Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of bmjoInstructions for authorsCurrent ToCBMJ Open
BMJ Open. 2012; 2(5): e001431.
Published online Sep 15, 2012. doi:  10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001431
PMCID: PMC3467596
Validation of prescribing appropriateness criteria for older Australians using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method
Benjamin Joseph Basger, Timothy Frank Chen, and Rebekah Jane Moles
Faculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
Correspondence to Benjamin Joseph Basger; ben.basger/at/
Received May 17, 2012; Accepted August 20, 2012.
To further develop and validate previously published national prescribing appropriateness criteria to assist in identifying drug-related problems (DRPs) for commonly occurring medications and medical conditions in older (≥65 years old) Australians.
RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.
A panel of medication management experts were identified consisting of geriatricians/pharmacologists, clinical pharmacists and disease management advisors to organisations that produce Australian evidence-based therapeutic publications. This resulted in a round-one panel of 15 members, and a round-two panel of 12 members.
Main outcome measure
Agreement on all criteria.
Forty-eight prescribing criteria were rated. In the first rating round via email, there was disagreement regarding 17 of the criteria according to median panel ratings. During a face-to-face second round meeting, discussion resulted in retention of 25 criteria after amendments, agreement for 14 criteria with no changes required and deletion of 9 criteria. Two new criteria were added, resulting in a final validated list of 41 prescribing appropriateness criteria. Agreement after round two was reached for all 41 criteria, measured by median panel ratings and the amount of dispersion of panel ratings, based on the interpercentile range.
A set of 41 Australian prescribing appropriateness criteria were validated by an expert panel. Use of these criteria, together with clinical judgement and other medication review processes such as patient interview, is intended to assist in improving patient care by efficiently detecting potential DRPs related to commonly occurring medicines and medical conditions in older Australians. These criteria may also contribute to the medication management education of healthcare professionals.
Keywords: drug-related problems, prescribing criteria, older patients, inappropriate drug use
Article summary
Article focus
  • Drug-related problems (DRPs) are common in older people. They may result in drug treatment goals not being achieved and/or the occurrence of adverse drug events.
  • The aim of this study was to further develop and validate a previously published list of prescribing appropriateness criteria for use in older people which may be used to improve the quality of the Australian medication review process, and for quality assessment and education in medicine use.
Key messages
  • The use of medication assessment criteria is one method to assist in identifying DRPs. Criteria developed elsewhere may have little or no applicability to the Australian healthcare environment.
  • Validation of proposed Australian prescribing appropriateness criteria for older people was accomplished using a two-round-modified Delphi method, resulting in agreement for all criteria as measured by median panel ratings, and the amount of dispersion of panel ratings, based on the interpercentile range.
  • Use of these criteria, together with other Australian medication review processes, may assist in improving patient care in a variety of settings by efficiently identifying DRPs to common medical conditions and commonly used medicines. They may also contribute to the medication management knowledge of healthcare professionals through education programmes and by use in daily practice, and for the evaluation of the quality of pharmaceutical care in older people.
Strengths and limitations of this study
  • A validated consensus method was used involving an expert medication management panel of varied specialisation. Criteria were based on established evidence–practice gaps and degree of disease burden imposed on the healthcare system, and were written with the aim of conciseness and clarity.
  • Further developmental work is required to assess the usefulness of these criteria, which only included commonly occurring medicines and medical conditions.
Drug-related problems (DRPs) in older people (≥65 years old) are common.1–4 They may result in drug treatment goals not being achieved and/or disproportionately high numbers of serious adverse medication events due to polypharmacy.5–7 DRPs can occur for many reasons such as undertreatment, inadequate monitoring of medicines, poor medicine or dose selection, duplication of medicines or factors to do with the way the patient uses the medicine.2 3 8–12 Methods to identify and reduce DRPs include healthcare professional-directed educational interventions,13 comprehensive geriatric assessment,14 discontinuation of multiple medications,15 16 electronic health record clinical decision support targeted towards certain diseases or drugs,17 18 and the use of medication assessment criteria, which usually consist of explicit (ie, criterion-based rather than implicit or judgement-based) lists of prescribing recommendations for various drugs and/or disease states.13 19–22
In Australia, identification and resolution of DRPs are intended to be considered when patients are interviewed by an accredited pharmacist as part of the Home Medicines Review programme.23 This programme aims to provide the sophistication lacking in the application of explicit measures alone, as it takes into account other issues such as the patients history and personal preferences, and is targeted towards patients who may be (among other reasons) currently taking ≥5 regular medicines, attending a number of different doctors, or have recently been discharged from hospital.24
In 2008, we proposed a list of 48 prescribing appropriateness criteria (45 explicit and three implicit) aimed at improving detection of DRPs as part of the Australian medication review process.25 These criteria were intended to be applied alongside the patient interview in order to prompt appropriate history taking, particularly with respect to commonly occurring medical conditions and medicines. Similar criteria derived outside Australia have been found to have application in a variety of settings and for a variety of uses, such as in the training of healthcare professionals and in the evaluation of the quality of healthcare.19 26–29 Our criteria were based on the most frequent medicines prescribed to Australians, and the most frequent medical conditions for which older Australians (≥65 years old) consult medical practitioners. Australian medication and disease state resources and guidelines were used to provide content validity.25 However, unlike our criteria, other prescribing criteria or tools have combined evidence with expert opinion to provide face validity.
The aim of this study was to further develop our list of criteria, supplementing it with recommendations for comorbidity and the oldest old where possible, and adding new criteria where necessary through expert consensus. In older patients, the importance of traditional outcomes, such as discrete clinical events or mortality, may be secondary to maintaining physical or cognitive function or relief of symptoms.30 Because of this, optimal care requires clinical decision support tools that consider issues such as patient preferences, frailty, cost and comordidities.31 Additionally, few criteria target the oldest old32 (generally regarded as people older than 85 years), where evidence may be poor, and preventive interventions may be encouraged in patients who have already exceeded an average lifespan.33 34
To further develop and validate our criteria list, we identified a panel of medication management experts, and chose the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method, which has been described as the best method for systematically combining recommendations from clinical guidelines, with the opinion of healthcare providers.35
Ethics approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Sydney.
