Factors Affecting Prescriber Implementation of Computer-Generated Medication Recommendations in the SENATOR Trial: A Qualitative Study

Optimizing drug therapy for older adults: shifting away from problematic polypharmacy

INTRODUCTION

The accelerated discovery and production of pharmaceutical products has resulted in many positive outcomes. However, this progress has also contributed to problematic polypharmacy, one of the rapidly growing threats to public health in this century. Problematic polypharmacy results in adverse patient outcomes and imposes increased strain and financial burden on healthcare systems.

AREAS COVERED

A review was conducted on the current body of evidence concerning factors contributing to and consequences of problematic polypharmacy. Recent trials investigating interventions that target polypharmacy and emerging solutions, including incorporation of artificial intelligence, are also examined in this article.

EXPERT OPINION

To shift away from problematic polypharmacy, a multifaceted interdisciplinary approach is necessary. Any potentially successful strategy must be adapted to suit various healthcare settings and must utilize all available resources, including artificial intelligence.

Clinical decision support system supported interventions in hospitalized older patients: a matter of natural course and adequate timing

BACKGROUND

Drug-related problems (DRPs) and potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) are associated with adverse patient and health care outcomes. In the setting of hospitalized older patients, Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) could reduce PIP and therefore improve clinical outcomes. However, prior research showed a low proportion of adherence to CDSS recommendations by clinicians with possible explanatory factors such as little clinical relevance and alert fatigue.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the use of a CDSS in a real-life setting of hospitalized older patients. We aim to (I) report the natural course and interventions based on the top 20 rule alerts (the 20 most frequently generated alerts per clinical rule) of generated red CDSS alerts (those requiring action) over time from day 1 to 7 of hospitalization; and (II) to explore whether an optimal timing can be defined (in terms of day per rule).

METHODS

All hospitalized patients aged ≥ 60 years, admitted to Zuyderland Medical Centre (the Netherlands) were included. The evaluation of the CDSS was investigated using a database used for standard care. Our CDSS was run daily and was evaluated on day 1 to 7 of hospitalization. We collected demographic and clinical data, and moreover the total number of CDSS alerts; the total number of top 20 rule alerts; those that resulted in an action by the pharmacist and the course of outcome of the alerts on days 1 to 7 of hospitalization.

RESULTS

In total 3574 unique hospitalized patients, mean age 76.7 (SD 8.3) years and 53% female, were included. From these patients, in total 8073 alerts were generated; with the top 20 of rule alerts we covered roughly 90% of the total. For most rules in the top 20 the highest percentage of resolved alerts lies somewhere between day 4 and 5 of hospitalization, after which there is equalization or a decrease. Although for some rules, there is a gradual increase in resolved alerts until day 7. The level of resolved rule alerts varied between the different clinical rules; varying from > 50-70% (potassium levels, anticoagulation, renal function) to less than 25%.

CONCLUSION

This study reports the course of the 20 most frequently generated alerts of a CDSS in a setting of hospitalized older patients. We have shown that for most rules, irrespective of an intervention by the pharmacist, the highest percentage of resolved rules is between day 4 and 5 of hospitalization. The difference in level of resolved alerts between the different rules, could point to more or less clinical relevance and advocates further research to explore ways of optimizing CDSSs by adjustment in timing and number of alerts to prevent alert fatigue.

Clinical Decision Support Systems in Hospitalized Older Patients: An Exploratory Analysis in a Real-Life Clinical Setting

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate prescribing is associated with negative patient outcomes. In hospitalized patients, the use of Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) may reduce inappropriate prescribing and thereby improve patient-related outcomes. However, recently published large clinical trials (OPERAM and SENATOR) have shown negative results on the use of CDSSs and patient outcomes and strikingly low acceptance of recommendations.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the use of a CDSS in a real-life clinical setting of hospitalized older patients. As such, we report on the real-life pattern of this in-hospital implemented CDSS, including (i) whether generated alerts were resolved; (ii) whether a recorded action by the pharmacist led to an improved number of resolved alerts; and (iii) the natural course of generated alerts, in particular of those in the non-intervention group; as these data are largely lacking in current studies.

METHODS

Hospitalized patients, aged 60 years and older, admitted to Zuyderland Medical Centre, the Netherlands, in 2018 were included. The evaluation of the CDSS was investigated using a database used for standard care. Alongside demographic and clinical data, we also collected the total numbers of CDSS alerts, the number of alerts 'handled' by the pharmacist, those that resulted in an action by the pharmacist, and finally the outcome of the alerts at day 1 and day 3 after the alert was generated.

