The Care Homes Use of Medicines Study: prevalence, causes and potential harm of medication errors in care homes for older people

Introduction: Care home residents are at particular risk from medication errors, and our objective was to determine the prevalence and potential harm of prescribing, monitoring, dispensing and administration errors in UK care homes, and to identify their causes. Methods: A prospective study of a random sample of residents within a purposive sample of homes in three areas. Errors were identified by patient interview, note review, observation of practice and examination of dispensed items. Causes were understood by observation and from theoretically framed interviews with home staff, doctors and pharmacists. Potential harm from errors was assessed by expert judgement. Results: The 256 residents recruited in 55 homes were taking a mean of 8.0 medicines. One hundred and seventy-eight (69.5%) of residents had one or more errors. The mean number per resident was 1.9 errors. The mean potential harm from prescribing, monitoring, administration and dispensing errors was 2.6, 3.7, 2.1 and 2.0 (0 = no harm, 10 = death), respectively. Contributing factors from the 89 interviews included doctors who were not accessible, did not know the residents and lacked information in homes when prescribing; home staff’s high workload, lack of medicines training and drug round interruptions; lack of team work among home, practice and pharmacy; inefficient ordering systems; inaccurate medicine records and prevalence of verbal communication; and difficult to fill (and check) medication administration systems. Conclusions: That two thirds of residents were exposed to one or more medication errors is of concern. The will to improve exists, but there is a lack of overall responsibility. Action is required from all concerned

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

Introduction Many 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. Methods Between 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. Findings Five themes were developed: (1) Managing many medicines is a skilled job I didn't 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. Conclusion Frail 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 Involvement An 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

Interventions for reducing anticholinergic medication burden in older adults – a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction Anticholinergic medications block the neurotransmitter acetylcholine in the brain and peripheral nervous system. Many medications have anticholinergic properties, and the cumulative effect of these medications is termed anticholinergic burden. Increased anticholinergic burden can have short-term side effects such as dry mouth, blurred vision and urinary retention as well as long-term effects including dementia, worsening physical function and falls. Methods We carried out a systematic review (SR) with meta-analysis (MA) looking at randomised controlled trials addressing interventions to reduce anticholinergic burden in older adults. Results We identified seven papers suitable for inclusion in our SR and MA. Interventions included multi-disciplinary involvement in medication reviews and deprescribing of AC medications. Pooled data revealed no significant difference in outcomes between control and intervention group for falls (OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.52–1.11, n = 647), cognition (mean difference = 1.54, 95% CI: −0.04 to 3.13, n = 405), anticholinergic burden (mean difference = 0.04, 95% CI: −0.11 to 0.18, n = 710) or quality of life (mean difference = 0.04, 95% CI: −0.04 to 0.12, n = 461). Discussion Overall, there was no significant difference with interventions to reduce anticholinergic burden. As we did not see a significant change in anticholinergic burden scores following interventions, it is likely other outcomes would not change. Short follow-up time and lack of training and support surrounding successful deprescribing may have contributed

Improving the Safety and Continuity Of Medicines management at Transitions of care (ISCOMAT): protocol for a process evaluation of a cluster randomised control trial

Introduction A key priority for the UK National Health Service and patients is to ensure that medicines are used safely and effectively. However, medication changes are not always optimally communicated and implemented when patients transfer from hospital into community settings. Heart failure is a common reason for admission to hospital. Patients with heart failure have a high burden of morbidity, mortality and complex pharmacotherapeutic regimens. The Improving the Safety and Continuity Of Medicines management at Transitions of care programme comprises a cluster randomised controlled trial which will test the effectiveness of a complex behavioural intervention aimed at improving medications management at the interface between hospitals discharge and community care. We will conduct a rigorous process evaluation to inform interpretation of the trial findings, inform implementation of the intervention on a wider scale and aid dissemination of the intervention. Methods and analysis The process evaluation will be conducted in six purposively selected intervention sites (ie, hospital trusts and associated community pharmacies) using a mixed-methods design. Fidelity and barriers/enablers of implementation of the Medicines at Transitions Intervention (MaTI) will be explored using observation, interviews (20 patients, 40 healthcare professionals), surveys and routine trial data collection on adherence to MaTI. A parallel mixed analysis will be applied. Qualitative data will be thematically analysed using Framework analysis and survey data will be analysed descriptively. Data will be synthesised, triangulated and mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research where appropriate. The process evaluation commenced on June 2018 and is due to end on February 2021. Ethics and dissemination Approved by Research Ethics Committee and the UK Health Research Authority REC: 18/YH/0017/IRAS: 231 431. Findings will be disseminated via academic and policy conferences, peer-reviewed publications and social media

Implementing a Medicines at Transitions Intervention for patients with heart failure: a process evaluation of the Improving the Safety and Continuity Of Medicines management at Transitions of care (ISCOMAT) cluster randomised controlled trial