Criteria development
In 2008, we identified the 50 highest-volume Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) medicines prescribed, and the 40 most common reasons for older Australians to seek or receive healthcare. Healthcare information was obtained using the BEACH (Bettering The Evaluation and Care of Health) programme, which continuously collects information about the clinical activities in general practice in Australia.36 We then used Australian medication information sources to identify both optimal and inappropriate medication management of these common conditions.25 In Australia, medication availability and use are largely determined by the PBS.37 In October 2011, commonly used medications and medical conditions were checked and updated using the BEACH programme to ensure that criteria content was current. Changes in evidence, product information, Australian consensus documents, evidence-based publication recommendations or clinical practice guidelines relating to our criteria were noted for evaluation by an expert medication management panel. The criteria were designed to provide guidance on the process of care wherever it occurred—community, hospital, residential home, care home or nursing home. Major considerations in their development were likely accessibility of data from the patient, their medical notes and/or their healthcare professional(s), conciseness and clarity of wording, and provision of a practical number of criteria. Most were explicit to enable consistent application, with additional notes provided for interpretation where necessary. They were written as a statement of the kind of medication management that should or should not occur, to simplify comprehension and facilitate uptake.25
Validation of criteria: participants
We recruited a multidisciplinary group of medication management experts to review, update and rate the criteria, consisting of geriatrician/pharmacologists, clinical pharmacists and disease management advisors to organisations that produce Australian evidence-based therapeutic publications. This resulted in a round-one panel of 15 members. The geriatricians consisted of two professors of geriatric medicine; an associate professor of clinical pharmacology and aged care; a research fellow in geriatric medicine and a hospital staff geriatrician. Clinical pharmacists consisted of a residential medication management review pharmacist; a home medicines review pharmacist; four hospital-based pharmacists (two team leaders, one director and one education and training pharmacist) and a professor of aged care (pharmacy). Disease management advisors to Australian evidence-based therapeutic organisations consisted of Therapeutic Guidelines,38 Australian Medicines Handbook39 and the New South Wales Therapeutic Advisory Group.40
Choice of the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method
We chose the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method, a two-round modified Delphi method41 to select the most appropriate criteria. Unlike the Delphi method, which generally involves multiple questionnaire-driven rounds to obtain convergence of opinion, the RAND method involves an initial individual rating round, and a second face-to-face round. This method has been shown to produce results that have face, construct and predictive validity.42 43 Systematically combining available evidence with expert opinion can create quality criteria where best evidence may be lacking.44
While most lists of prescribing criteria are based on expert consensus, this has often been achieved through mail surveys rather than face-to-face meetings.32 35 45 Although face-to-face meetings restrict panel size, they allow discussion to resolve misinterpretations, introduce new evidence and improve clarity of criteria between rating rounds. We ensured our panel comprised different specialities, as less disagreement has been found among same-specialty panels.46 We addressed concern regarding potential intimidation due to dominant panel personalities by choosing a moderator experienced in the development of these criteria and in facilitating small group discussion. This may also have assisted with conflict-of-interest issues. We used both the median panel rating and the amount of dispersion of panel ratings to identify agreement or disagreement. While it has been acknowledged that discrepancies between these two methods may occur,41 our aim was to achieve agreement for all accepted criteria for both methods after second round discussion.
RAND/UCLA appropriateness method round one
In October 2011, candidate panel members were emailed an explanation of the project and an invitation to participate. After acceptance, they were emailed a rating sheet consisting of 48 criteria, and asked to rate each on a nine-point scale. Ratings of 1–3 were classified as inappropriate, with a rating of one indicating the greatest degree of inappropriateness. Ratings of 7–9 were classified as appropriate, with a rating of nine indicating the greatest degree of appropriateness. Ratings of 4–6 were classified as neither appropriate nor inappropriate. Appropriate was defined as ‘the expected health benefit exceeds the expected negative consequences by a sufficiently wide margin that criteria are worth following, exclusive of cost’. They also received a description of the way in which the criteria had been derived, and a comparison with other prescribing criteria.25 32 Panel members were requested to amend the wording or delete, update or identify missing criteria as required. Upon return of the rating sheets, results were tabulated. Agreement was based on four or less panellists rating outside the three-point region containing the median (1–3; 4–6; 7–9), and disagreement was based on five or more panellists rating in each extreme (1–3 and 7–9), as per the RAND/UCLA protocol for a 15-member panel.41
Rand/UCLA appropriateness method round two
In November 2011, a face-to-face meeting of the expert panel, chaired by a panel moderator experienced in facilitating group discussions and criteria development, met to discuss the results of round one and re-rate each of the criteria and any potential additional criteria. One pharmacist, one staff geriatrician and a disease management advisor for a therapeutics publication could not attend, resulting in a 12-member panel. For this meeting, each panel member was provided with a copy of the results from round one. This consisted of the frequency distribution of ratings of all panellists across the nine-point scale, the overall panel median rating for each of the criteria and, for each panellist, an annotation of how they had rated each of the criteria. Scores from other panel members were not revealed. Depending on panellists votes, panel agreement or disagreement was also stated for each of the round one criteria. Additionally, the 30th and 70th percentiles adjusted for symmetry were computed for each of the criteria, as it has been found that when ratings were symmetric with respect to the middle (five on the 1–9 scale), the interpercentile range (IPR) required to label an indication as disagreement was smaller than when they were asymmetric with respect to the middle (values far from five on the 1–9 scale). Agreement after round two occurred when the IPR adjusted for symmetry (IPRAS) was greater than the IPR.41
We used the median method to present data at the face-to-face meeting, as it provided a clear visual interpretation of the ratings for each criterion. By the end of the meeting, our aim was to ensure that there was agreement between the median method and the interpercentile method for all accepted criteria.
