Pharmacist-independent prescriber deprescribing in UK care homes : Contextual factors associated with increased activity

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the residents, families, pharmacists, medical practice staff and care home staff who contributed to CHIPPS. Funding information: This study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) for Health Research (NIHR) Translating Research into Policy funding scheme (Award ID: NIHR202053). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The Care Home Independent Pharmacist Prescriber Study (CHIPPS) : Development and implementation of an RCT to estimate safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness

This research was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Yorkshire and Humber Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (NIHR YH PSTRC). The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. This report is dedicated to Kate Massey, an active and enthusiastic member of the CHIPPS patient and public involvement team who sadly passed away during the delivery of this study.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Effectiveness of a community based nurse-pharmacist managed pain clinic: A mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is predominantly managed in primary care, although often ineffectively. There is growing evidence to support the potential role of nurses and pharmacists in the effective management of chronic pain. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of a pain clinic jointly managed by a nurse and pharmacist. DESIGN: A mixed-methods design consisting of qualitative interviews embedded within a quasi-experimental study. SETTINGS: A community-based nurse-pharmacist led pain clinic in the north of England. PARTICIPANTS: Adult chronic pain (non-malignant) patients referred to the pain clinic. METHODS: Pain intensity was the primary outcome. Questionnaires (the Brief Pain Inventory, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the SF-36 and the Chronic Pain Grade questionnaire) were administered at the baseline, on discharge and at 3-month post-discharge (Brief Pain Inventory and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale only). Patient satisfaction was explored using face-to-face, semi-structured qualitative interviews. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients with a mean age of 46.5 years (SD±14.4) took part in the quasi-experimental study. Thirty-six and nine patients completed the discharge and 3-month follow-up questionnaires respectively. Compared to baseline, statistically significant reductions were noted for two of the outcome measures: pain intensity (P=0.02), and interference of pain with physical functioning (P=0.02) on discharge from the service. Nineteen patients participated in qualitative interviews. The patients were, in general, satisfied with the quality of service. Four contributing factors to patient satisfaction were identified: ample consultation time, in-depth specialised knowledge, listening and understanding to patients' needs, and a holistic approach. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse and pharmacist managed community-based pain clinics can effectively deliver quality pain management services as they offer an interdisciplinary holistic approach to pain management. Such services have the potential not only to reduce the burden on secondary care but also decrease long waiting times for referral to secondary care. Further research is required to support the development of evidence based referral guidelines to such services

The Care Home Independent Pharmacist Prescriber Study (CHIPPS): development and implementation of an RCT to estimate safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness

Background Medicine prescribing, monitoring and administration in care homes can be significantly enhanced. Effective interventions to improve pharmaceutical care and resident outcomes are required. The enablement of pharmacists to prescribe provides an opportunity for pharmacist independent prescribers to assume responsibility for improving pharmaceutical care, medication-related outcomes and resident safety whilst reducing general practitioner workload. Objective(s) To determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pharmacist independent prescribing in care homes. Design Development work was undertaken through five work packages before the delivery of the definitive trial. Triads of pharmacist independent prescribers, care home and general practice with responsibility over 20 care home residents were recruited and cluster randomised to intervention or usual care for 6 months. Researchers were blinded at recruitment stage only. Recruitment of 880 residents was required to provide 80% statistical power, to show a 21% reduction in falls over 6 months, assuming 20% attrition. Randomisation was undertaken electronically at triad level, stratified by geographical area. Intention-to-treat analysis undertaken using a negative binomial model. Parameters were estimated using a generalised estimating equation approach. Costs were captured from an NHS perspective. Quality of life (EuroQol; five domain; five level) was collected by proxy to enable cost/quality-adjusted life-year estimation. A concurrent process evaluation was performed. Safety was monitored through a review of pharmacist independent prescriber activities, independent concerns reporting and review of adverse events. Participants Forty-nine triads of general practitioners, pharmacist independent prescribers and care homes were recruited with 454 residents allocated to the intervention arm and 428 to the control arm. Intervention Medication review and care planning, medication reconciliation, staff training, support with care home medication-related procedures, deprescribing and authorisation of monthly prescriptions. Main outcome measure Fall rate per person over 6 months. Results Data for 449 intervention and 427 control residents available for final analysis. The 6-month fall rate ratio in favour of intervention was 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.26; p=0.58). No significant difference in secondary outcomes was identified except Drug Burden Index (rate ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 0.92; p<0.001). No harms were identified. One quarter of medication-related interventions were associated with a reduced risk of falls. The intervention was positively received. Limitations Participant self-selection bias may have affected the generalisability of findings. Open-label cluster randomised controlled trial limited by 6-month follow-up. Potential ceiling effect due to concurrent pharmacist-led interventions. Falls potentially insufficiently proximal to the intervention. Conclusions To enhance effectiveness and acceptance of the proposed model, effective integration into care home and general practitioner teams was identified as a central requirement. A core outcome set and a training package were developed. The final model of care, whilst being safe and well received and resulting in a reduction in drug burden, demonstrated no improvement in the primary outcome of falls. With no improvement in quality-adjusted life-years identified, the pharmacist independent prescriber intervention was not estimated to be cost-effective. Future work To develop and evaluate better models of care for enhancing medication outcomes and safety in care homes or re-test with a longer intervention and follow-up period and a stronger primary outcome. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN10663852, definitive trial: ISRCTN17847169. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD20150907. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (NIHR award ref: RP-PG-0613-20007) and is published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 11, No. 10. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information

