This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the critical nature of sterile compounding for geriatric patients, who are often immunocompromised and susceptible to infections. Ensuring the sterility and quality of compounded sterile preparations (CSPs) is paramount to patient safety and requires strict adherence to established guidelines and quality control measures. The pharmacist must balance efficiency with an unwavering commitment to aseptic technique and regulatory compliance. The best approach involves a comprehensive quality control system that integrates environmental monitoring, personnel competency assessment, and robust documentation. This includes regular air and surface sampling to verify the integrity of the cleanroom environment, ongoing training and competency evaluations for compounding personnel to ensure adherence to aseptic techniques, and meticulous record-keeping of all compounding activities, including ingredient sourcing, batch records, and dispensing information. This multi-faceted approach aligns with best practices in sterile compounding and aims to prevent microbial contamination and ensure product efficacy and safety, as mandated by pharmaceutical regulatory bodies and professional guidelines. An incorrect approach would be to rely solely on visual inspection of the final product without implementing routine environmental monitoring or personnel competency checks. While visual inspection is a necessary step, it cannot detect microscopic contamination or deviations in aseptic technique that may have occurred during compounding. This failure to proactively monitor and control the compounding environment and personnel practices significantly increases the risk of patient harm and violates the principles of quality assurance in sterile product preparation. Another incorrect approach would be to prioritize speed of preparation over strict adherence to aseptic technique, such as skipping steps in the cleaning and disinfection process or rushing through critical manipulations. This disregard for established protocols, even if seemingly minor, compromises the sterility of the final product and exposes patients to potentially life-threatening infections. It represents a direct contravention of the fundamental requirements for sterile compounding. Finally, an incorrect approach would be to maintain incomplete or inaccurate compounding records. Proper documentation is essential for traceability, quality assurance, and regulatory compliance. Without thorough records, it is impossible to investigate any potential issues or deviations, and it hinders the ability to demonstrate adherence to quality standards. This lack of accountability and transparency is professionally unacceptable. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes patient safety above all else. This involves a thorough understanding of regulatory requirements and professional standards for sterile compounding, a commitment to continuous learning and skill development, and a proactive approach to quality control that anticipates and mitigates potential risks. When faced with time pressures or resource constraints, the decision-making process must always default to the most rigorous and safest practices, ensuring that no compromise is made on the quality and sterility of the compounded products.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge related to understanding the foundational purpose and eligibility criteria for advanced practice examinations in geriatric pharmacy within the Caribbean context. Misinterpreting these requirements can lead to wasted effort, financial expenditure, and potential delays in career progression for aspiring advanced practitioners. Careful judgment is required to align individual qualifications and career aspirations with the specific objectives and prerequisites of the examination. Correct Approach Analysis: The approach that aligns with best professional practice involves a thorough review of the official documentation outlining the purpose and eligibility for the Advanced Caribbean Geriatric Pharmacy Advanced Practice Examination. This documentation, typically provided by the examining body, will clearly define the intended scope of advanced practice, the specific knowledge and skills assessed, and the minimum qualifications (e.g., licensure, years of experience, specific educational prerequisites) required for candidates. Adhering to this official guidance ensures that an individual’s application and preparation are directly relevant to the examination’s objectives and meet all stipulated requirements, thereby maximizing the likelihood of successful candidacy and demonstrating a commitment to professional standards. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: An approach that focuses solely on the perceived prestige or career advancement opportunities associated with passing the examination, without verifying specific eligibility criteria, is professionally unsound. This overlooks the fundamental requirement of meeting the examination’s prerequisites, potentially leading to an application being rejected or the candidate being unprepared for the specific content. Another professionally unacceptable approach is to rely on anecdotal information or the experiences of colleagues regarding eligibility. While peer insights can be valuable, they are not a substitute for official regulatory or examination board guidelines. Such reliance can lead to misinterpretations of requirements, as individual circumstances and the examination’s criteria may evolve. Furthermore, assuming that general advanced practice pharmacy knowledge is sufficient without confirming its alignment with the specific geriatric focus and advanced practice competencies outlined for this particular Caribbean examination is a flawed strategy. This approach fails to acknowledge the specialized nature of geriatric pharmacy and the advanced practice standards set by the examining body, potentially resulting in a candidate lacking the targeted expertise required. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach examination eligibility with a systematic process. First, identify the official governing body or examination board responsible for the Advanced Caribbean Geriatric Pharmacy Advanced Practice Examination. Second, locate and meticulously review all official documentation, including examination handbooks, syllabi, and eligibility criteria. Third, honestly assess personal qualifications against these documented requirements. If any ambiguity exists, proactively seek clarification directly from the examination board. Finally, ensure that career aspirations are aligned with the examination’s stated purpose and the advanced practice competencies it aims to validate.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the pharmacist to balance patient autonomy, the potential for harm, and the legal/ethical obligations related to dispensing controlled substances. The patient’s request, while seemingly straightforward, raises red flags due to the quantity and the patient’s stated reason, necessitating a careful and informed decision that prioritizes patient safety and adherence to regulatory requirements. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a thorough assessment of the patient’s request and medical history, coupled with direct communication with the prescribing physician. This approach, which involves verifying the prescription’s legitimacy, assessing the patient’s current condition and need for the medication, and consulting with the prescriber to confirm the appropriateness of the dosage and duration, is mandated by ethical pharmacy practice standards and regulatory guidelines concerning controlled substances. It ensures that the dispensing aligns with the patient’s therapeutic needs and minimizes the risk of diversion or misuse, thereby upholding the pharmacist’s duty of care and legal responsibilities. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Dispensing the medication without further inquiry or verification would be a significant ethical and regulatory failure. It bypasses the pharmacist’s professional responsibility to ensure the medication is appropriate and necessary, potentially contributing to patient harm or drug diversion. Refusing to dispense solely based on the quantity, without engaging in a professional assessment or consulting the prescriber, could be seen as abandoning the patient and failing to meet their legitimate medical needs if the prescription is indeed valid. Suggesting alternative pharmacies without investigating the current prescription’s validity or the patient’s needs fails to address the core professional responsibility of ensuring safe and appropriate medication dispensing. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making process when faced with potentially problematic prescriptions. This involves: 1) Recognizing potential red flags (e.g., unusual quantities, patient demeanor, stated reasons). 2) Gathering information (patient history, prescription details). 3) Consulting relevant resources (drug information databases, professional guidelines). 4) Communicating with stakeholders (patient, prescriber). 5) Documenting the decision-making process and outcome. This structured approach ensures that decisions are evidence-based, ethically sound, and legally compliant.

This scenario presents a common challenge in geriatric pharmacy practice: managing polypharmacy and potential drug interactions in a patient with multiple comorbidities and altered pharmacokinetic profiles. The professional challenge lies in balancing the therapeutic benefits of prescribed medications against the increased risk of adverse drug events (ADEs) due to age-related physiological changes and drug-drug interactions. Careful judgment is required to identify the most appropriate course of action that prioritizes patient safety and optimizes therapeutic outcomes. The best professional approach involves a comprehensive review of the patient’s current medication regimen, considering their age, renal and hepatic function, and existing comorbidities. This includes evaluating the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of each drug, identifying potential interactions (both pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic), and assessing the clinical relevance of these interactions in the context of the patient’s overall health status. The goal is to identify any medications that are contributing to the patient’s symptoms, are redundant, or pose an unacceptable risk of ADEs, and then to propose a revised regimen that minimizes these risks while maintaining therapeutic efficacy. This aligns with the ethical imperative to act in the patient’s best interest and the professional responsibility to ensure safe and effective medication use, as guided by principles of geriatric pharmacotherapy and evidence-based practice. An incorrect approach would be to simply add a new medication to manage the reported side effect without a thorough investigation of the underlying cause. This fails to address the root of the problem, potentially exacerbating polypharmacy and increasing the risk of further ADEs. It neglects the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations crucial in geriatric patients and disregards the principle of deprescribing when appropriate. Another unacceptable approach would be to discontinue a medication solely based on the patient’s subjective report of a side effect without objective assessment or consideration of the drug’s therapeutic necessity and potential withdrawal symptoms. This could lead to undertreatment of a serious condition and compromise patient safety. It overlooks the importance of a systematic evaluation of the risk-benefit profile of each medication. Finally, recommending a blanket reduction in all medications without a nuanced assessment of individual drug contributions to the patient’s symptoms or risks is also professionally unsound. This approach fails to acknowledge that some medications may be essential for managing chronic conditions and that indiscriminate deprescribing can be harmful. It bypasses the critical analysis required to tailor medication management to the individual patient’s needs. Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making process that begins with a thorough medication reconciliation and patient assessment. This involves gathering information on the patient’s medical history, current medications, allergies, laboratory values (especially renal and hepatic function), and reported symptoms. Next, a critical evaluation of each medication’s indication, efficacy, safety profile, and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties in the geriatric population is performed. Potential drug-drug and drug-disease interactions are identified and assessed for clinical significance. Based on this comprehensive analysis, a plan is developed that may include deprescribing, dose adjustments, therapeutic substitutions, or patient education, always prioritizing patient safety and shared decision-making.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a common challenge in geriatric pharmacy practice where the integration of new technology for medication management intersects with the critical need for patient safety and adherence to regulatory standards. The professional challenge lies in balancing the potential benefits of an electronic prescribing system with the risks of data errors, patient privacy breaches, and ensuring that the system actually enhances, rather than compromises, the quality of care for elderly patients who may have complex medication regimens and varying levels of technological literacy. Careful judgment is required to implement and oversee such a system in a way that is both efficient and ethically sound, prioritizing patient well-being and regulatory compliance. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a comprehensive, multi-faceted approach that prioritizes patient safety and regulatory compliance from the outset. This includes conducting a thorough risk assessment specific to the geriatric population, developing clear protocols for data entry and verification, ensuring robust data security measures are in place, and providing comprehensive training for all staff involved. Furthermore, establishing a feedback mechanism for reporting and addressing errors promptly, and regularly auditing the system’s performance against regulatory requirements (such as those pertaining to patient data privacy and medication accuracy) are crucial. This approach directly addresses the potential pitfalls of informatics implementation by proactively mitigating risks and ensuring accountability. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach would be to implement the electronic prescribing system without a thorough risk assessment tailored to the specific needs and vulnerabilities of the geriatric patient population. This failure to proactively identify and address potential risks, such as medication errors due to incorrect data entry or accessibility issues for elderly patients, violates the ethical imperative to prioritize patient safety and could lead to adverse drug events. It also risks non-compliance with regulations that mandate safe medication practices. Another incorrect approach would be to prioritize system efficiency and cost-effectiveness over robust data security and patient privacy protocols. Implementing a system that does not adequately protect sensitive patient health information would be a direct violation of data protection regulations, such as those governing health records, and would erode patient trust. The ethical obligation to maintain confidentiality is paramount. A further incorrect approach would be to deploy the system without adequate staff training and ongoing support. This can lead to user error, inconsistent application of protocols, and a failure to leverage the system’s safety features effectively. It also fails to ensure that staff understand their regulatory responsibilities in using the informatics system, potentially leading to breaches in compliance and compromised patient care. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a systematic decision-making process that begins with understanding the regulatory landscape governing medication safety and informatics in their specific jurisdiction. This involves identifying relevant legislation and professional guidelines. Next, a thorough needs assessment should be conducted, considering the specific patient population and the intended use of the technology. A risk assessment, focusing on potential medication errors, data breaches, and usability issues, is essential. Based on this assessment, a plan for implementation should be developed, incorporating robust training, clear protocols, and ongoing monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. Continuous engagement with regulatory bodies and professional organizations ensures that practices remain current and compliant.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the financial implications of a new medication with the ethical imperative to provide optimal patient care, all within the context of evolving professional development and examination standards. The pharmacist must navigate potential conflicts between institutional cost-saving measures and the evidence-based needs of geriatric patients, while also considering the implications of examination policies on their professional growth and ability to practice. The weighting and scoring of the examination, along with retake policies, directly impact the pharmacist’s ability to demonstrate competency and maintain licensure, which in turn affects patient safety and access to specialized geriatric pharmacy services. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves proactively understanding the examination blueprint, including its weighting and scoring mechanisms, and developing a targeted study plan that prioritizes high-yield areas. This approach is correct because it aligns with the principles of lifelong learning and professional accountability mandated by regulatory bodies and professional organizations. By focusing on areas with higher weighting, the pharmacist efficiently allocates study time, maximizing their chances of success on the first attempt. This demonstrates a commitment to mastering the core competencies required for advanced geriatric pharmacy practice, thereby ensuring they can provide safe and effective care. Furthermore, understanding retake policies allows for strategic planning in the event of an unsuccessful attempt, minimizing disruption to their practice and patient care. This proactive and strategic approach is ethically sound as it prioritizes patient well-being by ensuring the practitioner is well-prepared and competent. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves solely focusing on areas of personal interest or perceived ease, without consulting the examination blueprint. This is professionally unacceptable because it disregards the explicit guidance provided by the examination setters regarding the scope and emphasis of the assessment. It can lead to gaps in knowledge in critical areas, potentially compromising patient care if those areas are heavily weighted. Ethically, it fails to demonstrate due diligence in preparing for a credential that signifies advanced competency. Another incorrect approach is to ignore the retake policy and assume a first-time pass, leading to inadequate preparation. This is a failure in professional judgment and risk management. If the examination is not passed on the first attempt, a delayed retake could impact licensure and the ability to practice at the advanced level, potentially affecting patient access to specialized geriatric pharmacy services. This approach lacks foresight and does not uphold the professional responsibility to maintain licensure and competency. A third incorrect approach is to prioritize superficial memorization of facts over deep conceptual understanding, particularly in high-weighting areas. While some memorization is necessary, advanced practice requires the ability to apply knowledge to complex clinical scenarios. Focusing only on rote learning, especially in areas crucial for geriatric patient care, means the pharmacist may not be equipped to make sound clinical decisions, which is a direct ethical and professional failing. This approach does not prepare the individual to meet the demands of advanced practice and patient safety. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach examination preparation with a strategic mindset. This involves thoroughly reviewing the examination blueprint to understand content weighting and scoring. Developing a study plan that prioritizes high-weighting topics and areas requiring deeper understanding is crucial. Simultaneously, understanding the implications of retake policies allows for contingency planning. The ultimate goal is to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the material, enabling effective application in clinical practice to ensure optimal patient outcomes. This systematic and informed approach demonstrates professionalism, ethical responsibility, and a commitment to patient safety.

The assessment process reveals a complex scenario involving a geriatric patient transitioning from hospital to home care, highlighting the inherent challenges in ensuring continuity and safety of medication therapy management. The professional challenge lies in coordinating care across distinct settings, each with its own documentation, communication protocols, and potential for information gaps. This requires meticulous attention to detail, proactive communication, and a deep understanding of the patient’s evolving needs and the medications involved. Careful judgment is essential to prevent adverse drug events, ensure adherence, and optimize therapeutic outcomes. The best approach involves a comprehensive medication reconciliation process initiated immediately upon hospital discharge, involving direct patient and caregiver consultation, and thorough review of all prescribed and over-the-counter medications. This includes verifying the accuracy of the discharge prescription against the patient’s hospital medication list, identifying any discrepancies, and addressing potential drug interactions or contraindications in the context of the patient’s home environment and lifestyle. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the core principles of medication therapy management by ensuring accuracy, safety, and patient-centered care. It aligns with ethical obligations to provide competent and diligent care and regulatory expectations for safe medication practices, particularly for vulnerable geriatric populations. Proactive engagement with the patient and caregiver is crucial for understanding adherence challenges and providing tailored education, which is a cornerstone of effective medication management. An incorrect approach would be to solely rely on the discharge prescription provided by the hospital without independently verifying it against the patient’s home medication regimen or consulting with the patient and caregiver. This fails to acknowledge the potential for errors in the discharge process and overlooks the patient’s existing medication use, leading to a significant