Discussion at round two occurred on the level of agreement for each of the criteria. In addition, discussion was facilitated on the wording of each of the criteria to improve clarity and decide whether agreement would be reached. The definitions of agreement and disagreement were adjusted for the smaller second round 12 member panel.41 Agreement was reached when three or less panel members voted outside the three-point region containing the median, or when the IPRAS was greater than the IPR. Disagreement was determined when four or more panellists rated in each extreme (1–3 and 7–9). Each of the criteria were then discussed irrespective of whether there was agreement or disagreement, with panellists having the opportunity of changing their ratings if, for example, misinterpretation had occurred because of the way in which the criteria had been written, or if new evidence had become available, or if criteria had been interpreted in the light of a panellists own clinical experience. Each panel member consented to audio recording of the discussion. Values for the median, IPR and IPRAS41 were computed using SPSS V.20 (SPSS, Chicago,  Illinois, USA).
After round one, there was agreement for the appropriateness of 31 of the 48 criteria, and disagreement for 17 criteria. Of the 31 criteria for which there was agreement, discussion at round two resulted in 17 criteria being amended and retained, 2 criteria being deleted and 12 criteria accepted with no change. Of the 17 criteria for which there was disagreement, discussion at round two resulted in eight criteria being amended and retained, seven criteria being deleted and two criteria accepted with no change. Two new criteria were added, resulting in a total of 41 validated criteria.
An example of how the RAND/UCLA method was applied to each of our criteria is described in table 1 for criterion one. The larger the IPRAS, the less asymmetric are the ratings. For example, 13 of 15 panellists at round one rated indicator 14 with a score of 8 or 9, for which the IPRAS was 8.35.
Table 1
Table 1
An example of the application of the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method to one criterion (criterion one) from round one
Table 2 lists the median panel ratings, the amount of dispersion of panel ratings, and whether there was agreement or disagreement for the original criteria and the validated criteria. It also lists the amendments made by the panel to the original criteria, and the reasons for these amendments. There was 100% agreement for both median panel ratings and dispersion of panel ratings for the validated criteria. Table 3 contains the final list of validated criteria, arranged according to disease states. Table 4 lists usage information judged to be necessary for certain criteria.
Table 2
Table 2
Changes made to original criteria according to agreement, disagreement and panel discussion
Table 3
Table 3
Validated prescribing appropriateness criteria for older Australians (≥65 years) for commonly used medications and medical conditions*,†,‡ (*for usage information for certain criteria, see table 4)
Table 4
Table 4
Criteria usage information
This study identified a panel of medication management experts to discuss and validate a set of 41 prescribing appropriateness criteria for commonly used medicines and medical conditions in older (≥65 years) Australians. Panel discussion resulted in retention of 39 of the originally proposed 48 criteria, with 25 being reworded, and 14 accepted with no change. These criteria do not simply represent a list of medications to avoid in the elderly, but also address issues such as the need for additional therapy (eg, criteria 23 and 34, table 3), additional tests (eg, criteria 18–20, table 3), ineffective treatment (eg, criteria 22 and 37, table 3) and medication monitoring (eg, criteria 10 and 20, table 3). They were designed to contribute to the Australian quality use of medicines process.94 The information required to apply these criteria may be obtained from the patients or their carer, and patient medical notes and/or their healthcare professional.95 It may also be provided by a Home Medicines Review referral form from the patients’ general practitioner.23 Owing to their currency and the nature of their development, we expect these criteria to make a significant contribution to the detection of DRPs in the Australian healthcare environment. For example, in a review of prescribing indicators for two conditions,36 which are common in older people in Australia—type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease96 97—disease-oriented and drug-orientated criteria such as ours have shown good content, face, concurrent and predictive validity and operational feasibility, as well as use for internal and external quality assessment in both ambulatory and hospital care.35 Evidence–practice gaps in Australia have been identified in other areas besides diabetes and cardiovascular disease, such as in asthma, pain and vaccination status.9 98–101 The existence of these gaps formed part of the developmental process for these criteria.
Prescribing appropriateness tools in Australia
Appropriateness of prescribing has been assessed by measures that are explicit or implicit, in an effort to identify and reduce DRPs.102 In Australia, both types of measures have been used.103–107 However, they have been imported into the Australian healthcare environment, with consequent shortcomings related to both the intrinsic nature of the measure, as well as environment compatibility issues. For example, in a study evaluating the impact of Home Medicine Reviews on appropriateness of prescribing, a significant number of recommendations made regarding the need for monitoring and addition of missing therapy were found to have no impact on explicitly derived scores using the Medication Appropriateness Index,103 due to the intrinsic shortcomings of this tool. This is not a tool that gives precise guidance in relation to specific medicines.13
The Beers criteria,108 perhaps the tool most widely used to assess inappropriate prescribing in older people, has been used in Australia, but requires modification to exclude medicines not listed for government subsidy.107 This is because medicine availability and use in Australia is largely determined by the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme37. Other Australian studies have found that some medicines listed as inappropriate by Beers may be appropriate for certain older people according to Australian practice;105 many medicines listed by Beers are not available in Australia; and that some medicines considered inappropriate in Australia are not listed by Beers.106 Disagreement between Beers and other criteria, such as the improving prescribing in the elderly tool, have been identified.109
The Beers criteria was recently updated,22 with approximately half the medicines listed being unavailable in Australia. Further, almost three quarters of the diseases or syndromes listed are not among the 40 problems most frequently managed in patients over 65 years of age by Australian general practitioners.97 Beers still contains recommendations to avoid some medicines that are recommended for certain older people in Australia such as amiodarone, and it has recently been shown that rhythm control in older patients with atrial fibrillation may be more effective than rate control in reducing mortality over the long term.110 Reviews of explicit and implicit criteria have identified these and other problems such as failure to address drug–drug interactions and drug duplication, errors in recommendations, underrepresentation of certain drug categories, inclusion of infrequently prescribed drugs, criteria that are inapplicable for all situations, disagreement between criteria and lack of organisation of criteria.45 102 111
This has resulted in the development by others of criteria more suited to their own particular healthcare environment.112 113 Nationally based criteria have been described as the most desirable type of criteria, as they do not necessitate adaptation to local guidelines or national formularies before they can be used with confidence.32 In 2008, we therefore sought to construct and validate a set of prescribing appropriateness criteria relevant to the Australian healthcare environment. Our development process differed from most other tools21 108 112–117 as it did not initially involve a consensus panel, which has now been addressed. This development process also resulted in criteria unavailable in other tools such as monitoring, underprescribing, need for additional tests, evaluation of smoking and vaccination status, and certain drug interactions.32 45 102 Because we have generally named drug classes rather than specific drugs (table 3), and targeted common medical conditions found in older patients,118 119 we anticipate that our work may have some international usefulness.
