):E130–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Obreli Neto PR, Nobili A, de Lyra DP Jr, et al. Incidence and predictors of adverse drug reactions caused by drug–drug interactions in elderly outpatients: a prospective cohort study. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2012;15(2):332–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Wang Y, Singh S, Bajorek B. Old age, high risk medication, polypharmacy: a ‘trilogy’ of risks in older patients with atrial fibrillation. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2016;14(2):706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Older people. 2018. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports-statistics/population-groups/older-people/overview. Accessed 20 Apr 2018.

  14. Slack C. Biological vs chronological age: how old are you really? 2016. https://theconversation.com/biological-vs-chronological-age-how-old-are-you-really-66962. Accessed 20 Apr 2018.

  15. Jia L, Zhang W, Chen X. Common methods of biological age estimation. Clin Interv Aging. 2017;12:759–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Morrow DA, de Lemos JA. Benchmarks for the assessment of novel cardiovascular biomarkers. Circulation. 2007;115(8):949–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nakamura E, Lane MA, Roth GS, et al. Evaluating measures of hematology and blood chemistry in male rhesus monkeys as biomarkers of aging. Exp Gerontol. 1994;29(2):151–77.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Nakamura E, Miyao K. Further evaluation of the basic nature of the human biological aging process based on a factor analysis of age-related physiological variables. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2003;58(3):196–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Krzyzaniak N, Singh S, Bajorek B. Physicians’ perspectives on defining an older adult patient and in making appropriate prescribing decisions. Drugs Ther Perspect. 2018;34(4):174–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Somers A, Robays H, De Paepe P, et al. Evaluation of clinical pharmacist recommendations in the geriatric ward of a Belgian university hospital. Clin Interv Aging. 2013;8:703–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Health Quality Ontario. Specialized nursing practice for chronic disease management in the primary care setting: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2013;13(10):1–66.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Halvorsen KH, Ruths S, Granas AG, et al. Multidisciplinary intervention to identify and resolve drug-related problems in Norwegian nursing homes. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2010;28(2):82–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hanlon JT, Weinberger M, Samsa GP, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of a clinical pharmacist intervention to improve inappropriate prescribing in elderly outpatients with polypharmacy. Am J Med. 1996;100(4):428–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Machado M, Bajcar J, Guzzo G, et al. Sensitivity of patient outcomes to pharmacist interventions. Part I: systematic review and meta-analysis in diabetes management. Ann Pharmacother. 2007;41(10):1569–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pelicano-Romano J, Neves MR, Amado A, et al. Do community pharmacists actively engage elderly patients in the dialogue? Results from pharmaceutical care consultations. Health Expect. 2013;18(5):1721–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Machado M, Bajcar J, Guzzo GC, et al. Sensitivity of patient outcomes to pharmacist interventions. Part II: systematic review and meta-analysis in hypertension management. Ann Pharmacother. 2007;41(11):1770–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Machado M, Nassor N, Bajcar JM, et al. Sensitivity of patient outcomes to pharmacist interventions. Part III: systematic review and meta-analysis in hyperlipidemia management. Ann Pharmacother. 2008;42(9):1195–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. de Oliveira Santos D, Martins MC, Cipriano SL, et al. Pharmaceutical care for patients with persistent asthma: assessment of treatment compliance and use of inhaled medications. J Bras Pneumol. 2010;36(1):14–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Stefanacci R, Riddle A. Preventing medication errors. Geriatr Nurs. 2016;37(4):307–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Jutel A, Menkes DB. Nurses’ reported influence on the prescription and use of medication. Int Nurs Rev. 2010;57(1):92–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Understanding our health care system. http://healthissuescentre.org.au/consumers/health-care-in-australia/understanding-our-health-care-system. Accessed 20 Apr 2018.

  33. Population Composition: Regional population ageing. 2006. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/ABS@.nsf/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/851dece969d9182cca2570ec000a2501!OpenDocument. Accessed 15 Dec 2016.

  34. 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 

  35. Data Saturation—numbers left out in the rain, or something else? 2018. http://nsfconsulting.com.au/data-saturation/. Accessed 2 Mar 2018.

