Age and Ageing

Age and Ageing Advance Access originally published online on October 1, 2008
Age and Ageing 2008 37(6):673-679; doi:10.1093/ageing/afn197

This Article Abstract FREE Full Text (PDF) Supplementary Data All Versions of this Article: 37/6/673    most recent afn197v1 E-letters: Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when E-letters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Personal Archive Download to citation manager Search for citing articles in: ISI Web of Science (5) Request Permissions Disclaimer Google Scholar Articles by Gallagher, P. Articles by O’Mahony, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gallagher, P. Articles by O’Mahony, D. Social Bookmarking          What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Persons’ potentially inappropriate Prescriptions): application to acutely ill elderly patients and comparison with Beers’ criteria

Paul Gallagher and Denis O’Mahony

Department of Geriatric Medicine, Cork University Hospital, Wilton, Cork, Ireland

Address correspondence to: Paul Gallagher. Tel: (+353) 21 4922396; Fax: (+353) 21 4922829. Email: pfgallagher77{at}eircom.net Denis O’Mahony. Email: Denis.omahony{at}mailp.hse.ie

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Funding Key points Supplementary data References

 
Introduction: STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Persons’ potentially inappropriate Prescriptions) is a new, systems-defined medicine review tool. We compared the performance of STOPP to that of established Beers’ criteria in detecting potentially inappropriate medicines (PIMs) and related adverse drug events (ADEs) in older patients presenting for hospital admission.

Methods: we prospectively studied 715 consecutive acute admissions to a university teaching hospital. Diagnoses, reason for admission and concurrent medications were recorded. STOPP and Beers’ criteria were applied. PIMs with clear causal connection or contribution to the principal reason for admission were determined.

Results: median patient age (interquartile range) was 77 (72–82) years. Median number of prescription medicines was 6 (range 0–21). STOPP identified 336 PIMs affecting 247 patients (35%), of whom one-third (n = 82) presented with an associated ADE. Beers’ criteria identified 226 PIMs affecting 177 patients (25%), of whom 43 presented with an associated ADE. STOPP-related PIMs contributed to 11.5% of all admissions. Beers’ criteria-related PIMs contributed to significantly fewer admissions (6%).

Conclusion: STOPP criteria identified a significantly higher proportion of patients requiring hospitalisation as a result of PIM-related adverse events than Beers’ criteria. This finding has significant implications for hospital geriatric practice.

Keywords: inappropriate prescribing, elderly, STOPP, screening tool

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Funding Key points Supplementary data References

 
Older people often experience multiple co-morbidities and are prescribed multiple medications thereby increasing the risk of adverse drug events (ADEs), drug–drug and drug–disease interactions [1, 2]. This risk is heightened by age-related physiological changes, which influence pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics [3]. Particular drugs pose special risks to older people as a result of these changes, e.g. prolonged sedation and increased risk of falls with long-acting benzodiazepines [4] or increased risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [5]. Prescription of such drugs is potentially inappropriate, particularly where safer alternatives exist.

Various criteria have been devised to identify potentially inappropriate medicines (PIMs) in older people [6–10], the most frequently cited being Beers’ criteria [6]. Though often used to detect PIMs in large-scale epidemiological studies, some of Beers’ criteria are controversial [11]. There is disagreement over the designation of certain drugs as inappropriate, e.g. amitriptyline [12] and nitrofurantoin [13], and almost half of the PIMs in Beers’ criteria are unavailable in European formularies [14]. Furthermore, few studies report a tangible benefit to patients in terms of clinical outcome from using Beers’ criteria [15]. Therefore, the general clinical relevance and applicability of these criteria is uncertain. Nonetheless, quality and safety of prescribing in older people remains a global healthcare concern and further endeavours to improve appropriateness in medication selection for older people are warranted.