Despite a desire in Australia to develop decision support tools to improve healthcare quality,120 progress has consisted of the development of a limited number of non-age specific structure and process indicator lists for use in hospitals and general practice.40 121–123 Many of these lists require updating.32 113 124 Currently, there is no Australian prescribing appropriateness criteria list to assist in improving medication management in older people. The usefulness of such an approach has been acknowledged, together with other approaches such as medication review.125
Over 80% of older Australians have three or more chronic conditions,96 with Australian general practitioners shown to be dealing more frequently with patients presenting with three or four problems in the year 2009–2010 compared with 2000–2001.126 Comorbidity is associated with poor quality of life, physical disability, high healthcare use, multiple medicines with consequent increased risk of adverse drug events, fragmentation of care and increased mortality.119 127 Yet most Australian guidelines for chronic diseases do not modify or discuss the applicability of their recommendations to older patients with multiple comorbid conditions.34 This situation is not restricted to Australia.127 128 Because the risk of harm in older patients increases in proportion to the number of treatments prescribed, prioritisation of therapeutic goals is necessary. For example, coronary heart disease (CHD) is an important morbidity in Australia77 96 for which treatment with ACE inhibitors or angiotensin 2 antagonists has been recommended to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.70 71 Other criteria derived outside Australia such as STOPP/START do not include this recommendation.21 However, the presence of comorbidity in CHD (commonly arthritis or respiratory disease) or other clinical factors (such as dizziness, falls or patient preference) may mean that medicines such as these are never started, due to consideration of other factors. While we wished to identify problems such as these, the ultimate decision regarding medicine use should always be made on a case-by-case basis based on clinical experience, a discussion between the healthcare professional and the patient, and best available evidence.72 Issues such as these may run counter to recommendations of disease-specific, evidence-based guidelines.34 Addition of our criteria with this associated usage information (table 4) to the implicit processes of Australian medication review may assist in addressing the problem of comorbidity.
The oldest old
Knowledge about the state of health and function of the oldest old is limited,129 with research on their drug use being scarce, and often based on small and selected samples without comparison with other age groups.130 131 We know that older patients in general are underrepresented in clinical trials, so that disease-specific guideline recommendations based on evidence may not apply to older cohorts.34 For example, undertreatment with antiosteoporotic medicines has been identified as a significant evidence–practice gap in Australia.98 While STOPP/START criteria recommend calcium and vitamin D supplements,21 no recommendations for more specific medicines are made. Further, evidence available for fracture risk reduction has been reported to differ with age.90 Similarly, blood pressure targets appropriate for older patients may not be appropriate for the oldest old,50 with adverse effects for antihypertensives found to be among the most frequent in centenarians.132 Issues regarding the oldest old appear in table 4, criteria 1, 2, 9, 18 and 39. We have attempted to achieve the advantages of using mostly explicit criteria, such as ease of application, with the addition of application information (tables 2 and and4)4) unavailable in our previous criteria set.
Rationale for the use of the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method
The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method has been used to rate lists ranging up to over 3000 indications, where panellists have been asked to use the clinical literature and their best clinical judgement to assess the appropriateness of performing a procedure. To do this, they have rated various clinical scenarios.46 While the number and type of our criteria may differ to this, similar criteria have been developed using the RAND/UCLA method. For example, in the development of indicators for patients undergoing total hip or total knee replacement, 1 of the 68 indicators stated that for such patients, ‘deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis should be provided for a minimum of 2 weeks after hospital discharge’.43 In the development of indicators for hazardous prescribing for general physicians (GPs) using this method, 1 of the 34 indicators identified the hazardous use of ‘NSAID in a patient with heart failure’.44 We therefore followed a similar protocol.
Nature of decision support tools
Panel members emphasised that criteria may not provide definitive answers, instead indicating potential problems that might need addressing, due to a perceived unacceptable variation in care.133 While performance indicators are designed to measure the result of statements made in clinical practice guidelines, these guidelines often provide recommendations for care independent of other considerations such as multiple comorbidities, advanced age, frailty, patient preferences, disease burden or limited life expectancy.134–136 In such cases, less stringent goals, deprescribing or non-prescription may be more appropriate.15 81 137 For example, a frail older patient with multiple comorbidities and one or more functional impairments may have a life expectancy of approximately 2 years or less.75 This raises the question of whether failure to intensify treatment81 or to underuse evidence-based therapies138 reflects appropriate clinical judgement or an inappropriate care gap. The panel felt strongly that use of indicators, guidelines or criteria providing clinical decision support should never replace critical thinking in patient care.139
Strengths and weaknesses
We have followed a recommended approach120 by suggesting criteria for which high-quality evidence exists linking best practice with improved outcomes; where there are established evidence–practice gaps98 99; and where the health conditions impose the greatest burden on the healthcare system. We used a validated consensus method, an expert panel of varied specialisation, and criteria written with the aim of conciseness and clarity.
In addition to face and content validity, these validated criteria, much like performance indicators, will require further developmental work to provide evidence of their acceptability, operational feasibility, reliability and degree of predictive validity.35 133 Some of this work has already started with the original criteria.95 Further, these criteria only cover commonly occurring medicines and medical conditions. In addition, judgements made by an expert panel may not be representative of all healthcare professionals.
Intended use
These validated criteria are intended for use by healthcare providers to enhance the quality of the Australian medication review process, for quality improvement, educational purposes and internal audit. They are also intended for external quality assessment, such as use by policy makers and for public reporting. Stakeholder involvement will be critical to facilitate local uptake and encourage further research into the effects on health outcomes.125
This study validated 41 prescribing appropriateness criteria to assist in identifying DRPs in older (≥65 years) Australians. These criteria are intended to represent an addition to the medication management skill set that includes consideration of limited life expectancy, evidence base in the oldest old, drug burden and care coordination, patient and care-giver education, empowerment for self management, and shared decision-making. These skills are far from a ‘do everything for everyone’ philosophy, where aggressive treatment may encourage more care, not more appropriate care.31 135 Despite the presence of clinical decision support tools, healthcare providers need to know how to think about clinical problems, not just what to think.139
Supplementary Material
Author's manuscript
Reviewer comments
Contributors: BJB designed and organised the study, analysed and interpreted the data and drafted the manuscript. TFC and RJM made substantial contributions to the conception, design, analysis and interpretation of the data and to critically revising the draft. All authors take responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the study. All authors have given final approval of the version to be published.
