Deprescribing recommendations: an essential consideration for clinical guideline developers

One area of focus of the Bruyère Evidence-Based Deprescribing Guidelines Symposium held in March 2018 was encouraging the routine inclusion of deprescribing recommendations in clinical guidelines. Clinical guidelines often do not accommodate frailty or patients with multiple comorbid conditions. This can give rise to complex medication regimens and risk of medication harm. Despite monitoring and stopping treatment being a key part of rational prescribing, deprescribing is often overlooked in general and in the context of guidelines. There are several challenges to increasing deprescribing recommendations in clinical guidelines. These include limited evidence on the effects of deprescribing, lack of awareness among guideline developers, potential conflicts of interest, and lack of incentives for deprescribing research. To date, medicines regulators, payers, governments, and journals have not encouraged the inclusion of deprescribing recommendations in guidelines. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system could address some of these challenges through its focus on values and preferences, distinct rating of quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, downgrading quality due to indirect evidence, and an explicit approach to conflicts of interest. Further work to adapt GRADE methods to deprescribing could be of benefit. Establishing deprescribing recommendations as a routine part of clinical guidelines is an important opportunity to improve evidence-based clinical practice, and ultimately, patient care.</p

What Are Priorities for Deprescribing for Elderly Patients? Capturing the Voice of Practitioners: A Modified Delphi Process

<div><p>Polypharmacy and inappropriate medication use among older adults contribute to adverse drug reactions, falls, cognitive impairment, noncompliance, hospitalization and mortality. While deprescribing - tapering, reducing or stopping a medication - is feasible and relatively safe, clinicians find it difficult to carry out. Deprescribing guidelines would facilitate this process. The aim of this paper is to identify and prioritize medication classes where evidence-based deprescribing guidelines would be of benefit to clinicians. A modified Delphi approach included a literature review to identify potentially inappropriate medications for the elderly, an expert panel to develop survey content and three survey rounds to seek consensus on priorities. Panel participants included three pharmacists, two family physicians and one social scientist. Sixty-five Canadian geriatrics experts (36 pharmacists, 19 physicians and 10 nurse practitioners) participated in the survey. Twenty-nine drugs/drug classes were included in the first survey with 14 reaching the required (≥ 70%) level of consensus, and 2 new drug classes added from qualitative comments. Fifty-three participants completed round two, and 47 participants completed round three. The final five priorities were benzodiazepines, atypical antipsychotics, statins, tricyclic antidepressants, and proton pump inhibitors; nine other drug classes were also identified as being in need of evidence-based deprescribing guidelines. The Delphi consensus process identified five priority drug classes for which expert clinicians felt guidance is needed for deprescribing. The classes of drugs that emerged strongly from the rankings dealt with mental health, cardiovascular, gastroenterological, and neurological conditions. The results suggest that deprescribing and overtreatment occurs through the full spectrum of primary care, and that evidence-based deprescribing guidelines are a priority in the care of the elderly.</p></div

Themes identified from content analysis of Round Two comments.

<p>Themes identified from content analysis of Round Two comments.</p

Round Three Ranking: by number of participants who indicated drug class was a high priority for deprescribing guideline development.

<p>Round Three Ranking: by number of participants who indicated drug class was a high priority for deprescribing guideline development.</p

Methodology for Developing Deprescribing Guidelines: Using Evidence and GRADE to Guide Recommendations for Deprescribing

<div><p>Background</p><p>Class specific deprescribing guidelines could help clinicians taper and stop medications no longer needed or which may be causing more harm than benefit. We set out to develop methodology to create such guidelines using evidence-based methods for guideline development, evidence synthesis and recommendation rating.</p><p>Methods and Findings</p><p>Using a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise, we conducted a national modified Delphi consensus process to identify priorities for deprescribing guidelines, then conducted scoping exercises to identify feasible topics, and sequentially developed three deprescribing guidelines. We selected guideline development team members for clinical expertise; a GRADE member worked with staff to ensure guideline development processes were followed. We conducted or used systematic searches and reviews of deprescribing trials of selected drug classes, reviews or systematic reviews of drug class effectiveness, reviews of reviews of drug class harm and narrative syntheses of contextual questions to inform recommendations and guideline development. Our 8 step process for guideline development included defining scope and purpose, developing a logic model to guide the process and generate key clinical questions, setting criteria for admissible evidence and conducting systematic reviews, synthesizing evidence considering additional contextual information and performing quality estimates, formulating recommendations and providing strength estimations, adding clinical considerations, conducting clinical and stakeholder review and finally updating content pre-publication. Innovative aspects of the guideline development process included synthesizing evidence for outcomes of tapering or stopping medication, and incorporating evidence for medication harm into the recommendation strength rating. Through the development of three deprescribing guidelines (for proton pump inhibitors, benzodiazepine receptor agonists and antipsychotics) and associated decision-support algorithms, we were able to gradually hone the methodology; each guideline will be published separately.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>Our methodology demonstrates the importance of searching for short and long-term outcomes, showing the benefits of deprescribing and studying patient preferences. This publication will support development of future deprescribing guidelines.</p></div

Characteristics of Survey Participants.

<p>^aone pharmacist response deleted due to incorrect use of rating scale</p><p>Characteristics of Survey Participants.</p

Example histogram showing overall first round and personal results.

<p>Example histogram showing overall first round and personal results.</p

Participant flow diagram through three rounds of the Delphi consensus process.

<p>Participant flow diagram through three rounds of the Delphi consensus process.</p

Sample clinical consideration questions.

<p>Sample clinical consideration questions.</p

Barriers to the use of trained interpreters in consultations with refugees in four resettlement countries: a qualitative analysis using normalisation process theory

Background: Increasing numbers of primary care practitioners in refugee resettlement countries are providing care to refugees. Access to trained interpreters is a priority for these practitioners, but there are many barriers to the implementation of interpreted consultations in routine care. There is a lack of international, theoretically informed research. The purpose of this paper is to understand barriers to interpreter use in primary care consultations in four resettlement countries using Normalisation Process Theory. Method: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey with networks of primary care practitioners (PCPs) who care for refugees in Australia, Canada, Ireland and the US (n = 314). We analysed qualitative data from the survey about barriers to interpreter use (n = 178). We completed an inductive thematic analysis, iteratively developed a Normalisation Process Theory (NPT)-informed coding frame and then mapped the emergent findings onto the theory’s construct about enacting interpreted consultations. Results: In all four countries, the use of an interpreter presented communication and interaction challenges between providers and patients, which can impede the goals of primary care consultations. Primary care practitioners did not always have confidence in interpreted consultations and described poor professional practice by some interpreters. There was variation across countries, and inconsistency within countries, in the availability of trained interpreters and funding sources. Conclusion: There are shared and differential barriers to implementation of interpreted consultations in a consistent and sustained way in the four countries studied. These findings can be used to inform country-specific and international level policies and interventions focusing on improving skills and resources for interpreted consultations to improve implementation of interpreted primary care consultations