We have devised a new screening tool of older patients’ medicines called STOPP (Screening Tool of Older People's potentially inappropriate Prescriptions). Validation of STOPP is described in detail elsewhere [16]. Briefly, 18 experts in geriatric pharmacotherapy with recognized credentials in their specialist areas were recruited to establish the content validity of STOPP by a Delphi consensus method [17]. The panel comprised nine physicians in geriatric medicine, three clinical pharmacologists, three senior hospital pharmacists with an interest in geriatric pharmacotherapy, two senior academic primary care physicians and one psychiatrist of old age. Sixty-eight potentially inappropriate prescribing practices in older people were presented to the panel, supported by relevant references. Panellists were asked to rate their level of agreement with each statement and to suggest any additional inappropriate prescribing practices. Sixty-five of 68 criteria were included in STOPP following two rounds of the Delphi process, with strong consensus. STOPP incorporates commonly encountered instances of potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people including drug–drug and drug–disease interactions, drugs which adversely affect older patients at risk of falls and duplicate drug class prescriptions (Appendix 1, available at Age and Ageing online). STOPP criteria are arranged according to relevant physiological systems for ease of use, as is the case in most drug formularies. Each criterion is accompanied by a concise explanation as to why the prescription is potentially inappropriate. Inter-rater reliability of STOPP criteria is good with a kappa co-efficient of 0.75 [16].

The objective of the present study was to prospectively evaluate the performance of STOPP and Beers’ criteria (Appendix 2, available at Age and Ageing online) in terms of identifying PIMs with a clear causal connection to, or which are recognised major risk factors for, the main presenting problem in consecutive, non-selected, acutely ill, older patients requiring admission to a university teaching hospital.

	Methods

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Funding Key points Supplementary data References

 
Study population
We prospectively studied 715 consecutive older patients admitted with acute illness to a university teaching hospital over a 4-month period in 2007. All patients were aged 65 years and over and were admitted via the Emergency Department following referral by their general practitioner (GP) or self-referral. All were admitted under the care of the general medical or surgical services as required, similar to the admission policies of the National Health Service in the United Kingdom. The local Clinical Research Ethics Committee approved the study protocol.

Data collection
Standard demographic details, principal clinical reason for admission, medical co-morbidities, concurrent medications, serum biochemistry and electrocardiograph results were abstracted from each patient's admission document and cross-referenced with the GP referral letter, except in those who had self-referred to hospital. Supplementary information was obtained from the patient, GP, community pharmacist and hospital record when necessary, e.g. precise dose and duration of therapy, analgesic history, baseline renal function and blood pressure profile. Recorded medications were those that were prescribed before hospital physician intervention. Non-prescription medications were excluded, as the study focussed on the relationship between adverse prescribing practices and acute illness requiring hospital admission.

Trained geriatric clinical judgement (P.G., D.O’M.) was used to identify adverse effects of medications that were clearly causal or contributory to the principal reason for admission. Such associations had to have previous bibliographic descriptions and were not included if aetiological alternatives were evident. Every effort was made to establish whether or not there was a clear temporal relationship between prescription of the drug and onset of presenting symptoms. STOPP and Beers’ criteria were used to identify PIMs on admission. The proportion of PIMs with clear causal connection or contribution to the principal reason for admission was calculated for each tool. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS for Microsoft version 14. Descriptive statistics included median and interquartile range for non-parametric variables. Tests of association were performed using the chi-square statistic. The Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis tests were used to determine independence of two or more non-parametric variables, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine the influence of gender, age and number of medications on PIM-related admissions. A probability value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Funding Key points Supplementary data References

 
Data were prospectively collected from 715 consecutive patients, of which 386 (54%) were females (Table 1). The median age (interquartile range) was 77 (72–82) years, the overall range being 65–94 years. The most common presenting conditions included falls with resultant injury such as fracture (27%), ischaemic heart disease (12%), respiratory tract infection (10%), stroke/transient ischaemic attack (7%), cardiac failure (6%) and delirium (5%). The most prevalent co-morbidities included hypertension (40%), ischaemic heart disease (29%), atrial fibrillation (18%), stroke (16%), diabetes mellitus (16%), dementia (10%) and depression (8%).