  36. Phillippi J, Lauderdale J. A guide to field notes for qualitative research: context and conversation. Qual Health Res. 2018;28(3):381–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, et al. Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. Int J Qual Methods. 2017;16(1):1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. The four main approaches. 2009. http://www.alzheimer-europe.org/Research/Understanding-dementia-research/Types-of-research/The-four-main-approaches. Accessed 28 Mar 2017.

  42. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry, vol. 75. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Nik J, Lai PSM, Ng CJ, et al. A qualitative study of community pharmacists’ opinions on the provision of osteoporosis disease state management services in Malaysia. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1):448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Health Statistics and Information Systems—Definition of an older or elderly person. 2016. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/survey/ageingdefnolder/en/. Accessed 20 Apr 2018.

  45. Dubina TL, Dyundikova VA, Zhuk EV. Biological age and its estimation. II. Assessment of biological age of albino rats by multiple regression analysis. Exp Gerontol. 1983;18(1):5–18.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Hochschild R. Improving the precision of biological age determinations. Part 1: a new approach to calculating biological age. Exp Gerontol. 1989;24(4):289–300.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Zhang W-G, Zhu S-Y, Bai X-J, et al. Select aging biomarkers based on telomere length and chronological age to build a biological age equation. Age. 2014;36(3):9639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Klemera P, Doubal S. A new approach to the concept and computation of biological age. Mech Ageing Dev. 2006;127(3):240–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  50. Cox L, Kloseck M, Crilly R, McWilliam C, et al. Underrepresentation of individuals 80 years of age and older in chronic disease clinical practice guidelines. Can Fam Phys. 2011;57(7):e263–9.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Turazza FM, Franzosi MG. Is anticoagulation therapy underused in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation? Drugs Aging. 1997;10(3):174–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Bajorek BV, Krass I, Ogle SJ, et al. Optimizing the use of antithrombotic therapy for atrial fibrillation in older people: a pharmacist-led multidisciplinary intervention. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(11):1912–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Baunemann Ott CL, Ratna N, Prayag R, et al. Survival and treatment patterns in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in Manitoba. Curr Oncol. 2011;18(5):e238–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(12):1139–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Giugliano RP, Ruff CT, Braunwald E, et al. Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(22):2093–104.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Ageism: How Healthcare Fails the Elderly. http://www.agingresearch.org/backend/app/webroot/files/Pressroom/51/Ageism_How_Healthcare_Fails_the_Elderly.pdf. Accessed 25 Sept 2016.

  57. Ouchida K, Lachs M. Not for doctors only: ageism in healthcare. J Am Soc Ageing. 2015;39(3):46–57.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Bowling A. Ageism in cardiology. BMJ. 1999;319(7221):1353–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Lavan AH, Gallagher PF, O’Mahony D. Methods to reduce prescribing errors in elderly patients with multimorbidity. Clin Interv Aging. 2016;11:857–66.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Leape LL, Cullen DJ, Dempsey Clapp M, et al. Pharmacist participation on physician rounds and adverse drug events in the intensive care unit. JAMA. 1999;282(3):267–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Lipton HL, Bero LA, Bird JA, McPhee SJ. The impact of clinical pharmacists’ consultations on physicians’ geriatric drug prescribing: a randomized controlled trial. Med Care. 1992;30(7):646–58.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Castelino RL, Bajorek BV, Chen TF. Targeting suboptimal prescribing in the elderly: a review of the impact of pharmacy services. Ann Pharmacother. 2009;43(6):1096–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Marek K, Antle L. Medication management of the community-dwelling older adult. In: Hughes R, editor. Patient safety and quality: an evidence-based handbook for nurses. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2670/.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Health (Pharmacy), University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW, 2007, Australia

    Natalia Krzyżaniak, Shamsher Singh & Beata Bajorek

Authors
  1. Natalia Krzyżaniak
    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 Krzyżaniak.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Natalia Krzyżaniak, Shamsher Singh and Beata Bajorek declare there are no conflicts of interest.

Funding

None to declare.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Krzyżaniak, N., Singh, S. & Bajorek, B. Defining an ‘older’ patient in the context of therapeutic decision making: perspectives of Australian pharmacists and nurses. Drugs Ther Perspect 34, 392–401 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40267-018-0516-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40267-018-0516-0

Search

Navigation