The patient’s perspectives of safe and routine proactive deprescribing in primary care for older people living with polypharmacy: a qualitative study

BackgroundThe process of identifying and discontinuing medicines in instances in which harms outweigh benefits (deprescribing) can mitigate the negative consequences of problematic polypharmacy. This process should be conducted with a focus on the patient and involve collaborative decision-making. Evidence is needed regarding patients’ views on how deprescribing should be safely and routinely implemented in English primary care to improve its application. This study aimed to identify optimal methods of introducing and actioning deprescribing from the patient’s perspective.MethodsParticipants in England aged 65 and above who were taking five or more medicines and residing in their own homes were recruited through social media and service user groups. An interview guide was created from deprescribing literature and input from patients and the public, guided by the Normalisation Process Theory (NPT). The interviews were held online using Microsoft Teams\uae or via phone, recorded, and then transcribed. The data was analysed using the Framework analysis.ResultsTwenty patients (mean age of 74.5, SD = 6.93), with 75% being female, were enrolled in the study. Three main themes emerged: (1) ‘Why deprescribe now?’ emphasised the significance of explaining the reasons behind deprescribing; (2) ‘Monitoring and follow-up’ underscored the necessity of safety measures during deprescribing and patients’ willingness to self-monitor post-intervention; (3) ‘Roles and relationships’ explored patient perceptions of various healthcare professionals involved in deprescribing and the essential interpersonal skills for fostering therapeutic relationships.ConclusionOptimal methods of introducing deprescribing included communicating a convincing rationale for stopping medicines and preparing patients for deprescribing conversations. Patients required support from a range of healthcare professionals with whom they had an existing therapeutic relationship. Whilst patients were motivated to self-monitor unwanted/unexpected effects post-deprescribing, timely support was required. The nature of such bolstered collective action and cognitive participation within NPT enhances the normalisation potential of deprescribing. These findings highlight the significance of considering the content and process of deprescribing consultations to enhance normalisation and tackle problematic polypharmacy. This provides a deeper understanding of patients’ needs for implementing safe and routine deprescribing in primary care, which should be considered when designing medication review and deprescribing services

‘It\u27s a job to be done’. Managing polypharmacy at home: A qualitative interview study exploring the experiences of older people living with frailty

IntroductionMany older people live with both multiple long-term conditions and frailty; thus, they manage complex medicines regimens and are at heightened risk of the consequences of medicines errors. Research to enhance how people manage medicines has focused on adherence to regimens rather than on the wider skills necessary to safely manage medicines, and the older population living with frailty and managing multiple medicines at home has been under-explored. This study, therefore, examines in depth how older people with mild to moderate frailty manage their polypharmacy regimens at home.MethodsBetween June 2021 and February 2022, 32 patients aged 65 years or older with mild or moderate frailty and taking five or more medicines were recruited from 10 medical practices in the North of England, United Kingdom, and the CARE 75+ research cohort. Semi-structured interviews were conducted face to face, by telephone or online. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.FindingsFive themes were developed: (1) Managing many medicines is a skilled job I didn\u27t apply for; (2) Medicines keep me going, but what happened to my life?; (3) Managing medicines in an unclear system; (4) Support with medicines that makes my work easier; and (5) My medicines are familiar to me—there is nothing else I need (or want) to know.While navigating fragmented care, patients were expected to fit new medicines routines into their lives and keep on top of their medicines supply. Sometimes, they felt let down by a system that created new obstacles instead of supporting their complex daily work.ConclusionFrail older patients, who are at heightened risk of the impact of medicines errors, are expected to perform complex work to safely self-manage multiple medicines at home. Such a workload needs to be acknowledged, and more needs to be done to prepare people in order to avoid harm from medicines.Patient and Public InvolvementAn older person managing multiple medicines at home was a core member of the research team. An advisory group of older patients and family members advised the study and was involved in the first stages of data analysis. This influenced how data were coded and themes shaped

“Everyone needs to understand each other’s systems”: Stakeholder views on the acceptability and viability of a Pharmacist Independent Prescriber role in care homes for older people in the UK