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 1. Characteristics of the study population (n = 715)

 
A total of 4,403 medications were prescribed in this cohort with a median of 6 and a range of 0–21 medications (Table 1). Forty-eight per cent (n = 341) of patients were prescribed 5 medications and 41% (n = 293) were prescribed between 6 and 10 medications. High-level polypharmacy, i.e. > 10 medications, was identified in 11% (n = 81) of patients. There was no significant difference between numbers of medications prescribed in males and females (P = 0.515) or across the three age categories (P = 0.733).

Potentially inappropriate medicines
Three hundred and thirty-six medicines were potentially inappropriate according to STOPP criteria (Table 2). These were distributed amongst 35% (n = 247) of the study population with 180 patients (25%) receiving one PIM, 49 (7%) receiving two PIMs, 14 (2%) receiving three PIMs, 3 receiving four PIMs and 1 patient receiving five PIMs concurrently. The most common PIMs identified by STOPP included (i) psychoactive medications such as long-acting benzodiazepines, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) with clear-cut contraindications and first-generation antihistamines; (ii) medications that increase the probability of falls in those already prone to falls, e.g. benzodiazepines, neuroleptics and vasodilator drugs known to cause hypotension in patients with persistent postural hypotension; (iii) inappropriate use of NSAIDs and opiates and (iv) duplicate drug class prescriptions including two ACE inhibitors, two NSAIDs, two selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or dual antiplatelet therapy without indication. Beers’ criteria identified 226 PIMs (Table 3) distributed amongst 177 patients (25%) with 135 patients (19%) receiving 1 PIM, 26 patients (5%) receiving 2 PIMs, 5 patients receiving 3 PIMs and 1 patient receiving 4 PIMs concurrently. There was a significant difference in the numbers of PIMs detected by STOPP (35%) and by Beers’ criteria (25%) despite the latter containing more criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing than STOPP (Mann–Whitney Z = –8.28; P < 0.001).

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 2. Potentially inappropriate prescriptions as determined by STOPP criteria

 

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 3. Potentially inappropriate prescriptions as determined by Beers’ criteria [6]

 
Adverse effects of prescribed medications
An adverse effect of a prescribed medication was identified as clearly causal or contributory to the principal reason for admission in 90 patients (12.5%) independent of STOPP and Beers’ criteria. Eighty-two of these 90 patients (91%) were prescribed a STOPP criteria PIM that was causal or contributory to admission, e.g. overt digoxin toxicity with high-dose digoxin and renal impairment, upper gastrointestinal bleeding with inappropriate NSAID use and falls with inappropriate psychotropic use (Table 2). Forty-three of these 90 patients (48%) were prescribed a Beers’ criteria PIM that was causal or contributory to admission (Table 3). STOPP identified a significantly higher proportion of patients requiring hospitalisation as a result of PIM-related adverse events than Beers’ criteria (Mann–Whitney Z = –15.33; P<0.001). Neither STOPP nor Beers’ criteria identified any false positive ADE-related acute admissions in this study. Therefore, the specificity of STOPP and Beers’ criteria in detecting potential ADE-related admissions was equal. ADE-related admissions not identified by STOPP criteria included first presentations of SSRI-induced hyponatraemia (n = 2), thiazide-induced hyponatraemia (n = 1) and excessive anticoagulation secondary to warfarin (n = 5).

Multivariate regression analysis accounting for age, gender and numbers of medications showed that females were more likely to be admitted with a PIM-related adverse event than males (STOPP criteria odds ratio 1.87 (95% CI 1.14–3.07); P = 0.014; Beers criteria OR 2.53; 95% CI 1.24–5.15; P = 0.01). Patients prescribed five or fewer medications were less likely to present to hospital with a PIM-related adverse event than those prescribed six or more medications [STOPP criteria OR 0.59 (95% CI 0.37–0.96); P = 0.032, Beers’ criteria OR.44 (95% CI.22–.86) P = 0.016].