RESULTS

A total of 3574 unique hospitalized patients, mean age 76.7 (SD 8.3) years and 53% female, were included. From these patients, 8073 alerts were generated, of which 7907 (97.9% of total) were handled by the pharmacist (day 1). In 51.6% of the alerts handled by the pharmacist, an action was initiated, resulting in 36.1% of the alerts resolved after day 1, compared with 27.3% if the pharmacist did not perform an action (p < 0.001). On day 3, in 52.6% of the alerts an action by the pharmacist was initiated, resulting in 62.4% resolved alerts, compared with 48.0% when no action was performed (p < 0.001). In the category renal function, the percentages differed significantly between an action versus no action of the pharmacist at day 1 and at day 3 (16.6% vs 10.6%, p < 0.001 [day 1]; 29.8% vs 19.4%, p < 0.001 [day 3]).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the pattern and natural course of clinical alerts of an in-hospital implemented CDSS in a real-life clinical setting of hospitalized older patients. Besides the already known beneficial effect of actions by pharmacists, we have also shown that many alerts become resolved without any specific intervention. As such, our study provides an important insight into the spontaneous course of resolved alerts, since these data are currently lacking in the literature.

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.

Implementation and evaluation of STOPP/START criteria to address polypharmacy in older adults in an inpatient psychiatric setting

Background

There is a scarcity of research in applying the Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions/Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment (STOPP/START) criteria to older adults admitted to a psychiatric hospital.

Objectives

The primary aim of this study was to determine the extent of polypharmacy in older adults admitted to a psychiatric hospital and to assess the number of STOPP/START triggers detected and recommended by pharmacists. Secondary objectives include evaluating if the STOPP/START criteria is a useful tool to improve prescribing in this setting by assessing the implementation rates of STOPP/START triggers.

Methods

This was a prospective, longitudinal study in a psychiatry inpatient setting. Data were collected over a 7-week period. Explicit informed consent was obtained from participants. Medication reconciliation was completed and participants' medications were reviewed using STOPP/START criteria. The number of STOPP/START triggers detected, recommended and implemented was recorded.

Results

Sixty-two patients were included in the study. Ninety-four percent were prescribed ≥5 medications and 55% were prescribed ≥10 medications on admission. The mean number of medications prescribed per patient increased from 10 on admission to 12 at follow-up. Of 174 Potential Inappropriate Medications (PIMs) detected, 41% were recommended for review and, of these only 31% were implemented. 27% of the 77 Potential Prescribing Omissions (PPOs) detected were recommended for review and only 23% of those were implemented.

Conclusion

STOPP/START did not reduce the prevalence of polypharmacy in this setting. The implementation rates observed in this study were much lower than those observed in non-psychiatric settings.

Medication review in hospitalised patients to reduce morbidity and mortality

BACKGROUND

A medication review can be defined as a structured evaluation of a patient's medication conducted by healthcare professionals with the aim of optimising medication use and improving health outcomes. Optimising medication therapy though medication reviews may benefit hospitalised patients.

OBJECTIVES

We examined the effects of medication review interventions in hospitalised adult patients compared to standard care or to other types of medication reviews on all-cause mortality, hospital readmissions, emergency department contacts and health-related quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

In this Cochrane Review update, we searched for new published and unpublished trials using the following electronic databases from 1 January 2014 to 17 January 2022 without language restrictions: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). To identify additional trials, we searched the reference lists of included trials and other publications by lead trial authors, and contacted experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials of medication reviews delivered by healthcare professionals for hospitalised adult patients. We excluded trials including outpatients and paediatric patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for data clarification and relevant unpublished data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the overall certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

In this updated review, we included a total of 25 trials (15,076 participants), of which 15 were new trials (11,501 participants). Follow-up ranged from 1 to 20 months. We found that medication reviews in hospitalised adults may have little to no effect on mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.05; 18 trials, 10,108 participants; low-certainty evidence); likely reduce hospital readmissions (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98; 17 trials, 9561 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce emergency department contacts (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.03; 8 trials, 3527 participants; low-certainty evidence) and have very uncertain effects on health-related quality of life (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.30; 4 trials, 392 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Medication reviews in hospitalised adult patients likely reduce hospital readmissions and may reduce emergency department contacts. The evidence suggests that mediation reviews may have little to no effect on mortality, while the effect on health-related quality of life is very uncertain. Almost all trials included elderly polypharmacy patients, which limits the generalisability of the results beyond this population.

End-users feedback and perceptions associated with the implementation of a clinical-rule based Check of Medication Appropriateness service

Background

To support appropriate prescribing hospital-wide, the ‘Check of Medication Appropriateness’ (CMA) service was implemented at the University Hospitals Leuven. The CMA concerns a clinical rule based and pharmacist-led medication review service. The aim of this study was to explore both physicians’ and pharmacists’ feedback on the optimised CMA service to further improve the service.

Methods

An anonymous e-questionnaire was sent to all physicians active in the University Hospitals Leuven (n = 1631) and to all clinical pharmacists performing the CMA service (n = 16). Feedback was collected using multiple choice questions. During a 5-month period, physicians were also contacted in case of non-acceptance of recommendations to investigate barriers affecting implementation. Thematic analysis was performed and additional acceptance after telephone contact within 24 h was registered.