The role of an innovative Pharmacist Independent Prescriber (PIP) for care homes to optimise medications has not been examined. We explored stakeholders’ views on issues and barriers that the PIP might address to inform a service specification for the PIP intervention in older people's care homes. Focus groups (n = 72 participants) and semi‐structured interviews (n = 13) undertaken in 2015 across four sites in the United Kingdom captured the views of doctors, pharmacists, care‐home managers and staff, residents and relatives. Stakeholders identified their expectations of what service should be provided by PIPs, what might affect their support for the role, and barriers and enablers to providing the service. Transcripts were analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify key components, which were reviewed by stakeholders in 2016. A PIP service was envisaged offering benefits for residents, care homes and doctors but stakeholders raised challenges including agreement on areas where PIPs might prescribe, contextual barriers in chronic disease management, PIPs’ knowledge of older people's medicine, and implementation barriers in integrated team‐working and ensuring role clarity. Introducing a PIP was welcomed in principle but conditional on: a clearly defined PIP role communicated to stakeholders; collaboration across doctors, PIPs and care‐home staff; dialogue about developing the service with residents and relatives, based on trust and effective communication. To embed a PIP service within increasingly complex care‐homes provision, the overarching theme from this research was that everyone must “understand each other's systems”

Development of a Core Outcome Set for effectiveness trials aimed at optimising prescribing in older adults in care homes

Background: Prescribing medicines for older adults in care homes is known to be sub-optimal. Whilst trials testing interventions to optimise prescribing in this setting have been published, heterogeneity in outcome reporting has hindered comparison of interventions, thus limiting evidence synthesis. The aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set (COS), a list of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, for all effectiveness trials involving optimising prescribing in care homes. The COS was developed as part of the Care Homes Independent Pharmacist Prescribing Study (CHIPPS). Methods: A long-list of outcomes was identified through a review of published literature and stakeholder input. Outcomes were reviewed and refined prior to entering a two-round online Delphi exercise and then distributed via a web link to the CHIPPS Management Team, a multidisciplinary team including pharmacists, doctors and Patient Public Involvement representatives (amongst others), who comprised the Delphi panel. The Delphi panellists (n = 19) rated the importance of outcomes on a 9-point Likert scale from 1 (not important) to 9 (critically important). Consensus for an outcome being included in the COS was defined as ≥70% participants scoring 7–9 and <15% scoring 1–3. Exclusion was defined as ≥70% scoring 1–3 and <15% 7–9. Individual and group scores were fed back to participants alongside the second questionnaire round, which included outcomes for which no consensus had been achieved. Results: A long-list of 63 potential outcomes was identified. Refinement of this long-list of outcomes resulted in 29 outcomes, which were included in the Delphi questionnaire (round 1). Following both rounds of the Delphi exercise, 13 outcomes (organised into seven overarching domains: medication appropriateness, adverse drug events, prescribing errors, falls, quality of life, all-cause mortality and admissions to hospital (and associated costs)) met the criteria for inclusion in the final COS. Conclusions: We have developed a COS for effectiveness trials aimed at optimising prescribing in older adults in care homes using robust methodology. Widespread adoption of this COS will facilitate evidence synthesis between trials. Future work should focus on evaluating appropriate tools for these key outcomes to further reduce heterogeneity in outcome measurement in this context

Person-centred deprescribing for patients living with frailty: a qualitative interview study and proposal of a collaborative model

Objectives (1) Present deprescribing experiences of patients living with frailty, their informal carers and healthcare professionals; (2) interpret whether their experiences are reflective of person-centred/collaborative care; (3) complement our findings with existing evidence to present a model for person-centred deprescribing for patients living with frailty, based on a previous collaborative care model. Methods Qualitative design in English primary care (general practice). Semi-structured interviews were undertaken immediately post-deprescribing and 5/6 weeks later with nine patients aged 65+ living with frailty and three informal carers of patients living with frailty. Fourteen primary care professionals with experience in deprescribing were also interviewed. In total, 38 interviews were conducted. A two-staged approach to data analysis was undertaken. Key findings Three themes were developed: attitudes, beliefs and understanding of medicines management and responsibility; attributes of a collaborative, person-centred deprescribing consultation; organisational factors to support person-centred deprescribing. Based on these findings and complementary to existing evidence, we offer a model for person-centred deprescribing for patients living with frailty. Conclusions Previous models of deprescribing for patients living with frailty while, of value, do not consider the contextual factors that govern the implementation and success of models in practice. In this paper, we propose a novel person-centred model for deprescribing for people living with frailty, based on our own empirical findings, and the wider evidence base

A non-randomised feasibility study of an intervention to optimise medicines at transitions of care for patients with heart failure