risk of drug interactions, duplication of therapy, or missed doses. Ethically, this demonstrates a lack of due diligence and patient advocacy. Another incorrect approach would be to provide the patient with a new medication list based only on the discharge prescription and assume the patient will manage all their medications independently without further assessment of their understanding, ability to adhere, or potential for polypharmacy. This neglects the critical role of patient education and support in successful medication management, particularly for older adults who may have cognitive or physical limitations. This approach fails to meet the standard of care for comprehensive medication therapy management. A third incorrect approach would be to delegate the entire medication review process to a caregiver without direct pharmacist assessment of the patient and their medication regimen. While caregiver involvement is important, the ultimate responsibility for ensuring safe and effective medication therapy rests with the healthcare professional. This abdication of responsibility can lead to critical omissions and misunderstandings regarding medication use. The professional decision-making process for similar situations should involve a systematic approach: first, conduct a thorough medication reconciliation across all settings. Second, engage directly with the patient and their caregivers to understand their medication-related experiences, adherence challenges, and health literacy. Third, assess the patient’s overall health status and identify any factors that might impact medication management. Fourth, develop a personalized medication management plan that addresses identified issues, including education, adherence strategies, and follow-up. Finally, document all interventions and communicate effectively with other healthcare providers involved in the patient’s care.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a geriatric pharmacy advanced practice candidate to balance the demands of a rigorous examination with limited personal time and resources, while ensuring their preparation is effective and compliant with professional standards. The pressure to perform well on a specialized exam necessitates a strategic approach to resource allocation and timeline management. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a structured, multi-faceted preparation strategy that integrates diverse learning modalities and accounts for the specific demands of geriatric pharmacy. This approach prioritizes understanding the core competencies and advanced practice domains tested, utilizing a combination of official examination blueprints, peer-reviewed literature, professional guidelines from relevant Caribbean geriatric pharmacy bodies, and simulated practice questions. A realistic timeline is crucial, allowing for progressive learning, knowledge consolidation, and iterative practice. This method ensures comprehensive coverage, addresses potential knowledge gaps, and builds confidence through active recall and application, aligning with the ethical imperative to maintain professional competence and provide high-quality patient care. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves relying solely on a single, broad textbook without consulting specific examination content outlines or current professional literature. This fails to target the specific knowledge and skills assessed by the advanced practice examination, potentially leading to inefficient study and a lack of focus on critical, high-yield topics relevant to Caribbean geriatric populations. It also neglects the dynamic nature of geriatric pharmacy practice, which is continually updated by research and evolving guidelines. Another unacceptable approach is to cram all preparation into the final weeks before the examination, without a structured timeline or regular review. This method is unlikely to facilitate deep learning or long-term retention of complex geriatric pharmacotherapy principles. It increases the risk of superficial understanding and can lead to significant anxiety, hindering optimal performance. Furthermore, it does not allow for the identification and remediation of knowledge deficits in a timely manner. A third professionally unsound approach is to prioritize memorization of isolated facts and drug dosages over understanding the underlying pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and clinical application in the geriatric population. While factual recall is important, advanced practice requires critical thinking, problem-solving, and the ability to synthesize information to make evidence-based decisions. This approach neglects the analytical and evaluative skills essential for advanced practice and may not adequately prepare the candidate for case-based scenarios. Professional Reasoning: Professionals preparing for advanced practice examinations should adopt a systematic and evidence-based approach. This involves first thoroughly understanding the examination’s scope and objectives, then developing a personalized study plan that incorporates a variety of reputable resources. Regular self-assessment through practice questions and case studies is vital for identifying areas needing further attention. Ethical practice demands a commitment to lifelong learning and competence, which begins with diligent and effective preparation for high-stakes assessments.