Results

A total of 119 physicians (7.3%) and 16 pharmacists (100%) completed the e-questionnaire. The overall service was assessed as clinically relevant to highly relevant by 77.7% of physicians. The main reasons for non-acceptance of recommendations were related to workload, work environment and time constraints. About two thirds (66.3%) of initially not-accepted recommendations were accepted after phone contact. A nearly full consensus was reached among pharmacists (15/16) on the centralised CMA being complementary to current clinical pharmacy activities. Two major barriers were reported by pharmacists: (1) too limited time allocation and (2) a large number of irrelevant alerts.

Conclusions

The CMA was perceived as clinically relevant by the majority of end-users. Acceptance rate of pharmaceutical recommendations was further increased by calling the physician. Increasing the specificity of clinical rules in the future is imperative.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-01921-7.

Hospital physicians' and older patients' agreement with individualised STOPP/START-based medication optimisation recommendations in a clinical trial setting

Aim

To evaluate the agreement of hospital physicians and older patients with individualised STOPP/START based medication optimisation recommendations from a pharmacotherapy team.

Findings

In total, 371 recommendations were discussed with patients and physicians, overall agreement was 61.6% for STOPP and 60.7% for START recommendations. Highest agreement (74%) was found for initiation of osteoporosis agents and discontinuation of proton pump inhibitors.

Message

Better patient and physician education regarding the benefit/risk balance of pharmacotherapy, in addition to more precise and up-to-date medical records to avoid irrelevant recommendations, will likely result in higher adherence with future pharmacotherapy optimisation recommendations.

Objective

To evaluate the agreement of hospital physicians and older patients with individualised STOPP/START-based medication optimisation recommendations from a pharmacotherapy team.

Methods

This study was embedded within a large European, multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial examining the effect of a structured medication review on drug-related hospital admissions in multimorbid (≥ 3 chronic conditions) older people (≥ 70 years) with polypharmacy (≥ 5 chronic medications), called OPERAM. Data from the Dutch intervention arm of this trial were used for this study. Medication review was performed jointly by a physician and pharmacist (i.e. pharmacotherapy team) supported by a Clinical Decision Support System with integrated STOPP/START criteria. Individualised STOPP/START-based medication optimisation recommendations were discussed with patients and attending hospital physicians.

Results

139 patients were included, mean (SD) age 78.3 (5.1) years, 47% male and median (IQR) number of medications at admission 11 (9–14). In total, 371 recommendations were discussed with patients and physicians, overall agreement was 61.6% for STOPP and 60.7% for START recommendations. Highest agreement was found for initiation of osteoporosis agents and discontinuation of proton pump inhibitors (both 74%). Factors associated with higher agreement in multivariate analysis were: female gender (+ 17.1% [3.7; 30.4]), ≥ 1 falls in the past year (+ 15.0% [1.5; 28.5]) and renal impairment i.e. eGFR 30–50 ml/min/1.73 m²; (+ 18.0% [2.0; 34.0]). The main reason for disagreement (40%) was patients’ reluctance to discontinue or initiate medication.

Conclusion

Better patient and physician education regarding the benefit/risk balance of pharmacotherapy, in addition to more precise and up-to-date medical records to avoid irrelevant recommendations, will likely result in higher adherence with future pharmacotherapy optimisation recommendations.

Clinical trial registration

Trial Registration Number NCT02986425.

The MedSafer Study-Electronic Decision Support for Deprescribing in Hospitalized Older Adults: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Scalable deprescribing interventions may reduce polypharmacy and the use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs); however, few studies have been large enough to evaluate the impact that deprescribing may have on adverse drug events (ADEs).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of an electronic deprescribing decision support tool on ADEs after hospital discharge among older adults with polypharmacy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a cluster randomized clinical trial of older (≥65 years) hospitalized patients with an expected survival of more than 3 months who were admitted to 1 of 11 acute care hospitals in Canada from August 22, 2017, to January 13, 2020. At admission, participants were taking 5 or more medications per day. Data analyses were performed from January 3, 2021, to September 23, 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Personalized reports of deprescribing opportunities generated by MedSafer software to address usual home medications and measures of prognosis and frailty. Deprescribing reports provided to the treating team were compared with usual care (medication reconciliation).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was a reduction of ADEs within the first 30 days postdischarge (including adverse drug withdrawal events) captured through structured telephone surveys and adjudicated blinded to intervention status. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients with 1 or more PIMs deprescribed at discharge and the proportion of patients with an adverse drug withdrawal event (ADWE).