Background Heart failure affects 26 million people globally, and the optimal management of medicines is crucial for patients, particularly when their care is transferred between hospital and the community. Optimising clinical outcomes requires well-calibrated cross-organisational processes with staff and patients responding and adapting to medicines changes. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of implementing a complex intervention (the Medicines at Transitions Intervention; MaTI) co-designed by patients and healthcare staff. The purpose of the intervention was to optimise medicines management across the gaps between secondary and primary care when hospitals handover care. The study objectives were to (1) assess feasibility through meeting specified progression criteria to proceed to the trial, (2) assess if the intervention was acceptable to staff and patients, and (3) determine whether amendment or refinement would be needed to enhance the MaTI. Methods The feasibility of the MaTI was tested in three healthcare areas in the North of England between July and October 2017. Feasibility was measured and assessed through four agreed progression to trial criteria: (1) patient recruitment, (2) patient receipt of a medicines toolkit, (3) transfer of discharge information to community pharmacy, and (4) offer of a community pharmacy medicines review/discussion or medicines reconciliation. From the cardiology wards at each of the three NHS Acute Trusts (sites), 10 patients (aged ≥ 18 years) were recruited and introduced to the ‘My Medicines Toolkit’ (MMT). Patients were asked to identify their usual community pharmacy or nominate a pharmacy. Discharge information was transferred to the community pharmacy; pharmacists were asked to reconcile medicines and invited patients for a medicines use review (MUR) or discussion. At 1 month following discharge, all patients were sent three questionnaire sets: quality-of-life, healthcare utilisation, and a patient experience survey. In a purposive sample, 20 patients were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview about their experiences of the MaTI. Staff from hospital and primary care settings involved in patients’ care were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview. Patient and staff interviews were analysed using Framework Analysis. Questionnaire completion rates were recorded and data were descriptively analysed. Results Thirty-one patients were recruited across three sites. Eighteen staff and 18 patients took part in interviews, and 19 patients returned questionnaire sets. All four progression to trial criteria were met. We identified barriers to patient engagement with the intervention in hospital, which were compounded by patients’ focus on returning home. Some patients described not engaging in discussions with staff about medicines and lacking motivation to do so because they were preoccupied with returning home. Some patients were unable or unwilling to attend a community pharmacy in person for a medicines review. Roles and responsibilities for delivering the MaTI were different in the three sites, and staff reported variations in time spent on MaTI activities. Staff reported some work pressures and staff absences that limited the time they could spend talking to patients about their medicines. Clinical teams reported that recording a target dose for heart failure medicines in patient-held documentation was difficult as they did not always know the ideal or tolerable dose. The majority of patients reported receiving the patient-held documentation. More than two-thirds reported being offered a MUR by their community pharmacists. Conclusions Delivery of the Medicines at Transitions Intervention (MaTI) was feasible at all three sites, and progression to trial criteria were met. Refinements were found to be necessary to overcome identified barriers and strengthen delivery of all steps of the intervention. Necessary changes to the MaTI were identified along with amendments to the implementation plan for the subsequent trial. Future implementation needs to take into account the complexity of medicines management and adaptation to local context

Systematic review and narrative synthesis of pharmacist provided medicines optimisation services in care homes for older people to inform the development of a generic training or accreditation process

Objectives: To develop a training programme to enable pharmacists with prescribing rights to assume responsibility for the provision of pharmaceutical care within care homes, a systematic review and narrative synthesis was undertaken to identify reported approaches to training pharmacists and use this literature to identify potential knowledge requirements. Methods: A PROSPERO‐registered systematic review was performed using key search terms for care homes, pharmacist, education, training and pharmaceutical care. Papers reporting primary research focussed on care of the older person within the care home setting were included. No restrictions were placed on methodology. Two researchers independently reviewed titles, abstracts and papers. Agreement on inclusion was reached through consensus. Data on titles, training and activities undertaken were extracted and knowledge requirements identified. Findings were synthesised and reported narratively. Key findings: Fifty‐nine papers were included, most of which were uncontrolled service evaluations. Four papers reported an accreditation process for the pharmacist. Thirteen papers reported providing tools or specific training on a single topic to pharmacists. The main clinical and therapeutic areas of activity (requiring codified knowledge) were dementia, pain, antipsychotic and cardiovascular medication. Provision of pharmaceutical care, effective multidisciplinary working and care home staff training represented the main areas of practical knowledge. Conclusions: Information regarding training and accreditation processes for care home pharmacists is limited. This study provides insight into potential codified and practical knowledge requirements for pharmacists assuming responsibility for the provision of pharmaceutical care within care homes. Further work involving stakeholders is required to identify the cultural knowledge requirements and to develop a training and accreditation process

