Geriatric pharmacotherapy : optimisation through integrated approach in the hospital setting

Since older patients are more vulnerable to adverse drug-related events, there is a need to ensure appropriate prescribing in these patients in order to prevent misuse, overuse and underuse of drugs. Different tools and strategies have been developed to reduce inappropriate prescribing; the available measures can be divided into medication assessment tools, and specific interventions to reduce inappropriate prescribing. Implicit criteria of inappropriate prescribing focus on appropriate dosing, search for drug-drug interactions, and increase adherence. Explicit criteria are consensus-based standards focusing on drugs and diseases and include lists of drugs to avoid in general or lists combining drugs with clinical data. These criteria take into consideration differences between patients, and stand for a medication review, by using a systematic approach. Different types of interventions exist in order to reduce inappropriate prescribing in older patients, such as: educational interventions, computerized decision support systems, pharmacist-based interventions, and geriatric assessment. The effects of these interventions have been studied, sometimes in a multifaceted approach combining different techniques, and all types seem to have positive effects on appropriateness of prescribing. Interdisciplinary teamwork within the integrative pharmaceutical care is important for improving of outcomes and safety of drug therapy. The pharmaceutical care process consists offour steps, which are cyclic for an individual patient. These steps are pharmaceutical anamnesis, medication review, design and follow-up of a pharmaceutical care plan. A standardized approach is necessary for the adequate detection and evaluation of drug-related problems. Furthermore, it is clear that drug therapy should be reviewed in-depth, by having full access to medical records, laboratory values and nursing notes. Although clinical pharmacists perform the pharmaceutical care process to manage the patient’s drug therapy in every day clinical practice, the physician takes the ultimate responsibility for the care of the patient in close collaboration with nurses

Interventions to optimise prescribing for older people in care homes

Background There is a substantial body of evidence that prescribing for care home residents is suboptimal and requires improvement. Consequently, there is a need to identify effective interventions to optimise prescribing and resident outcomes in this context. This is an update of a previously published review (Alldred 2013). Objectives The objective of the review was to determine the effect of interventions to optimise overall prescribing for older people living in care homes. Search methods For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Specialised Register), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL to May 2015. We also searched clinical trial registries for relevant studies. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials evaluating interventions aimed at optimising prescribing for older people (aged 65 years or older) living in institutionalised care facilities. Studies were included if they measured one or more of the following primary outcomes: adverse drug events; hospital admissions; mortality; or secondary outcomes, quality of life (using validated instrument); medication-related problems; medication appropriateness (using validated instrument); medicine costs. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We presented a narrative summary of results. Main results The 12 included studies involved 10,953 residents in 355 (range 1 to 85) care homes in ten countries. Nine studies were cluster-randomised controlled trials and three studies were patient-randomised controlled trials. The interventions evaluated were diverse and often multifaceted. Medication review was a component of ten studies. Four studies involved multidisciplinary case-conferencing, five studies involved an educational element for health and care professionals and one study evaluated the use of clinical decision support technology. We did not combine the results in a meta-analysis due to heterogeneity across studies. Interventions to optimise prescribing may lead to fewer days in hospital (one study out of eight; low certainty evidence), a slower decline in health-related quality of life (one study out of two; low certainty evidence), the identification and resolution of medication-related problems (seven studies; low certainty evidence), and may lead to improved medication appropriateness (five studies out of five studies; low certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether the intervention improves/reduces medicine costs (five studies; very low certainty evidence) and it may make little or no difference on adverse drug events (two studies; low certainty evidence) or mortality (six studies; low certainty evidence). The risk of bias across studies was heterogeneous. Authors' conclusions We could not draw robust conclusions from the evidence due to variability in design, interventions, outcomes and results. The interventions implemented in the studies in this review led to the identification and resolution of medication-related problems and improvements in medication appropriateness, however evidence of a consistent effect on resident-related outcomes was not found. There is a need for high-quality cluster-randomised controlled trials testing clinical decision support systems and multidisciplinary interventions that measure well-defined, important resident-related outcomes

Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of pharmacist input at the ward level: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Pharmacists play important role in ensuring timely care delivery at the ward level. The optimal level of pharmacist input, however, is not clearly defined. Objective To systematically review the evidence that assessed the outcomes of ward pharmacist input for people admitted with acute or emergent illness. Methods The protocol and search strategies were developed with input from clinicians. Medline, EMBASE, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, The Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluations, Health Technology Assessment and Health Economic Evaluations databases were searched. Inclusion criteria specified the population as adults and young people (age >16 years) who are admitted to hospital with suspected or confirmed acute or emergent illness. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English were eligible for inclusion in the effectiveness review. Economic studies were limited to full economic evaluations and comparative cost analysis. Included studies were quality-assessed. Data were extracted, summarised. and meta-analysed, where appropriate. Results Eighteen RCTs and 7 economic studies were included. The RCTs were from USA (n=3), Sweden (n=2), Belgium (n=2), China (n=2), Australia (n=2), Denmark (n=2), Northern Ireland, Norway, Canada, UK and Netherlands. The economic studies were from UK (n=2), Sweden (n=2), Belgium and Netherlands. The results showed that regular pharmacist input was most cost effective. It reduced length-of-stay (mean= -1.74 days [95% CI: -2.76, -0.72], and increased patient and/or carer satisfaction (Relative Risk (RR) =1.49 [1.09, 2.03] at discharge). At £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)-gained cost-effectiveness threshold, it was either cost-saving or cost-effective (Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) =£632/ QALY-gained). No evidence was found for 7-day pharmacist presence. Conclusions Pharmacist inclusion in the ward multidisciplinary team improves patient safety and satisfaction and is cost-effective when regularly provided throughout the ward stay. Research is needed to determine whether the provision of 7-day service is cost-effective.Peer reviewe

Improved genome editing in human cell lines using the CRISPR method

The Cas9/CRISPR system has become a popular choice for genome editing. In this system, binding of a single guide (sg) RNA to a cognate genomic sequence enables the Cas9 nuclease to induce a double-strand break at that locus. This break is next repaired by an error-prone mechanism, leading to mutation and gene disruption. In this study we describe a range of refinements of the method, including stable cell lines expressing Cas9, and a PCR based protocol for the generation of the sgRNA. We also describe a simple methodology that allows both elimination of Cas9 from cells after gene disruption and re-introduction of the disrupted gene. This advance enables easy assessment of the off target effects associated with gene disruption, as well as phenotype-based structure-function analysis. In our study, we used the Fan1 DNA repair gene as control in these experiments. Cas9/CRISPR-mediated Fan1 disruption occurred at frequencies of around 29%, and resulted in the anticipated spectrum of genotoxin hypersensitivity, which was rescued by re-introduction of Fan1

Usability and feasibility of consumer-facing technology to reduce unsafe medication use by older adults

Background Mobile health technology can improve medication safety for older adults, for instance, by educating patients about the risks associated with anticholinergic medication use. Objective This study's objective was to test the usability and feasibility of Brain Buddy, a consumer-facing mobile health technology designed to inform and empower older adults to consider the risks and benefits of anticholinergics. Methods Twenty-three primary care patients aged ≥60 years and using anticholinergic medications participated in summative, task-based usability testing of Brain Buddy. Self-report usability was assessed by the System Usability Scale and performance-based usability data were collected for each task through observation. A subset of 17 participants contributed data on feasibility, assessed by self-reported attitudes (feeling informed) and behaviors (speaking to a physician), with confirmation following a physician visit. Results Overall usability was acceptable or better, with 100% of participants completing each Brain Buddy task and a mean System Usability Scale score of 78.8, corresponding to “Good” to “Excellent” usability. Observed usability issues included higher rates of errors, hesitations, and need for assistance on three tasks, particularly those requiring data entry. Among participants contributing to feasibility data, 100% felt better informed after using Brain Buddy and 94% planned to speak to their physician about their anticholinergic related risk. On follow-up, 82% reported having spoken to their physician, a rate independently confirmed by physicians. Conclusion Consumer-facing technology can be a low-cost, scalable intervention to improve older adults’ medication safety, by informing and empowering patients. User-centered design and evaluation with demographically heterogeneous clinical samples uncovers correctable usability issues and confirms the value of interventions targeting consumers as agents in shared decision making and behavior change

Effective Feedback to Improve Primary Care Prescribing Safety (EFIPPS) a pragmatic three-arm cluster randomised trial:designing the intervention (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT01602705)

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Redesigning the 'choice architecture' of hospital prescription charts: a mixed methods study incorporating in situ simulation testing.

Objectives: To incorporate behavioural insights into the user-centred design of an inpatient prescription chart (Imperial Drug Chart Evaluation and Adoption Study, IDEAS chart) and to determine whether changes in the content and design of prescription charts could influence prescribing behaviour and reduce prescribing errors. Design: A mixed-methods approach was taken in the development phase of the project; in situ simulation was used to evaluate the effectiveness of the newly developed IDEAS prescription chart. Setting: A London teaching hospital. Interventions/methods: A multimodal approach comprising (1) an exploratory phase consisting of chart reviews, focus groups and user insight gathering (2) the iterative design of the IDEAS prescription chart and finally (3) testing of final chart with prescribers using in situ simulation. Results: Substantial variation was seen between existing inpatient prescription charts used across 15 different UK hospitals. Review of 40 completed prescription charts from one hospital demonstrated a number of frequent prescribing errors including illegibility, and difficulty in identifying prescribers. Insights from focus groups and direct observations were translated into the design of IDEAS chart. In situ simulation testing revealed significant improvements in prescribing on the IDEAS chart compared with the prescription chart currently in use in the study hospital. Medication orders on the IDEAS chart were significantly more likely to include correct dose entries (164/164 vs 166/174; p=0.0046) as well as prescriber's printed name (163/164 vs 0/174; p<0.0001) and contact number (137/164 vs 55/174; p<0.0001). Antiinfective indication (28/28 vs 17/29; p<0.0001) and duration (26/28 vs 15/29; p<0.0001) were more likely to be completed using the IDEAS chart. Conclusions: In a simulated context, the IDEAS prescription chart significantly reduced a number of common prescribing errors including dosing errors and illegibility. Positive behavioural change was seen without prior education or support, suggesting that some common prescription writing errors are potentially rectifiable simply through changes in the content and design of prescription charts