RESULTS

A total of 5698 participants (median [range] age, 78 [72-85] years; 2858 [50.2%] women; race and ethnicity data were not collected) were enrolled in 3 clusters and were adjudicated for the primary outcome (control, 3204; intervention, 2494). Despite cluster randomization, there were group imbalances, eg, the participants in the intervention arm were older and had more PIMS prescribed at baseline. After hospital discharge, 4989 (87.6%) participants completed an ADE interview. There was no significant difference in ADEs within 30 days of discharge (138 [5.0%] of 2742 control vs 111 [4.9%] of 2247 intervention participants; adjusted risk difference [aRD] -0.8%; 95% CI, -2.9% to 1.3%). Deprescribing increased from 795 (29.8%) of 2667 control to 1249 (55.4%) of 2256 intervention participants [aRD, 22.2%; 95% CI, 16.9% to 27.4%]. There was no difference in ADWEs between groups. Several post hoc sensitivity analyses, including the use of a nonparametric test to address the low cluster number, group imbalances, and potential biases, did not alter study conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This cluster randomized clinical trial showed that providing deprescribing clinical decision support during acute hospitalization had no demonstrable impact on ADEs, although the intervention was safe and led to improvements in deprescribing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03272607.

Factors affecting physician implementation of hospital pharmacists' medication appropriateness recommendations in older adults

AIMS

Non-implementation of pharmacist recommendations by physician prescribers may prolong potentially inappropriate prescribing in hospitalised older adults, increasing the risk of adverse clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to ascertain the key factors affecting physician prescriber implementation of pharmacists' medication appropriateness recommendations in hospitalised older adults.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with hospital pharmacists and physicians who provided care to older adults (≥65 years) in 2 acute university teaching hospitals in Ireland. Content analysis was employed to identify the key themes that influence physician prescriber implementation of pharmacist recommendations.

RESULTS

Fourteen interviews were conducted with 6 hospital pharmacists and 8 hospital physicians between August 2018 and August 2019. Five key factors were found to affect physician implementation of pharmacist recommendations: (i) the clinical relevance and complexity of the recommendation-recommendations of higher priority and those that do not require complex decision-making are implemented more readily; (ii) interprofessional communication-recommendations provided verbally, particularly those communicated face to face with confidence and assertion, are more likely to be implemented than written recommendations; (iii) physician role and identity-the grade, specialty, and personality of the physician significantly affect implementation; (iv) knowing each other and developing trusting relationships-personal acquaintance and the development of interprofessional trust and rapport greatly facilitate recommendation implementation; and (v) the hospital environment-organisational issues such as documentation in the patient notes, having the opportunity to intervene, and the clinical pharmacy model all affect implementation.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a deeper understanding of the underlying behavioural determinants affecting physician prescriber implementation of pharmacist recommendations and will aid in the development of theoretically-informed interventions to improve medication appropriateness in hospitalised older adults.

Title Assessing Potentially Inappropriate Medications in Seniors: Differences between American Geriatrics Society and STOPP Criteria, and Preventing Adverse Drug Reactions

Key problems for seniors are their exposure to “potentially inappropriate medications” and “potential medication omissions”, which place them at risk for moderate, severe, or fatal adverse drug reactions. This study of 82,935 first admissions to acute care hospitals in Calgary during 2013–2018 identified 294,160 Screening Tool of Older People’s Prescriptions (STOPP) potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) (3.55/patient), 226,970 American Geriatric Society (AGS) Beers PIMs (2.74/patient), 59,396 START potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) (0.72/patient), and 85,288 STOPP PPOs (1.03/patient) for which a new prescription corrected the omission. This represents an overwhelming workload to prevent inappropriate prescriptions continuing during the hospitalisation and then deprescribe them judiciously. Limiting scrutiny to the most frequent PIMs and PPOs will identify many moderate, severe, or fatal risks of causing adverse drug reactions (ADRs) but to identify all PIMs or PPO involving moderate or severe risks of ADRs also involves searching lower in the frequency list of patients. Deciding whether to use the STOPP or AGS Beers PIM lists is an important issue in searching for ADRs, because the Pearson correlation coefficient for agreement between the STOPP and AGS Beers PIM totals in this study was 0.7051 (95% CI 0.7016 to 0.7085; p < 0.001). The combined lists include 289 individual PIM medications but STOPP and AGS have only 159 (55%) in common. The AGS Beers lists include medications used in the US and STOPP/START those used in Europe. The AGS authors recommend using both criteria. The ideal solution to the problem is to implement carefully constructed Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) as in the SENATOR trial, then for an experienced pharmacist to focus on the key PIMs and PPOs likely to lead to moderate, severe, or fatal ADRs. The pharmacist and key decision makers on the services need to establish a collegial relationship to discuss frequently changing the medications that place the patients at risk. Then, the remaining PIMs and PPOs that relate to chronic disease management can be discussed by phone with the family physician using the discharge summary, which lists the medications for potential deprescribing.