Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40825531›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2025

Quality indicators for safe and effective use of medications in long-term care settings: A systematic review.

Daria S Gutteridge, Annabel H Calder, Jacquelina Stasinopoulos, Sara Javanparast, Gillian E Caughey, Jodie B Hillen, Andrew C Stafford, Gregory M Peterson, Maria C Inacio, Jyoti Khadka and 11 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Daria S GutteridgeUniversity of South Australia, UniSA Allied Health and Human Performance, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7527-4052
Annabel H CalderUniversity of South Australia, UniSA Allied Health and Human Performance, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Jacquelina StasinopoulosUniversity of South Australia, UniSA Allied Health and Human Performance, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Sara JavanparastUniversity of South Australia, UniSA Allied Health and Human Performance, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Gillian E CaugheyRegistry of Senior Australians Research Centre, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Jodie B HillenSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Health, Medical and Behavioural Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Andrew C StaffordCurtin Medical School, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Gregory M PetersonUniversity of Tasmania, School of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, Hobart, TAS, Australia.
Maria C InacioRegistry of Senior Australians Research Centre, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Jyoti KhadkaRegistry of Senior Australians Research Centre, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Lisa M Kalisch EllettUniversity of South Australia, Quality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, UniSA Clinical and Health Sciences, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Shane L JacksonUniversity of Tasmania, School of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, Hobart, TAS, Australia.
Peter D HibbertUniversity of South Australia, UniSA Allied Health and Human Performance, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Monica L CationsCollege of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Megan E CorlisAustralian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (SA Branch), Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Solomon C YuAdelaide Geriatrics Training and Research with Aged Care (GTRAC) Centre, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Malcom J ClarkDepartment of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Natalie R SoulsbyEmbedded Health Solutions, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Elizabeth ManiasSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3747-0087
Grace H-Y YooUniversity of South Australia, UniSA Allied Health and Human Performance, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Janet K SluggettUniversity of South Australia, UniSA Allied Health and Human Performance, Adelaide, SA, Australia.

Funding

Medical Research Future Fund MRFMMIP000019National Health and Medical Research Council GNT119378National Health and Medical Research Council GNT1194084National Health and Medical Research Council GNT2016277National Health and Medical Research Council GNT2026400University of South Australia
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People accessing aged care services are increasingly older and often experience multimorbidity and polypharmacy, which puts them at risk of medication-related harm. Quality indicators (QIs) can assist with monitoring, benchmarking and informing initiatives to reduce medication-related harm. This systematic review aimed to identify and summarize QIs that assess the safe and effective use of medications in long-term care services. Bibliographic databases and grey literature were searched to identify relevant QIs. Eligible publications were in English and described the development, application and/or validation of QIs in long-term care facilities or in-home aged care services. QI information, including their development and settings, were extracted. All QIs were classified according to 3 validated classification systems and grouped by themes constructed from the review. From the 62 academic articles and 16 grey literature documents included, 53 QI sets were extracted, which comprised 442 individual QIs and 18 potentially inappropriate medication lists were identified. Most (80%, n = 354) QIs were process indicators. About 1/4 (26%, n = 115) were medication-specific QIs focusing mainly on prevalence of use and dosing, with similar numbers for infection prevention and control (25%, n = 112). A smaller proportion (7%, n = 32) of QIs encompassed person-centred measures such as resident involvement in medication-related decisions. This comprehensive overview of contemporary QIs to monitor medication safety and effectiveness across long-term care services can help clinicians, aged care providers and policy makers to identify important measures to employ in aged care settings to monitor and influence care improvements.

Indexed as

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsLong-Term CareQuality Indicators, Health CareAgedHomes for the AgedHumansInappropriate PrescribingNursing HomesPolypharmacyPotentially Inappropriate Medication Listhealth carehealth services for the agedhome caremedicinesmonitoringnursing homespatient safety

Identifiers

PMID40825531
PMCPMC12569564

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.