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

Aims The Care Home Independent Pharmacist Prescriber Study (CHIPPS) process evaluation hypothesized that contextual factors influenced the likelihood of deprescribing by pharmacist-independent prescribers. The aim of this paper is to test this hypothesis. Methods From CHIPPS study data, medications deprescribed totalled 284 for 370 residents in UK care homes. Regression analysis was used to describe the relationship between the number of medicines stopped and contextual factors (number of residents cared for, pharmacist employment within associated medical practice, previous care home experience, hours active within trial, years’ experience as a pharmacist and as a prescriber). Results Number of residents and pharmacist-independent prescriber employment within a medical practice were positive predictors of deprescribing. Conclusion Previous experiences were not related to deprescribing likelihood. Increasing the number of residents increases the opportunity for deprescribing and therefore this relationship is intuitive. The location within a medical practice is an interesting finding that requires further exploration to understand its exact nature

Nurse-Led Medicines' Monitoring for Patients with Dementia in Care Homes: A Pragmatic Cohort Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomised Trial

People with dementia are susceptible to adverse drug reactions (ADRs). However, they are not always closely monitored for potential problems relating to their medicines: structured nurse-led ADR Profiles have the potential to address this care gap. We aimed to assess the number and nature of clinical problems identified and addressed and changes in prescribing following introduction of nurse-led medicines' monitoring.Pragmatic cohort stepped-wedge cluster Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) of structured nurse-led medicines' monitoring versus usual care.Five UK private sector care homes.41 service users, taking at least one antipsychotic, antidepressant or anti-epileptic medicine.Nurses completed the West Wales ADR (WWADR) Profile for Mental Health Medicines with each participant according to trial step.Problems addressed and changes in medicines prescribed.Information was collected from participants' notes before randomisation and after each of five monthly trial steps. The impact of the Profile on problems found, actions taken and reduction in mental health medicines was explored in multivariate analyses, accounting for data collection step and site.Five of 10 sites and 43 of 49 service users approached participated. Profile administration increased the number of problems addressed from a mean of 6.02 [SD 2.92] to 9.86 [4.48], effect size 3.84, 95% CI 2.57-4.11, P <0.001. For example, pain was more likely to be treated (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] 3.84, 1.78-8.30), and more patients attended dentists and opticians (aOR 52.76 [11.80-235.90] and 5.12 [1.45-18.03] respectively). Profile use was associated with reduction in mental health medicines (aOR 4.45, 1.15-17.22).The WWADR Profile for Mental Health Medicines can improve the quality and safety of care, and warrants further investigation as a strategy to mitigate the known adverse effects of prescribed medicines.ISRCTN 48133332

Associations Between Anticholinergic Medication Exposure and Adverse Health Outcomes in Older People with Frailty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Introduction There are robust associations between use of anticholinergic medicines and adverse effects in older people. However, the nature of these associations for older people living with frailty is yet to be established. Objectives The aims were to identify and investigate associations between anticholinergics and adverse outcomes in older people living with frailty and to investigate whether exposure is associated with greater risks according to frailty status. Methods MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science and PsycINFO were searched to 1 August 2019. Observational studies reporting associations between anticholinergics and outcomes in older adults (average age ≥ 65 years) that reported frailty using validated measures were included. Primary outcomes were physical impairment, cognitive dysfunction, and change in frailty status. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Meta-analysis was undertaken where appropriate. Results Thirteen studies (21,516 participants) were included (ten community, one residential aged-care facility and two hospital studies). Observed associations included reduced ability for chair standing, slower gait speeds, poorer physical performance, increased risk of falls and mortality. Conflicting results were reported for grip strength, timed up and go test, cognition and activities of daily living. No associations were observed for transitions between frailty states, psychological wellbeing or benzodiazepine-related adverse reactions. There was no clear evidence of differences in risks according to frailty status. Conclusions Anticholinergics are associated with adverse outcomes in older people living with frailty; however, the literature has significant methodological limitations. There is insufficient evidence to suggest greater risks based on frailty, and there is an urgent need to evaluate this further in well-designed studies stratifying by frailty