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Funding Key points Supplementary data References

 
STOPP identified significantly more PIMs than Beers’ criteria [6] and almost twice as many PIMs with a causal or contributory relationship to hospital admission in this non-selected sample of 715 acutely ill older patients. This highlights the potential for STOPP to be used not only as a screening tool for PIMs but also as a method of identifying potential ADEs in older people, which often present with non-specific symptoms such as confusion, falls or constipation [19]. STOPP, though clearly not a substitute for clinical assessment and judgement, encourages clinicians to consider medications as a possible cause of such symptoms in older people thereby avoiding unnecessary and potentially harmful prescribing cascades, e.g. prescription of an anticholinergic to treat extrapyramidal effects of neuroleptic medication in an older patient with dementia and behavioural symptoms.

Concerns over the suitability of Beers’ criteria for use outside of the United States are re-enforced by the present study [10, 12, 14]. Many of the proscribed drugs in Beers’ criteria are rarely used in Western Europe, e.g. trimethobenzamide, guanadrel or meprobomate. Furthermore, the designation of certain drugs as inappropriate by Beers’ criteria is debatable, e.g. avoidance of amiodarone and doxazosin in older people regardless of the diagnosis [6]. Amiodarone may be the only agent for effective control an arrhythymia, and although not often a first-choice agent, may be entirely appropriate in particular cases. Doxazosin may be appropriate in patients with resistant hypertension. Similarly, nitrofurantoin may be the only antimicrobial to which an infecting pathogen is sensitive and would therefore be appropriate to prescribe. Beers’ criteria identified 44 patients as ‘inappropriately’ receiving these drugs, though they were justified in all but one case. STOPP contains 33 instances of potentially inappropriate prescriptions not found in Beers’ criteria, 28 of which were identified in the present study. These include long-acting benzodiazepines such as nitrazepam and prazepam, excessive duration and dose of proton pump inhibitor therapy and duplicate drug class prescriptions all of which add unnecessarily to cost and complexity of drug regimes for older people without providing additional therapeutic benefit.

Beers’ criteria list three specific TCAs to be avoided in older people: doxepin, amitriptyline and imipramine [6]. In contrast, STOPP highlights the clinical situations where it is potentially inappropriate to prescribe any TCA, e.g. in older patients with dementia, glaucoma, cardiac conductive abnormalities or constipation, thus allowing freedom to prescribe a TCA in situations where it may be indicated, e.g. low-dose amitriptyline in chronic pain syndromes. All 16 patients prescribed amitriptyline in this study were on low-dose amitriptyline for management of neuropathic pain. STOPP identified 5 of these patients as inappropriately receiving amitriptyline, thus allowing the treatment to proceed in the remaining 11 patients who were tolerating the low-dose TCA effectively and without any adverse effect. We believe that this approach is more flexible than that of Beers’ criteria. Similarly, STOPP details particular instances where prescription of NSAIDs is potentially inappropriate, e.g. with peptic ulcer disease, heart failure, hypertension, prolonged treatment in osteoarthritis or gout. STOPP identified more admissions related to adverse effects of NSAIDs (n = 7) than Beers’ criteria (n = 2). In fact, only one of the non-COX selective NSAIDs (naproxen) listed in Beers’ criteria was encountered in this population.

Falls with a resultant injury were among the most common reasons for hospital admission in this study. Though falls are clearly multifactorial in nature, medication review is an essential component of comprehensive falls assessment [4]. STOPP identified 48 patients with a history of falls receiving potentially inappropriate psychoactive or vasodilator medications. In addition, STOPP identified several inappropriate prescriptions in patients presenting with an isolated fall, e.g. long-acting benzodiazepines (n = 17), first-generation antihistamines (n = 2) and inappropriately prescribed opiates (n = 4). Beers’ criteria identified considerably fewer patients whose falls risk was increased as a result of inappropriately prescribed medication (n = 35).

