loading page

Prevalence of potentially suboptimal prescribing and associated cognitive risk in Aboriginal primary care
  • +11
  • Marycarol Holdaway,
  • Zoë Hyde,
  • Jo-anne Hughson,
  • Roslyn Malay,
  • Andrew Stafford,
  • Kate Fulford,
  • Kylie Radford,
  • Leon Flicker,
  • Kate Smith,
  • Constance Dimity Pond,
  • Sarah Russell,
  • David Atkinson,
  • Irene Blackberry,
  • Dina LoGiudice
Marycarol Holdaway
The University of Melbourne Medicine at Royal Melbourne Hospital
Author Profile
Zoë Hyde
The University of Western Australia
Author Profile
Jo-anne Hughson
The University of Melbourne Medicine at Royal Melbourne Hospital
Author Profile
Roslyn Malay
The University of Western Australia
Author Profile
Andrew Stafford
Curtin University Faculty of Health Sciences
Author Profile
Kate Fulford
The University of Western Australia
Author Profile
Kylie Radford
Neuroscience Research Australia
Author Profile
Leon Flicker
The University of Western Australia
Author Profile
Kate Smith
The University of Western Australia
Author Profile
Constance Dimity Pond
The University of Newcastle
Author Profile
Sarah Russell
James Cook University College of Medicine and Dentistry
Author Profile
David Atkinson
The University of Western Australia
Author Profile
Irene Blackberry
La Trobe University Rural Health School
Author Profile
Dina LoGiudice
The University of Melbourne Medicine at Royal Melbourne Hospital

Corresponding Author:[email protected]

Author Profile

Abstract

Aim Prevalence of potentially suboptimal prescribing and associated risk factors were investigated among older patients attending primary care via Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHSs). Methods Prescription medications were audited for 420 systematically selected patients aged ≥50 years at three ACCHSs in urban, rural, and remote settings. Polypharmacy, potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), and anticholinergic burden (ACB) were estimated and associated risk factors explored with logistic regression. Results The prevalence of polypharmacy, use of PIMs, and ACB score ≥3, was 43%, 18%, and 12%, respectively. In multivariable logistic regression analyses, polypharmacy was less likely in rural (OR=0.43, 95% CI=0.24-0.77) compared to urban health service patients, and more likely in those with heart disease (OR=2.62, 95% CI=1.62-4.25), atrial fibrillation (OR=4.25, 95% CI=1.08-16.81), hypertension (OR=2.14, 95% CI=1.34-3.44), diabetes (OR=2.72, 95% CI=1.69-4.39), or depression (OR=1.91, 95% CI=1.19-3.06). PIMs were more frequent in females (OR=1.88, 95% CI=1.03-3.42), and less frequent in rural (OR=0.41, 95% CI=0.19-0.85) and remote (OR=0.58, 95% CI=0.29-1.18) patients. Factors associated with PIMs were kidney disease (OR=2.60, 95% CI=1.37-4.92), urinary incontinence (OR=3.00, 95% CI=1.02-8.83), depression (OR=2.67, 95% CI=1.50-4.77), heavy alcohol use (OR=2.83, 95% CI 1.39-5.75) and subjective cognitive concerns (OR=2.69, 95% CI=1.31-5.52). High anticholinergic burden was less common in rural (OR=0.10, 95% CI 0.03-0.34) and remote (OR=0.51, 95% CI 0.25-1.04) patients, and more common in those with kidney disease (OR=3.07, 95% CI 1.50-6.30), or depression (OR=3.32, 95% CI 1.70-6.47). Conclusion Associations between potentially suboptimal prescribing and depression or cognitive concerns highlights the importance of considered medication review and deprescribing for these patients.