Competing interests: None.
Ethics approval: Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Sydney.
Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement: No additional data are available.
1. Kwint H-F, Faber A, Gussekloo J, et al. Effects of medication review on drug-related problems in patients using automated drug-dispensing systems. Drugs Aging 2011;28:305–14. [PubMed]
2. Ellitt GR, Engblom E, Aslani P, et al. Drug related problems after discharge from an Australian teaching hospital. Pharm World Sci 2010;32:622–30. [PubMed]
3. Nishtala PS, McLachlan AJ, Bell JS, et al. A retrospective study of drug-related problems in Australian aged care homes: medication reviews involving pharmacists and general practitioners J Eval Clin Pract 2011;17:97–103. [PubMed]
4. Stafford AC, Tenni PC, Peterson GM, et al. Drug-related problems identified in medication reviews by Australian pharmacists. Pharm World Sci 2009;31:216–23. [PubMed]
5. Hilmer SN, Gnjidic D. The effects of polypharmacy in older adults. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2009;85:86–8. [PubMed]
6. Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, et al. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. BMJ 2004;329:15–19. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
7. Kongkaew C, Noyce PR, Ashcroft DM. Hospital admissions associated with adverse drug reactions: a systematic review of prospective observational studies. Ann Pharmacother 2008;42:1017–25. [PubMed]
8. Castelino RL, Chen TF, Guddattu V, et al. Use of evidence-based therapy for the prevention of cardiovascular events among older people. Eval Health Prof 2010;33:276–301. [PubMed]
9. Heeley EL, Peiris DP, Patel AA, et al. Cardiovascular risk perception and evidence-practice gaps in Australian general practice (the AusHEART study). MJA 2010;192:254–9. [PubMed]
10. National Institute of Clinical Studies, Australian Government Evidence-practice gaps report, vol. 1. A review of developments 2004–2007. 2008.–2007 (accessed 18 Jul 2012).
11. Gilbert AL, Roughead EE, Beilby J, et al. Collaborative medication management services: improving patient care. MJA 2002;177:189–92. [PubMed]
12. Elliott RA, Martinac G, Campbell S, et al. Pharmacist-led medication review to identify medication-related problems in older people referred to an aged care assessment team. A randomiized comparative study . Drugs Aging 2012;29:593–605. [PubMed]
13. Kaur S, Mitchell G, Vitetta L, et al. Interventions that can reduce inappropriate prescribing in the elderly. Drugs Aging 2009;26:1013–28. [PubMed]
14. Tulner LR, van Campen JPCM, Frankfort SV, et al. Changes in under-treatment after comprehensive geriatric assessment. An observational study. Drugs Aging 2010;27:831–43. [PubMed]
15. Le Couteur DG, Banks E, Gnjidic D, et al. Deprescribing. Aust Presc 2011;34:182–5.
16. Garfinkel D, Mangin D. Feasibility study of a systemic approach for discontinuation of multiple medications in older adults. Arch Intern Med 2010;170:1648–54. [PubMed]
17. Gill JM, Mainous AG, Koopman RJ, et al. Impact of EHR-based clinical decision support on adherence to guidelines for patients on NSAID's: a randomised controlled trial. Ann Fam Med 2011;9:22–30. [PubMed]
18. O'Connor PJ, Sperl-Hillen JM, Rush WA, et al. Impact of elecronic health record clinical decision support on diabetes care; a randomised trial. Ann Fam Med 2011;9:12–21. [PubMed]
19. Chang C-B, Chan D-C. Comparison of published explicit criteria for potentially inappropriate medications in older adults. Drugs Aging 2010;27:947–57. [PubMed]
20. Scott I, Jayathissa S. Quality of drug prescribing in older patients: is there a problem and can we improve it? Intern Med J 2010;40:7–18. [PubMed]
21. Gallagher P, Ryan C, Byrne S, et al. STOPP (screening tool of older person's prescriptions) and START (screening tool to alert doctors to right treatment). Consensus validation . Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008;46:72–83. [PubMed]
22. American Geriatrics Society updated Beers criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults The American Geriatrics Society 2012 Beers Criteria update expert panel. J Am Geriatr Soc 2012;60:616–31. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
23. Medicare Australia [homepage on the internet] Australian Government. Home Medicines Review. (accessed 17 Jul 2012).
24. Pharmaceutical Society of Australia Guidelines for pharmacists providing Residential Medication Management Review (RMMR) and Quality Use of Medicines (QUM) services . 2011. (accessed 17 Aug 2012).
25. Basger BJ, Chen TF, Moles RJ. Inappropriate medication use and prescribing indicators in elderly Australians. Drugs Aging 2008;25:777–93. [PubMed]
26. Chang C-B, Chen J-H, Wen C-J, et al. Potentially inappropriate medications in geriatric outpatients with polypharmacy: application of six sets of published explicit criteria. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2011;72:482–89. [PubMed]
27. Laroche ML, Charmes JP, Bouthier JP, et al. Inappropriate medications in the elderly. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2009;85:94–7. [PubMed]
28. Maio V, Jutkowitz E, Herrera K, et al. Appropriate medication prescribing in elderly patients: how knowledgeable are primary care physicians? A survey study in Parma, Italy. J Clin Pharm Ther 2011;36:468–80. [PubMed]
29. Resnick B, Pacala JT. 2012 Beers criteria. J Am Geriatr Soc 2012;60:612–13. [PubMed]
30. Fried TR, Tinetti ME, Iannone MA. Primary care clinicians experiences with treatment decision making for older persons with multiple conditions. Arch Intern Med 2011;171:75–80. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
31. Hayward RA. Performance measurement in search of a path. N Eng J Med 2007;356:951–2. [PubMed]
32. Dimitrow MS, Airaksinen MSA, Kivela S-L, et al. Comparison of prescribing criteria to evaluate the appropriateness of drug treatment in individuals aged 65 and older: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc 2011;59:1521–30. [PubMed]
33. Mangin D, Sweeney K, Heath I. Preventative health care in elderly people needs rethinking. BMJ 2007;335:285–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
34. Scott IA, Guyatt GH. Cautionary tales in the interpretation of clinical studies involving older persons. Arch Intern Med 2010;170:587–95. [PubMed]
35. Martirosyan L, Voorham J, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, et al. A systematic literature review: prescribing indicators related to type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular risk management. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2010;19:319–34. [PubMed]
36. Bettering the evaluation and care of health (BEACH) Family Medicine Research Centre. The University of Sydney; (accessed 18 Jul 2012).