A limitation of this study is that assessment of PIM-related causality or contribution to the presenting complaint was based on trained geriatric clinical judgement as opposed to the criteria of a validated ADE causality assessment tool such as the Naranjo algorithm [20]. However, such judgement replicates everyday clinical practice. As this was an observational study with no interventional component, rigorous ADE-causality assessment criteria involving dechallenge and rechallenge of a drug over time in addition to placebo-response and serum drug-level measurement were not applicable. Such criteria for establishing true ADE causality are rarely practicable in the everyday clinical setting.

Balancing safety and quality of prescribing with appropriate treatment of all co-morbidities is complex and challenging. Geriatrician input and pharmacist review can improve drug appropriateness in older people [15, 21]. However, it is not feasible, in most health services, for a geriatrician to assess all older patients. STOPP can be used in a time-efficient manner by all disciplines involved in the care of older patients, e.g. primary care, secondary care, psychiatry, general or orthopaedic surgery to assess appropriateness of drug treatment, with the intention of minimising the risk of ADEs and associated morbidity. STOPP was designed to be used in conjunction with START (Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right, i.e. appropriate indicated Treatment) [22] to afford a comprehensive appraisal of older patients’ medications, i.e. errors of prescribing commission could be identified at the same time as errors of omission. We acknowledge that the criteria will need regular updating in line with emerging evidence. Whether STOPP/START used as an intervention can significantly improve prescribing appropriateness or reduce drug-related morbidity or mortality remains to be seen. Clearly, substantial randomised controlled trials are required to address these important questions.

	Funding

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Funding Key points Supplementary data References

 
Health Research Board of Ireland (Clinical Research Training Fellowship CRT/2006/029).

	Key points

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Funding Key points Supplementary data References

 

• Potentially inappropriate prescribing is highly prevalent in older patients presenting for hospital admission.
  
• STOPP criteria identified at least one potentially inappropriate medication in 35% of older patients requiring admission to hospital.
  
• Well-recognized adverse effects of inappropriately prescribed medicines were casual or contributory to hospital admission in 11.5% of patients when screened with STOPP criteria compared to 6% when screened with Beers’ criteria.
  
• STOPP criteria are more sensitive in identifying patients coming to harm as a result of inappropriately prescribed medicines than Beers’ criteria.
  

	Supplementary data

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Funding Key points Supplementary data References

 
Supplementary data for this article are available online at http://ageing.oxfordjournals.org.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Funding Key points Supplementary data References

 