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent conflict between a patient’s expressed wishes and the pharmacist’s professional judgment regarding the appropriateness of a medication for their geriatric condition. The pharmacist must navigate the principles of patient autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence, while adhering to professional standards of care and ethical guidelines for geriatric pharmacy practice in the Caribbean context. The complexity arises from the potential for cognitive impairment in older adults, the need for comprehensive medication review, and the importance of interprofessional collaboration. The best approach involves a thorough, patient-centered assessment that prioritizes the patient’s safety and well-being while respecting their autonomy. This includes conducting a comprehensive medication review, assessing the patient’s understanding of their condition and treatment, and exploring the rationale behind their request. If concerns about the appropriateness of the medication arise, the pharmacist should engage in shared decision-making with the patient, explaining their concerns clearly and offering alternatives. Crucially, this approach necessitates consultation with the prescribing physician to discuss the clinical appropriateness of the medication in light of the patient’s geriatric profile and any identified risks. This aligns with the ethical imperative to act in the patient’s best interest (beneficence) and avoid harm (non-maleficence), while also upholding the patient’s right to participate in their care (autonomy), all within the framework of professional practice guidelines that emphasize comprehensive geriatric assessment and interdisciplinary communication. An incorrect approach would be to immediately dispense the medication without further inquiry, thereby potentially compromising patient safety if the medication is indeed inappropriate or carries significant risks for an older adult. This fails to uphold the pharmacist’s duty of care and the principle of non-maleficence. Another incorrect approach would be to refuse to dispense the medication outright without a thorough assessment and discussion with the patient and physician. This disregards patient autonomy and the collaborative nature of healthcare. Finally, solely relying on the patient’s stated desire without considering their clinical context or potential for misunderstanding would be professionally negligent, as it overlooks the pharmacist’s responsibility to ensure safe and effective medication use, particularly in a vulnerable geriatric population. Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making process that begins with gathering all relevant information (patient history, current medications, clinical presentation). This is followed by an assessment of potential risks and benefits, considering the specific needs of the geriatric patient. Open communication with the patient is paramount, followed by consultation with the prescriber when clinical judgment dictates. This iterative process ensures that decisions are evidence-based, patient-centered, and ethically sound.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the complex interplay of geriatric pharmacotherapy, the need for individualized treatment plans, and the potential for polypharmacy and drug interactions in an elderly patient with multiple comorbidities. Careful judgment is required to balance efficacy, safety, and the patient’s quality of life, while adhering to established clinical guidelines and ethical considerations. The best approach involves a comprehensive medication review, prioritizing evidence-based guidelines for managing the patient’s specific chronic conditions, and considering the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes associated with aging. This includes assessing the appropriateness of current medications, identifying potential drug-drug and drug-disease interactions, and deprescribing where indicated. The rationale for this approach is rooted in the principles of rational pharmacotherapy, patient-centered care, and the ethical obligation to provide safe and effective treatment. Regulatory frameworks and professional guidelines for geriatric care emphasize a holistic assessment and a proactive approach to medication management to minimize adverse events and optimize therapeutic outcomes. An incorrect approach would be to solely focus on treating the acute exacerbation without a thorough re-evaluation of the patient’s entire medication regimen. This fails to address the underlying issues contributing to the patient’s instability and increases the risk of further complications due to unmanaged chronic conditions or drug interactions. Ethically, this approach neglects the duty of care to manage the patient’s overall health status. Another incorrect approach would be to initiate a new medication for the acute condition without considering its potential impact on the patient’s existing chronic diseases and their treatments. This demonstrates a lack of comprehensive understanding of geriatric pharmacotherapy and can lead to iatrogenic harm, violating the principle of non-maleficence. Regulatory guidelines for geriatric care specifically caution against adding new medications without a thorough assessment of the existing regimen. Finally, an approach that relies solely on the patient’s self-reported symptom relief without objective clinical assessment or consideration of medication side effects is also professionally unacceptable. This overlooks the potential for masked symptoms, undertreatment of serious conditions, or adverse drug reactions, which are particularly prevalent and consequential in older adults. This approach fails to meet the standard of care expected in geriatric pharmacy practice. Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making process that begins with a thorough patient assessment, including a detailed medication history and review of all relevant clinical data. This should be followed by an evidence-based approach to treatment selection, considering the unique needs of the geriatric population. Regular monitoring and re-evaluation of the treatment plan are crucial to ensure ongoing efficacy and safety, with a willingness to adjust therapy as needed.