37. Access to Pharmaceutical Services Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Department of Health and Ageing. Australian Government;$File/Outcome%202%20-%20Access%20to%20Pharmaceutical%20Services.pdf (accessed 10 Jul 2012).
38. eTG complete [CD-ROM] Melbourne (VIC): Therapeutic Guidelines: 2011. Nov.
39. Rossi S, editor. , ed. Australian Medicines Handbook 2012 (CD-ROM). Adelaide: Australian Medicines Handbook Pty Ltd, 2012.
40. NSW Therapeutic Advisory Group Indicators for Quality Use of Medicines in Australian Hospitals 2007. (accessed 18 Jul 2012).
41. Fitch K, Bernstein SJ, Aguilar MS, et al. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User's Manual 2001. Rand Corporation; (accessed 18 Jul 2012).
42. McGory ML, Kao KK, Shekelle PG, et al. Developing quality indicators for elderly surgical patients. Ann Surg 2009;250:338–47. [PubMed]
43. SooHoo NF, Lieberman JR, Farng E, et al. Development of quality of care indicators for patients undergoing total hip or total knee replacement. Qual Saf 2011;20:153–7. [PubMed]
44. Avery AJ, Dex GM, Mulvaney C, et al. Development of prescribing-safety indicators got GPs using the RAND appropriateness method. Brit J Gen Pract 2011;61:526–36. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
45. Levy HB, Marcus E-L, Christen C. Beyond the Beers criteria: a comparative overview of explicit criteria . Ann Pharmacother 2010;44:1968–75. [PubMed]
46. Shekelle PG. Appropriateness criteria: a useful tool for the cardiologist. Heart 2009;95:517–20. [PubMed]
47. Hypertension and target blood pressure. National Prescribing Service Indicators of quality prescribing in Australian general practice. A Manual for Users [online]. (accessed 18 Jul 2012).
48. Heart Foundation Guide to management of hypertension 2008 Updated December 2010 (accessed 18 Jul 2012).
49. Rossi S, ed. Australian medicines handbook drug choice companion: aged care. 3rd edn Adelaide: Australian Medicines Handbook Pty Ltd, 2010.
50. Charpentier MM, Bundeff MM. Treating hypertension in the very elderly. Ann Pharmacother 2011;45:1138–45. [PubMed]
51. Gribbin J, Hubbard R, Gladman JRF, et al. Risk of falls associated with antihypertensive medication; population-based case control study. Age Ageing 2010;39:592–7. [PubMed]
52. Tinetti ME, Kumar C. The patient who falls. JAMA 2010;303:258–66. [PubMed]
53. Therapeutics Initiative Do statins have a role in primary prevention? An update. Ther Lett 2010;77:1–5 (accessed 18 Jul 2012).
54. Ray KK, Seshasai SRK, Erqou S, et al. Statins and all-cause mortality in high-risk primary prevention. A meta-analysis of 11 randomised controlled trials involving 65,229 participants . Arch Intern Med 2010;170:1024–31. [PubMed]
55. deLorgeril M, Salen P, Abramson J, et al. Cholesterol lowering, cardiovascular diseases, and the rosuvastatin-JUPITER controversy. A critical reappraisal . Arch Intern Med 2010;170:1032–6. [PubMed]
56. Petersen LK, Christensen K, Kragstrup J. Lipid-lowering treatment to the end? A review of observational studies and RCTs on cholesterol and mortality in 80+-year olds. Age Ageing 2010;39:674–80. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
57. Robinson JG. Lipid-lowering therapy for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in the elderly. Opportunities and challenges . Drugs Aging 2009;26:917–31. [PubMed]
58. Krum H, Jelinek M, Stewart S, et al. 2011 Update to National Heart Foundation of Australia and Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand guidelines for the prevention, detection and management of chronic heart failure in Australia 2006. MJA 2011;194:405–9. [PubMed]
59. Krum H, Teerlink JR. Medical therapy for chronic heart failure. Lancet 2011;378:713–21. [PubMed]
60. Huang D, Cheng JWM. Pharmacologic management of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Ann Pharmacother 2010;44:1933–45. [PubMed]
61. Management of diastolic heart failure [revised 2008 June]. In: eTG complete [CD-ROM]. Melbourne: Therapeutic Guidelines Limited, 2011.
62. Huang N, Duggan K, Harman J. Lifestyle management of hypertension. Aust Presc 2008;31:150–3.
63. Stokes GS. Management of hypertension in the elderly patient. Clin Interv Aging 2009;4:379–89. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
64. 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;53:1912–20. [PubMed]
65. De Caterina R, Hylek EM. Stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: current status and near-future directions. Am J Med 2011;124:793–9. [PubMed]
66. Gillett RG, Norrell A. Considerations for safe use of statins: liver enzyme abnormalities and muscle toxicity. Am Fam Physician 2011;83:711–16. [PubMed]
67. Thomas JE, Tershakovec AM, Jones-Burton C, et al. Lipid lowering for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in older adults. Drugs Aging 2010;27:959–72. [PubMed]
68. Perrotta C, Aznar M, Mejia R, et al. Oestrogens for preventing recurrent urinary tract infection in postmenopausal women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;. (2): CD005131 doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005131.pub2. [PubMed]
69. Treatment of hypothyroidism [revised 2009 June]. In: eTG complete [CD-ROM]. Melbourne: Therapeutic Guidelines Limited, 2011.