1. Juurlink DN, Mamdami M, Kopp A, et al. Drug-drug interactions among elderly patients hospitalised for drug toxicity. JAMA (2003) 289:1652.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Goldberg RM, Mabee J, Chan L, Wong S. Drug-drug and drug-disease interactions in the emergency department: analysis of a high-risk population. Am J Emerg Med (1996) 14:447–50.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
3. Mangoni AA, Jackson SHD. Age-related changes in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: basic principles and practical applications. Br J Clin Pharmacol (2003) 57:6–14.[Web of Science]
4. Tinetti M. Preventing falls in elderly persons. New Eng J Med (2003) 348:42–9.[Free Full Text]
5. Gabriel SE, Jaakkimainen L, Bombardier C. Risk for serious gastrointestinal complications related to use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med (1991) 115:787–96.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Fick DM, Cooper JW, Wade W, 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Hanlon JT, Schmader KE, Sansa GP, et al. A method for assessing drug therapy appropriateness. J Clin Epidemiol (1992) 45:1045–51.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
8. Naugler CT, Brymer C, Stolee P, et al. Development and validation of an improved prescribing for the elderly tool. Can J Clin Pharmacol (2000) 7:103–7.[Medline]
9. Shekelle PG, Maclean CH, Morton SC. ACOVE quality indicators. Ann Intern Med (2001) 135:653–67.[Free Full Text]
10. 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.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
11. Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH. Prescribing for seniors: neither too much nor too little. JAMA (1999) 282:113–5.[Free Full Text]
12. Pitkala KH, Strandberg TE, Tilvis RS. Inappropriate drug prescribing in home-dwelling elderly patients: a population based survey. Arch Intern Med (2002) 162:1707–12.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
13. Kunin CM. Inappropriate medication use in older adults: does nitrofurantoin belong on the list for the reasons stated? Arch Intern Med (2004) 164:1701.[Free Full Text]
14. Fialova D, Topinkova E, Gambassi G, et al. Potentially inappropriate medication use among elderly home care patients in Europe. JAMA (2005) 293:1348–58.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Spinewine A, Swine C, Dhillon S, et al. Effect of a collaborative approach on the quality of prescribing for geriatric inpatients: a randomised, controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc (2007) 55:658–65.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
16. Gallagher P, Ryan C, Byrne S, et al. STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Persons’ Prescriptions) and START (Screening Tool to Alert Doctors to Right Treatment): consensus validation. Int J Clin Pharm Ther (2008) 46:72–83.[Web of Science][Medline]
17. Dalkey NC. Delphi (P-3704). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp. 1967.
18. Williams B, Poulter NR, Brown MJ, et al. British hypertension society guidelines for hypertension management 2004 (BHS-IV): summary. BMJ (2004) 328:634–40.[Free Full Text]
19. Hanlon JT, Schmader KE, Kornkowski MJ, et al. Adverse drug events in high risk older outpatients. J Am Geriatr Soc (1997) 45:945–8.[Web of Science][Medline]
20. Naranjo CA, Busto U, Sellers EM, et al. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther (1981) 30:239–45.[Web of Science][Medline]
21. Krska J, Cromarty JA, Arris F, et al. Pharmacist-led medication review in patients over 65: a randomised, controlled trial in primary care. Age Ageing (2001) 30:205–11.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
22. Barry P, Gallagher P, Ryan C, O’Mahony D. START (Screening Tool to Alert Doctors to Right Treatment). An evidence-based screening tool to detect prescribing omissions in elderly patients. Age Ageing (2007) 36:628–31.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Received 5 December 2007; accepted in revised form 27 March 2008.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. Gallagher, J.-P. Baeyens, E. Topinkova, P. Madlova, A. Cherubini, B. Gasperini, A. Cruz-Jentoft, B. Montero, P. O. Lang, J.-P. Michel, et al. Inter-rater reliability of STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions) and START (Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment) criteria amongst physicians in six European countries Age Ageing, September 1, 2009; 38(5): 603 - 606. [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Ryan, D. O'Mahony, and S. Byrne Application of STOPP and START Criteria: Interrater Reliability Among Pharmacists Ann. Pharmacother., July 1, 2009; 43(7): 1239 - 1244. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract FREE Full Text (PDF) Supplementary Data All Versions of this Article: 37/6/673    most recent afn197v1 E-letters: Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when E-letters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Personal Archive Download to citation manager Search for citing articles in: ISI Web of Science (5) Request Permissions Disclaimer Google Scholar Articles by Gallagher, P. Articles by O’Mahony, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gallagher, P. Articles by O’Mahony, D. Social Bookmarking          What's this?

Online ISSN 1468-2834 - Print ISSN 0002-0729

Copyright © 2009 British Geriatrics Society

Oxford Journals Oxford University Press

• Site Map
• Privacy Policy
• Frequently Asked Questions

Other Oxford University Press sites: Oxford University Press Oxford Journals China Oxford Journals Japan American National Biography Booksellers' Information Service Children's Fiction and Poetry Children's Reference Corporate & Special Sales Dictionaries Dictionary of National Biography Digital Reference English Language Teaching Higher Education Textbooks Humanities International Education Unit Law Medicine Music Online Products Oxford English Dictionary Reference Rights and Permissions Science School Books Social Sciences Very Short Introductions World's Classics