YesHeart failure is a major global health challenge incurring a high rate of mortality, morbidity and hospitalisation. Effective medicines management at the time of hospital discharge into the community could reduce poor outcomes for people with heart failure. Within the Improving the Safety and Continuity Of Medicines management at Transitions of care (ISCOMAT) programme, the Medicines at Transitions Intervention (MaTI) was co-designed to improve such transitions, with a cluster randomised controlled trial to test effectiveness. The MaTI includes a patient toolkit and transfer of discharge medicines information to community pharmacy. This paper aims to determine the degree to which the intervention was delivered and identify barriers and facilitators experienced by staff for the successful implementation of the intervention. Methods: The study was conducted in six purposively selected intervention sites. A mixed-methods design was employed using hospital staff interviews, structured and unstructured ward observations, and routine trial data about adherence to the MaTI. A parallel mixed analysis was applied. Qualitative data were analysed thematically using the Framework method. Data were synthesised, triangulated and mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results: With limited routines of communication between ward staff and community pharmacy, hospital staff found implementing community pharmacy-related steps of the intervention challenging. Staff time was depleted by attempts to bridge system barriers, sometimes leading to steps not being delivered. Whilst the introduction of the patient toolkit was often completed and valued as important patient education and a helpful way to explain medicines, the medicines discharge log within it was not, as this was seen as a duplication of existing systems. Within the CFIR the most applicable constructs were identified as ‘intervention complexity’ and ‘cosmopolitanism’ based on how well hospitals were networked with community pharmacies, and the availability of hospital resources to facilitate this. Conclusion: The MaTI was generally successfully implemented, particularly the introduction of the toolkit. However, implementation involving community pharmacy was more challenging and more effective communication systems are needed to support wider implementation

CompreHensive geriAtRician-led MEdication Review (CHARMER): protocol for a feasibility study of a hospital deprescribing behaviour change intervention

Introduction Over 50% of older adults are prescribed a medicine where the risk of harm outweighs the chances of benefit. During a hospital admission, older adults and carers expect medicines to be reviewed for appropriateness and any inappropriate medicines proactively deprescribed. While the principle of proactive deprescribing is an expectation of good prescribing practice, it is yet to become routine. The CompreHensive geriAtRician-led MEdication Review (CHARMER) study aims to develop and test a five-component behaviour change intervention to equip geriatricians and pharmacists to proactively deprescribe inappropriate medicines with older adults in hospital. This study aims to test the feasibility and acceptability of study processes and CHARMER implementation. Methods and analysis A two-arm purposive allocation feasibility study is being undertaken at four acute hospitals in England, UK (three intervention and one control). The target sample is 400 patients across all hospitals. Primary outcome measures are: (1) participant recruitment rate and (2) participant attrition rate. Secondary outcome measures are: (1) hospital readmission rate; (2) mortality rate and (3) quality of life. Quantitative data will be checked for completeness and quality, and practitioner and patient demographics descriptively analysed. We will undertake a rapid qualitative analysis on observations, interviews and study meeting minutes data. A subsequent thematic analysis will be undertaken with codes mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework and Normalisation Process Theory. Triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data will be undertaken. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval was obtained from Wales Research Ethics Committee 1 (IRAS ID 312494) and study approval from the Health Research Authority (22/WA/0087). Informed consent will be sought from all hospital staff involved in data collection activities and for patients involved in enhanced data collection activities. The findings of this study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations

Barriers and facilitators of successful deprescribing as described by older patients living with frailty, their informal carers and clinicians: a qualitative interview study

YesObjective To explore the barriers/facilitators to deprescribing in primary care in England from the perspectives of clinicians, patients living with frailty who reside at home, and their informal carers, drawing on the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify behavioural components associated with barriers/facilitators of the process. Design Exploratory qualitative study. Setting General practice (primary care) in England. Participants 9 patients aged 65+ living with frailty who attended a consultation to reduce or stop a medicine/s. 3 informal carers of patients living with frailty. 14 primary care clinicians including general practitioners, practice pharmacists and advanced nurse practitioners. Methods Qualitative semistructured interviews took place with patients living with frailty, their informal carers and clinicians. Patients (n=9) and informal carers (n=3) were interviewed two times: immediately after deprescribing and 5/6 weeks later. Clinicians (n=14) were interviewed once. In total, 38 interviews were undertaken. Framework analysis was applied to manage and analyse the data. Results 6 themes associated with facilitators and barriers to deprescribing were generated, respectively, with each supported by between two and three subthemes. Identified facilitators of deprescribing with patients living with frailty included shared decision-making, gradual introduction of the topic, clear communication of the topic to the patient and multidisciplinary working. Identified barriers of deprescribing included consultation constraints, patients' fear of negative consequences and inaccessible terminology and information. Conclusions This paper offers timely insight into the barriers and facilitators to deprescribing for patients living with frailty within the context of primary care in England. As deprescribing continues to grow in national and international significance, it is important that future deprescribing interventions acknowledge the current barriers and facilitators and their associated behavioural components experienced by clinicians, patients living with frailty and their informal carers to improve the safety and effectiveness of the process