70. Reducing Risk in Heart Disease 2007 A summary guide for preventing cardiovascular events in people with coronary heart disease. Updated 2008. National Heart Foundation of Australia and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (accessed 12 Jul 2012).
71. Volpe M. Should all patients at high cardiovascular risk receive renin-angiotensin system blockers? Q J Med 2012;105:11–27. [PubMed]
72. Boyd CM, Leff B, Wolff JL, et al. Informing clinical practice guideline development and implementation: prevalence of coexisting conditions among adults with coronary heart disease. J Am Geriatr Soc 2011;59:797–805. [PubMed]
73. Heart Foundation. Guide to management of Hypertension 2008 updated 2010 [online]. (accessed 18 Jul 2012).
74. Guidelines for the assessment of absolute cardiovascular disease risk (accessed 18 Jul 2012).
75. Holmes HM. Rational prescribing for patients with a reduced life expectancy. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2009;85:103–7. [PubMed]
76. Improving treatment of systolic heart failure. NPS News 75, 2011 National Prescribing Service Limited; (accessed 18 Jul 2012).
77. Caughey GE, Roughead EE, Shakib S, et al. Co-morbidity and potential treatment conflicts in elderly heart failure patients. Drugs Aging 2011;28:575–81. [PubMed]
78. Lip GYH, Halperin JL. Improving stroke risk stratification in atrial fibrillation. Am J Med 2010;123:484–8. [PubMed]
79. Hughes M, Lip GYH. Risk factors for anticoagulation-related bleeding complications in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review. Q J Med 2007;100:599–607. [PubMed]
80. Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee. Statins and muscle disorders—be careful with the dose. Aust Adverse Drug React Bull 2008 ;27 (accessed 18 Jul 2012).
81. LeChauncy WD, Landrum CR, Urech TH, et al. Treating chronically ill people with diabetes mellitus with limited life expectancy: Implications for performance measurement. J Am Geriatr Soc 2012;60:193–201. [PubMed]
82. Lee SJ, Boscardin WJ, Cenzer IS, et al. The risks and benefits of implementing glycemic control guidelines in frail older adults with diabetes mellitus. J Am Geriatr Soc 2011;59:666–72. [PubMed]
83. Joint Formulary Committee British National Formulary (online) London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press; <> (accessed 18 Jul 2012).
84. Analgesic choices in persistent pain. Prescribing Pract Rev 2006;35 National Prescribing Service Limited (accessed 18 Jul 2012).
85. Hill KD, Wee R. Psychotropic drug-induced falls in older people. A review of interventions aimed at reducing the problem. Drugs Aging 2012;29:15–30. [PubMed]
86. Zeimer H. Medications and falls in older people. J Pharm Pract Res 2008;38:148–51.
87. Caughey GE, Roughead EE, Shakib S, et al. Comorbidity of chronic disease and potential treatment conflicts in older people dispensed antidepressants. Age Ageing 2010;39:488–94. [PubMed]
88. Proton pump inhibitors NPS News 46, 2006. National Prescribing Service Limited; (accessed 18 Jul 2012).
89. National Asthma Council Australia Asthma Management Handbook 2006. Australia, Melbourne: National Asthma Council, 2006. (accessed 18 Jul 2012).
90. Inderjeeth CA, Poland KE. Management of osteoporosis in older people. J Pharm Pract Res 2010;40:229–34.
91. Reducing fracture risk in osteoporosis. NPS News 73, 2011. National Prescribing Service Limited; (accessed 18 Jul 2012).
92. Gates BJ, Sonnett TE, DuVall CAK, et al. Review of osteoporosis pharmacotherapy for geriatric patients. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother 2009;7:293–323. [PubMed]
93. Cheung AM, Detsky AS. Osteoporosis and fractures–missing the bridge? JAMA 2008;299:1468–70. [PubMed]
94. Commonwealth of Australia The National Strategy for Quality Use of Medicines Plain English Edition [online].$File/natstrateng.pdf (accessed 18 Jul 2012).
95. Basger BJ, Chen TF, Moles RJ. Application of a prescribing indicators tool to assist in identifying drug-related problems in a cohort of older Australians. Int J Pharm Pract 2012;20:172–82. [PubMed]
96. Caughey GE, Vitry AI, Gilbert AL, et al. Prevalence of comorbidity of chronic diseases in Australia. BMC Public Health 2008. (accessed 18 Jul 2012). [PMC free article] [PubMed]
97. Top 40 most frequently managed problems: Patients aged 65+. Personal communication, unpublished data from the BEACH Program, Family Medicine Research Centre, University of Sydney, November 2011. (accessed 10 Jul 2012).
98. Evidence-practice gaps report. Vol. 2. National Institute of Clinical Studies. Australian Government; 2005. (accessed 12 Jul 2012).
99. Evidence-practice gaps report Vol. 1 National Institute of Clinical Studies, Australian Government; 2003. (accessed 17 July 2012).
100. Evidence-practice gaps report. Vol 1. A review of developments: 2004–2007. National Institute of Clinical Studies. Australian Government; (accessed 17 July 2012).
101. Bajorek BV, Ren S. Utilisation of antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation in a Sydney hospital: then and now. Int J Clin Pharm 2012;34:88–97. [PubMed]
102. O'Connor MN, Gallagher P, O'Mahony D. Inappropriate prescribing. Criteria, detection and prevention. Drugs Aging 2012;29:437–52. [PubMed]
103. Castelino RL, Bajorek BV, Chen TF. Retrospective evaluation of home medicine review by pharmacists in older Australian Patients using the Medication Appropriateness Index. Ann Pharmacother 2010;44:1922–9. [PubMed]
104. King MA, Roberts MS. The influence of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) on inappropriate prescribing in Australian nursing homes. Phar World Sci 2007;29:39–42. [PubMed]
105. Stafford AC, Alswayan MS, Tenni PC. Inappropriate prescribing in older residents of Australian care homes. J Clin Pharm Ther 2011;36:33–44. [PubMed]
106. Widagdo IS, Nyfort-Hansen K, Kowalski SR. Prevalence of potentially inappropriate medication use in elderly hospitalised patients. J Pharm Pract Res 2011;41:122–5.
