A case study of polypharmacy management in nine European countries: Implications for change management and implementation

BackgroundMultimorbidity and its associated polypharmacy contribute to an increase in adverse drug events, hospitalizations, and healthcare spending. This study aimed to address: what exists regarding polypharmacy management in the European Union (EU); why programs were, or were not, developed; and, how identified initiatives were developed, implemented, and sustained.MethodsChange management principles (Kotter) and normalization process theory (NPT) informed data collection and analysis. Nine case studies were conducted in eight EU countries: Germany (Lower Saxony), Greece, Italy (Campania), Poland, Portugal, Spain (Catalonia), Sweden (Uppsala), and the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland and Scotland). The workflow included a review of country/region specific polypharmacy policies, key informant interviews with stakeholders involved in policy development and implementation and, focus groups of clinicians and managers. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis of individual cases and framework analysis across cases.ResultsPolypharmacy initiatives were identified in five regions (Catalonia, Lower Saxony, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Uppsala) and included all care settings. There was agreement, even in cases without initiatives, that polypharmacy is a significant issue to address. Common themes regarding the development and implementation of polypharmacy management initiatives were: locally adapted solutions, organizational culture supporting innovation and teamwork, adequate workforce training, multidisciplinary teams, changes in workflow, redefinition of roles and responsibilities of professionals, policies and legislation supporting the initiative, and data management and information and communication systems to assist development and implementation. Depending on the setting, these were considered either facilitators or barriers to implementation.ConclusionWithin the studied EU countries, polypharmacy management was not widely addressed. These results highlight the importance of change management and theory-based implementation strategies, and provide examples of polypharmacy management initiatives that can assist managers and policymakers in developing new programs or scaling up existing ones, particularly in places currently lacking such initiatives

Ensuring continuity of patient care across the healthcare interface Telephone follow-up post-hospitalization

Aims To implement pharmacist‐led, postdischarge telephone follow‐up (TFU) intervention and to evaluate its impact on rehospitalization parameters in polypharmacy patients, via comparison with a well‐matched control group. Method Pragmatic, prospective, quasi‐experimental study. Intervention patients were matched by propensity score techniques with a control group. Guided by results from a pilot study, clinical pharmacists implemented TFU intervention, added to routine integrated medicines management service. Results Using an intention to treat approach, reductions in 30‐ and 90‐day readmission rates for intervention patients compared with controls were 9.9% [odds ratio = 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36–0.90; P < 0.001] and 15.2% (odds ratio = 0.53; 95% CI: 0.36–0.79; P = 0.021) respectively. Marginal mean time to readmission was 70.9 days (95% CI: 66.9–74.9) for intervention group compared with 60.1 days (95% CI: 55.4–64.7) for controls. Mean length of hospital stay compared with control was (8.3 days vs. 6.7 days; P < 0.001). Benefit: cost ratio for 30‐day readmissions was 29.62, and 23.58 for 90‐day interval. Per protocol analyses gave more marked improvements. In intervention patients, mean concern scale score, using Beliefs about Medicine Questionnaire, was reduced 3.2 (95% CI: –4.22 to −2.27; P < 0.001). Mean difference in Medication Adherence Report Scale was 1.4 (22.7 vs. 24.1; P < 0.001). Most patients (83.8%) reported having better control of their medicines after the intervention. Conclusions Pharmacist‐led postdischarge structured TFU intervention can reduce 30‐ and 90‐day readmission rates. Positive impacts were noted on time to readmission, length of hospital stay upon readmission, healthcare costs, patient beliefs about medicines, patient self‐reported adherence and satisfaction

Adherence to metformin in adults with type 2 diabetes: a combined method approach

BACKGROUND: Medication adherence, one of the most important aspects in the process of optimal medicines use, is unfortunately still a major challenge in modern healthcare, and further research is required into how adherence can be assessed and optimised. The aim of this study was to use a combined method approach of self-report and dried blood spot (DBS) sampling coupled with population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) modelling, to assess adherence to metformin in adult patients with type 2 diabetes. Further aims were to assess metformin exposure levels in patients, determine factors associated with non-adherence with prescribed metformin, and to explore the relationship between adherence and therapeutic outcomes. METHODS: A combined method approach was used to evaluate metformin adherence in patients with type 2 diabetes who had been prescribed metformin for a minimum period of 6 months. Patients were recruited from consultant-led diabetic outpatient clinics at three hospitals in Northern Ireland, UK. Data collection involved self-reported questionnaires [Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS), Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire and Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale], direct measurement of metformin concentration in DBS samples, and researcher-led patient interviews. The DBS sampling approach was coupled with population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) modelling, which took account of patient characteristics, metformin dosage and type of formulation prescribed (immediate or sustained release). RESULTS: The proportion of patients considered to be adherent to their prescribed metformin, derived from self-reported MARS scores and metformin concentration in DBS samples, was 61.2% (74 out of 121 patients). The majority (n = 103, 85.1%) of recruited patients had metformin exposure levels that fell within the therapeutic range. However, 17 patients (14.1%) had low exposure to metformin and one patient (0.8%) had undetectable metformin level in their blood sample (non-exposure). Metformin self-administration and use of a purchased adherence pill box significantly increased the probability of a patient being classified as adherent based on logistic regression analysis. Both HbA1c and random glucose levels (representing poor glycaemic control) in the present research were, however, not statistically linked to non-adherence to metformin (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of participating patients were not fully adherent with their therapy. DBS sampling together with the use of a published PopPK model was a useful, novel, direct, objective approach to estimate levels of adherence in adult patients with type 2 diabetes (61.2%). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40545-022-00457-5