Medication decision-making for patients with renal insufficiency in inpatient and outpatient care at a US Veterans Affairs Medical Centre: a qualitative, cognitive task analysis.

BackgroundMany studies identify factors that contribute to renal prescribing errors, but few examine how healthcare professionals (HCPs) detect and recover from an error or potential patient safety concern. Knowledge of this information could inform advanced error detection systems and decision support tools that help prevent prescribing errors.ObjectiveTo examine the cognitive strategies that HCPs used to recognise and manage medication-related problems for patients with renal insufficiency.DesignHCPs submitted documentation about medication-related incidents. We then conducted cognitive task analysis interviews. Qualitative data were analysed inductively.SettingInpatient and outpatient facilities at a major US Veterans Affairs Medical Centre.ParticipantsPhysicians, nurses and pharmacists who took action to prevent or resolve a renal-drug problem in patients with renal insufficiency.OutcomesEmergent themes from interviews, as related to recognition of renal-drug problems and decision-making processes.ResultsWe interviewed 20 HCPs. Results yielded a descriptive model of the decision-making process, comprised of three main stages: detect, gather information and act. These stages often followed a cyclical path due largely to the gradual decline of patients' renal function. Most HCPs relied on being vigilant to detect patients' renal-drug problems rather than relying on systems to detect unanticipated cues. At each stage, HCPs relied on different cognitive cues depending on medication type: for renally eliminated medications, HCPs focused on gathering renal dosing guidelines, while for nephrotoxic medications, HCPs investigated the need for particular medication therapy, and if warranted, safer alternatives.ConclusionsOur model is useful for trainees so they can gain familiarity with managing renal-drug problems. Based on findings, improvements are warranted for three aspects of healthcare systems: (1) supporting the cyclical nature of renal-drug problem management via longitudinal tracking mechanisms, (2) providing tools to alleviate HCPs' heavy reliance on vigilance and (3) supporting HCPs' different decision-making needs for renally eliminated versus nephrotoxic medications

Implementing cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines to translate evidence-based medicine and shared decision making into general practice: theory-based intervention development, qualitative piloting and quantitative feasibility

Background: The use of cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines based on absolute risk assessment is poor around the world, including Australia. Behavioural barriers amongst GPs and patients include capability (e.g. difficulty communicating/understanding risk) and motivation (e.g. attitudes towards guidelines/medication). This paper outlines the theory-based development of a website for GP guidelines, and piloting of a new risk calculator/decision aid. Methods: Stage 1 involved identifying evidence-based solutions using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) framework, informed by previous research involving 400 GPs and 600 patients/consumers. Stage 2 co-developed website content with GPs. Stage 3 piloted a prototype website at a national GP conference. Stage 4 iteratively improved the website based on "think aloud" interviews with GPs and patients. Stage 5 was a feasibility study to evaluate potential efficacy (guidelines-based recommendations for each risk category), acceptability (intended use) and demand (actual use over 1 month) amongst GPs (n = 98). Results: Stage 1 identified GPs as the target for behaviour change; the need for a new risk calculator/decision aid linked to existing audit and feedback training; and online guidelines as a delivery format. Stage 2-4 iteratively improved content and format based on qualitative feedback from GP and patient user testing over three rounds of website development. Stage 5 suggested potential efficacy with improved identification of hypothetical high risk patients (from 26 to 76%) and recommended medication (from 57 to 86%) after viewing the website (n = 42), but prescribing to low risk patients remained similar (from 19 to 22%; n = 37). Most GPs (89%) indicated they would use the website in the next month, and 72% reported using it again after one month (n = 98). Open feedback identified implementation barriers including a need for integration with medical software, low health literacy resources and pre-consultation assessment. Conclusions: Following a theory-based development process and user co-design, the resulting intervention was acceptable to GPs with high intentions for use, improved identification of patient risk categories and more guidelines-based prescribing intentions for high risk but not low risk patients. The effectiveness of linking the intervention to clinical practice more closely to address implementation barriers will be evaluated in future research