107. Roughead EE, Anderson B, Gilbert AL. Potentially inappropriate prescribing among Australian veterans and war widows/widowers. Intern Med J 2007;37:402–5. [PubMed]
108. Fick DM, Cooper JW, Wade WE, et al. Updating the Beers criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults: results of a US consensus panel of experts. Arch Intern Med 2003;163:2716–24. [PubMed]
109. Ryan C, O'Mahony D, Kennedy J, et al. Appropriate prescribing in the elderly: an investigation of two screening tools, Beers criteria considering diagnosis and independent of diagnosis and improving prescribing in the elderly tool to identify inappropriate use of medicines in the elderly in primary care in Ireland. J Clin Pharm Ther 2009;34:369–76. [PubMed]
110. Ionescu-Ittu R, Abrahamowicz M, Jackevicius CA, et al. Comparative effectiveness of rhythm control vs rate control drug treatment effect on mortality in patients with atrial fibrillation. Arch Intern Med 2012;172:997–1004. [PubMed]
111. Page RL, Linnebur SA, Bryant LL, et al. Inappropriate prescribing in the hospitalised elderly patient: defining the problem, evaluation tools, and possible solutions. Clin Interv Aging 2010;5:75–87. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
112. Holt S, Schmiedl S, Thurmann PA. Potentially inappropriate medications in the elderly: the PRISCUS list. Dtsch Arzteblatt Int 2010;107:543–51. [PubMed]
113. Laroche ML, Charmes JP, Merle L. Potentially inappropriate medications in the elderly: a French consensus panel list. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2007;63:725–31. [PubMed]
114. Beers MH. Explicit criteria for determining potentially inappropriate medication use by the elderly. An update. Arch Intern Med 1997;157:1531–6. [PubMed]
115. Beers MH, Ouslander JG, Rollingher I, et al. Explicit criteria for determining inappropriate medication use in nursing home residents. UCLA Division of Geriatric Medicine Arch Intern Med 1991;151:1825–32. [PubMed]
116. McLeod PJ, Huang AR, Tamblyn RM, et al. Defining inappropriate practices in prescribing for elderly people: a national consensus panel. CMAJ 1997;156:385–91. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
117. Zhan C, Sangl J, Bierman AS, et al. Potentially inappropriate medication use in the community-dwelling elderly: findings from the 1996 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. JAMA 2001;286:2823–9. [PubMed]
118. Starfield B, Lemke KW, Herbert R, et al. Comorbidity and the use of primar care and specialist care in the elderly. Ann Fam Med 2005;3:215–22. [PubMed]
119. Barnett K, Mercer SW, Norbury M, et al. Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study. Lancet 2012;380:37–43. [PubMed]
120. Evans SM, Lowinger JS, Sprivulis PC, et al. Prioritizing quality indicator development across the healthcare system: identifying what to measure. Intern Med J 2009;39:648–54. [PubMed]
121. Elliott RA, Woodward MC, Oborne CA. Indicators of prescribing quality for elderly hospital inpatients. Aust J Hosp Pharm 2001;31:19–25.
122. National Prescribing Service Indicators of quality prescribing in Australian general practice 2006. A Manual for Users. (accessed 18 Jul 2012).
123. A proposed set of clinical indicators for stakeholder comment by 30 July 2012. RACGP clinical improvement unit practice, policy and innovation department. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners; (accessed 16 Jul 2012).
124. Morris CJ, Cantrill JA, Hepler CD, et al. Preventing drug-related morbidity—determining valid indicators. Int J Qual Health Care 2002;14:183–98. [PubMed]
125. Bell JS, Le Couteur DG, McLachlan AJ, et al. Improving medicine selection for older people. Do we need an Australian classification for inappropriate medicines use? Aust Fam Physician 2012;41:9–10. [PubMed]
126. Britt H, Miller GC, Charles J, et al. General practice activity in Australia 2000–1 to 2009–10: 10 year data tables. General practice series no. 28. Cat. no. GEP 28. Canberra: AIHW, 2010. (accessed 17 Jul 2012).
127. Boyd CM, Darer J, Boult C, et al. Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases. JAMA 2005;294:716–24. [PubMed]
128. Kamerow D. How can we treat multiple chronic conditions? BMJ 2012;344:e1487 doi:10.136/bmj.e87. [PubMed]
129. Richmond RL, Law J, Kay-Lambkin F. Physical, mental, and cognitive function in a convenience sample of centenarians in Australia. J Am Geriatr Soc 2011;59:1080–6. [PubMed]
130. Wastesson JW, Parker MG, Fastbom J, et al. Drug use in centenarians compared with nonagenarians and octogenarians in Sweden: a nationwide register-based study. Age Ageing 2012;41:218–24. [PubMed]
131. Watts G. Why the exclusion of older people from clinical research must stop. BMJ 2012;344:e3445. [PubMed]
132. Frada G, Bennati E, Cardillo E, et al. Pharmacotherapy in the extreme longevity. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2009;49:60–3. [PubMed]
133. Campbell SM, Braspenning J, Hutchinson A, et al. Research methods used in developing and applying quality indicators in primary care. Qual Saf Health Care 2002;11:358–64. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
134. Vitry AI, Zhang Y. Quality of Australian clinical guidelines and relevance to the care of older people with multiple comorbid conditions. Med J Aust 2008;189:360–5. [PubMed]
135. Lee SJ, Walter LC. Quality indicators for older adults. Preventing unintended harms. JAMA 2011;306:1481–2. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
136. Gilbert AL, Caughey GE, Vitry AI, et al. Ageing well: improving the management of patients with multiple chronic health problems. Australas J Ageing 2011;30(S2):32–7. [PubMed]
137. Gnjidic D, Hilmer SN, Blyth FM, et al. High-risk prescribing and incidence of frailty among older community-dwelling men. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2012;91:521–8. [PubMed]
138. Sirois C, Moisan J, Poirier P, et al. Association between age and the initiation of antihypertensive, lipid lowering and antiplatelet medications in elderly individuals newly treated with antidiabetic drugs. Age Ageing 2009;38:741–5. [PubMed]
139. Powers JH. Practice guidelines. Belief, criticism, and probability. Arch Intern Med 2011;171:15–16. [PubMed]
Articles from BMJ Open are provided here courtesy of
BMJ Group