General practitioner practice-based pharmacist input to medicines optimisation in the UK: pragmatic, multicenter, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Changing demographics across the UK has led to general practitioners (GPs) managing increasing numbers of older patients with multi-morbidity and resultant polypharmacy. Through government led initiatives within the National Health Service, an increasing number of GP practices employ pharmacist support. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of a medicines optimisation intervention, delivered by GP practice-based pharmacists, to patients at risk of medication-related problems (MRPs), on patient outcomes and healthcare costs. METHODS: A multi-centre, randomised (normal care or pharmacist supplemented care) study in four regions of the UK, involving patients (n = 356) from eight GP practices, with a 6-month follow-up period. Participants were adult patients who were at risk of MRPs. RESULTS: Median number of MRPs per intervention patient were reduced at the third assessment, i.e. 3 to 0.5 (p < 0.001) in patients who received the full intervention schedule. Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) scores were reduced (medications more appropriate) for the intervention group, but not for control group patients (8 [4-13] to 5 [0-11] vs 8 [3-13] to 7 [3-12], respectively; p = 0.001). Using the intention-to-treat (ITT) approach, the number of telephone consultations in intervention group patients was reduced and different from the control group (1 [0-3] to 1 [0-2] vs 1 [0-2] to 1 [0-3], p = 0.020). No significant differences between groups were, however, found in unplanned hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, number of A&E attendances or outpatient visits. The mean overall healthcare cost per intervention patient fell from £1041.7 ± 1446.7 to £859.1 ± 1235.2 (p = 0.032). Cost utility analysis showed an incremental cost per patient of - £229.0 (95% CI - 594.6, 128.2) and a mean QALY gained of 0.024 (95% CI - 0.021 to 0.065), i.e. indicative of a health status gain at a reduced cost (2016/2017). CONCLUSION: The pharmacist service was effective in reducing MRPs, inappropriateness of medications and telephone consultations in general practice in a cost-effective manner. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov, NCT03241498. Registered 7 August 2017-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03241498

A modified Delphi study to determine the level of consensus across the European Union on the structures, processes and desired outcomes of the management of polypharmacy in older people

BackgroundInappropriate use of multiple medicines (inappropriate polypharmacy) is a major challenge in older people with consequences of increased prevalence and severity of adverse drug reactions and interactions, and reduced medicines adherence. The aim of this study was to determine the levels of consensus amongst key stakeholders in the European Union (EU) in relation to aspects of the management of polypharmacy in older people.MethodsForty-six statements were developed on aspects of healthcare structures, processes and desired outcomes, with consensus defined at ? 80% agreement. Panel members were strategists (e.g. directors, leading clinicians and commissioners) from each of the 28 EU member states, with a target recruitment of five per member state. Three Delphi rounds were conducted via email, with panel members being provided with summative results and collated, anonymised comments at the commencement of Rounds 2 and 3.ResultsNinety panel members were recruited (64.3% of target), with high participation levels throughout the three Delphi rounds (91.1%, 83.3%, 72.2%). During Round 1, consensus was obtained for 27/46 statements (58.7%), with an additional two statements in Round 2 and none in Round 3. Consensus was obtained for statements relating to: potential gain arising from polypharmacy management (3/4 statements); strategic development (7/7); change management (5/7) indicator measures (4/6); legislation (0/3); awareness raising (5/5); polypharmacy reviews (5/7); and EU vision (0/7). Analysis of free text comments indicated that the vision statements were too ambitious and not achievable by the specified timeframe of 2025.ConclusionConsensus was obtained amongst key EU strategists around many aspects of polypharmacy management in older people. Notably, no consensus was achieved in relation to statements relating to the need to alter legislation in areas of healthcare delivery, remuneration and practitioner scope of practice. While the vision for the EU by 2025 was considered rather ambitious, there is great potential and clear opportunity to advance polypharmacy management throughout the EU and beyond

Provision of pharmaceutical care by community pharmacists across Europe: is it developing and spreading?

Rationale, Aims & Objectives: Pharmaceutical care involves patient-centred pharmacist activity to improve medicines management by patients. The implementation of this service in a comprehensive manner, however, requires considerable organisation and effort and indeed it is often not fully implemented in care settings. The main objective was to assess how pharmaceutical care provision within community pharmacy has evolved over time in Europe. Method: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey of community pharmacies, using a modified version of the Behavioural Pharmaceutical Care Scale (BPCS) was conducted in late 2012/early 2013 within 16 European countries and compared with an earlier assessment conducted in 2006. Results: The provision of comprehensive pharmaceutical care has slightly improved in all European countries that participated in both editions of this survey (n=8) with progress being made particularly in Denmark and Switzerland. Moreover, there was a wider country uptake, indicating spread of the concept. However, due to a number of limitations, the results should be interpreted with caution. Using combined data from participating countries, the provision of pharmaceutical care was positively correlated with the participation of the community pharmacists in patient-centred activities, routine use of pharmacy software with access to clinical data, participation in multi-disciplinary team meetings and having specialised education. Conclusion: The present study demonstrated a slight evolution in self-reported provision of pharmaceutical care by community pharmacists across Europe, as measured by the BPCS. The slow progress suggests a range of barriers which are preventing pharmacists moving beyond traditional roles. Support from professional bodies and more patient centred community pharmacy contracts, including remuneration for pharmaceutical care services, are likely to be required if quicker progress is to be made in the future