Talk to the Veterans Crisis Line now
U.S. flag
An official website of the United States government

Health Services Research & Development

Go to the ORD website
Go to the QUERI website

HSR&D Citation Abstract

Search | Search by Center | Search by Source | Keywords in Title

Incidence- Versus Prevalence-Based Measures of Inappropriate Prescribing in the Veterans Health Administration.

Lund BC, Carrel M, Gellad WF, Chrischilles EA, Kaboli PJ. Incidence- Versus Prevalence-Based Measures of Inappropriate Prescribing in the Veterans Health Administration. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2015 Aug 1; 63(8):1601-7.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.
   Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions



Abstract:

OBJECTIVES: To describe variations in potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) and characterize the extent to which switching to an incidence-based indicator would affect health system quality rankings. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Veterans Health Administration in 2011. PARTICIPANTS: Older adults receiving outpatient primary care. MEASUREMENTS: PIP was defined according to the National Committee for Quality Assurance High-Risk Medications in the Elderly list. Ranks were separately assigned for prevalent and incident PIP at the regional, network, and healthcare system levels. RESULTS: National PIP prevalence was 12.3% (167,766/1,360,251), and incidence was 5.8% (78,604/1,360,251). PIP prevalence ranged from 3.5% to 33.1% across healthcare systems (interquartile range (IQR) = 9.2-15.5%). PIP incidence ranged from 1.2% to 14.9% (IQR = 4.1-7.2%). Rank order in PIP prevalence and incidence was correlated (Spearman correlation; ? = 0.934, P < .001), although substantial changes in ranks were seen for some healthcare systems, with seven of 139 (5.0%) systems shifting more than 30 rank positions and 21 (15.1%) systems shifting 16 to 30 positions. CONCLUSION: Prevalence- and incidence-based indicators of prescribing quality were strongly correlated. Transitioning to incidence-based indicators would not produce an initial disruption in quality rankings for most healthcare systems and might yield more-salient measures for tracking healthcare quality.





Questions about the HSR&D website? Email the Web Team.

Any health information on this website is strictly for informational purposes and is not intended as medical advice. It should not be used to diagnose or treat any condition.