The impact of pharmacist conducted clinical medication review for older people in care homes

Older people living in care homes have high levels of morbidity and are prescribed multiple medicines. Inappropriate prescribing (for example of antipsychotics), suboptimal management of long term conditions and a lack of medication review have been identified in this setting. It was hypothesised that a pharmacist could review the medicines of care home residents leading to potentially beneficial outcomes.EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

The influence of formulation and medicine delivery system on medication administration errors in care homes for older people.

INTRODUCTION: Older people in care homes are at increased risk of medication errors and adverse drug events. The effect of formulation on administration errors is not known, that is whether the medicine is a tablet or capsule, liquid or device such as an inhaler. Also, the impact on administration errors of monitored dosage systems (MDS), commonly used in UK care homes to dispense tablets and capsules, is not known. This study investigated the influence of formulation and MDS on administration errors. METHODS: Administration errors were identified by pharmacists (using validated definitions) observing two drug rounds of residents randomly selected from a purposive sample of UK nursing and residential homes. Errors were classified and analysed by formulation and medicine delivery system. RESULTS: The odds of administration errors by formulation, when compared with tablets and capsules in MDS, were: liquids 4.31 (95% CI 2.02 to 9.21; p = 0.0002); topicals/transdermals/injections 19.61 (95% CI 6.90 to 55.73; p < 0.0001); inhalers 33.58 (95% CI 12.51 to 90.19; p < 0.0001). The odds of administration errors for tablets and capsules not in MDS were double those that were dispensed in MDS (adjusted OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 4.51; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Inhalers and liquid medicines were associated with significantly increased odds of administration errors. Training of staff in safe administration of these formulations needs implementing. Although there was some evidence that MDS reduced the odds of an administration error, the use of MDS impacts on other aspects of medicines management. Because of this, and as the primary topic of our study was not MDS, a prospective trial specifically designed to evaluate the overall impact of MDS on medicine management in care homes is needed

Pharmacist Independent Prescriber (PIP) deprescribing in UK care homes: contextual factors associated with increased activity

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the residents, families, pharmacists, medical practice staff and care home staff who contributed to CHIPPS. Funding information: This study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) for Health Research (NIHR) Translating Research into Policy funding scheme (Award ID: NIHR202053). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Co-design of a behaviour change intervention to equip geriatricians and pharmacists to proactively deprescribe medicines that are no longer needed or are risky to continue in hospital.

BACKGROUND: Trials of hospital deprescribing interventions have demonstrated limited changes in practitioner behaviour. Our previous research characterised four barriers and one enabler to geriatricians and pharmacists deprescribing in hospital that require addressing by a behaviour change intervention. Six behaviour change techniques (BCTs) have also been selected by the target audience using the hospital Deprescribing Implementation Framework (hDIF). This research aimed to co-design and operationalise the content, mode of delivery and duration/intensity of the six selected BCTs to develop the CompreHensive geriAtRician-led MEdication Review (CHARMER) deprescribing intervention. METHODS: We established co-design panels at three hospitals representing contextual factors likely to influence CHARMER implementation. Panels comprised geriatricians, pharmacists and other hospital staff likely to be involved in implementation. We convened two rounds of co-design workshops with each hospital to design a prototype for each BCT, which went for feedback at a final workshop attended by all three hospital panels. RESULTS: The six BCTs were co-designed into an intervention comprising:(1&2) Pharmacists' workshop with pros and cons of deprescribing activities, and videos of salient patient cases3 Regular geriatrician and pharmacist deprescribing briefings4 Videos of geriatricians navigating challenging deprescribing consultations5 Hospital deprescribing action plan6 Dashboard to benchmark deprescribing activitiesAutomated prompts to flag high-risk patients for deprescribing and a primary and secondary care deprescribing forum were proposed as additional BCTs by stakeholders. These were later excluded as they were not fidelitous to the theoretical determinants of geriatricians' and pharmacists' deprescribing behaviours. CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates the integration of theory and co-design methodology with the target audience and staff likely to be involved in implementation of a hospital deprescribing behaviour change intervention. The development of an intervention that remains faithful to the underpinning mechanisms of action of behaviour change is a strength of this approach