Integrated health intervention on polypharmacy and inappropriate prescribing in elderly people with multimorbidity: Results at the end of the intervention and at 6 months after the intervention

The impact of a multidisciplinary team intervention on medication prescription in nursing homes in Catalonia

Background

In response to the rising population of nursing home residents with frailty and multimorbidity, optimizing medication safety through drug utilization review and addressing medication-related problems (MRPs) is imperative. Clinical decision support systems help reduce medication errors and detect potential MRPs, as well as medication reviews performed by a multidisciplinary team, but these combined assessments are not commonly performed. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact on medication plans of a multidisciplinary team intervention in nursing homes, by analyzing the medication plan before and after the intervention and assessing whether the recommendations given had been implemented.

Methods

A multicenter before-after study, involving five nursing homes, assessed the impact of a multidisciplinary team intervention, to estimate effectiveness related to the review of the prescribed medications. The follow-up period for each patient was 12 months or until death if prior, from July 2020 to February 2022, and involved 483 patients. The clinical pharmacologist coordinated the intervention and reviewed all the prescribed medications to make recommendations, focused on the completion of absent data, withdrawal of a drug, verification of whether a drug was adequate, the substitution of a drug, and the addition of drugs. Since the intervention was performed during the COVID-19 pandemic, optimization of psychotropic drugs and absorbent pads were limited.

Results

The intervention had an impact with recommendations given for 398 (82.4%) of the patients and which were followed by 58.5% of them. At least one drug was withdrawn in 293 (60.7%) of the patients, with a mean of 2.3 (SD 1.7). As for the total of 1,097 recommendations given, 355 (32.4%) were followed. From the intervention, antipsychotics, antidepressants, benzodiazepines, statins, and diuretics were the most frequently withdrawn.

Conclusion

The findings underscore the impact of targeted interventions to reduce inappropriate medications and enhance medication safety in nursing homes. The proposed recommendations given and followed show the importance of a multidisciplinary team, coordinated by a clinical pharmacologist, for a patient-centered approach to make medication reviews regularly, with the help of clinical decision support systems, to help reduce potential MRPs and polypharmacy.

Defining, identifying and addressing problematic polypharmacy within multimorbidity in primary care: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Polypharmacy and multimorbidity pose escalating challenges. Despite numerous attempts, interventions have yet to show consistent improvements in health outcomes. A key factor may be varied approaches to targeting patients for intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To explore how patients are targeted for intervention by examining the literature with respect to: understanding how polypharmacy is defined; identifying problematic polypharmacy in practice; and addressing problematic polypharmacy through interventions.

DESIGN

We performed a scoping review as defined by the Joanna Briggs Institute.

SETTING

The focus was on primary care settings.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Cochrane along with ClinicalTrials.gov, Science.gov and WorldCat.org were searched from January 2004 to February 2024.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included all articles that had a focus on problematic polypharmacy in multimorbidity and primary care, incorporating multiple types of evidence, such as reviews, quantitative trials, qualitative studies and policy documents. Articles focussing on a single index disease or not written in English were excluded.

EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a narrative synthesis, comparing themes and findings across the collective evidence to draw contextualised insights and conclusions.

RESULTS

In total, 157 articles were included. Case-finding methods often rely on basic medication counts (often five or more) without considering medical history or whether individual medications are clinically appropriate. Other approaches highlight specific drug indicators and interactions as potentially inappropriate prescribing, failing to capture a proportion of patients not fitting criteria. Different potentially inappropriate prescribing criteria also show significant inconsistencies in determining the appropriateness of medications, often neglecting to consider multimorbidity and underprescribing. This may hinder the identification of the precise population requiring intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Improved strategies are needed to target patients with polypharmacy, which should consider patient perspectives, individual factors and clinical appropriateness. The development of a cross-cutting measure of problematic polypharmacy that consistently incorporates adjustment for multimorbidity may be a valuable next step to address frequent confounding.

Patterns of inappropriate prescribing and clinical characteristics in patients at admission to an acute care of the elderly unit

PURPOSE

Inappropriate prescribing (IP) is common among the elderly and is associated with adverse health outcomes. The role of different patterns of IP in clinical practice remains unclear. The aim of this study is to analyse the characteristics of different patterns of IP in hospitalized older adults.

METHODS

This is a prospective observational study conducted in the acute care of elderly (ACE) unit of an acute hospital in Barcelona between June and August 2021. Epidemiological and demographic data were collected, and a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) was performed on admitted patients. Four patterns of inappropriate prescribing were identified: extreme polypharmacy (10 or more drugs), potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) and anticholinergic burden.

RESULTS

Among 93 admitted patients (51.6% male, mean age of 82.83), the main diagnosis was heart failure (36.6%). Overprescribing patterns (extreme polypharmacy, PIMs, PPOs and anticholinergic burden) were associated with higher comorbidity, increased dependence on instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) and greater prevalence of dementia. Underprescribing (omissions) was associated with important comorbidity, residence in nursing homes, an increased risk of malnutrition, higher social risk and greater frailty. Comparing different patterns of IP, patients with high anticholinergic burden exhibited more extreme polypharmacy and PIMs. In the case of omissions, no association was identified with other IP patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

We found statistically significant association between patterns of inappropriate prescribing and clinical and CGA variables such as comorbidity, dependency, dementia or frailty. There is a statistically significant association between patterns of overprescribing among patients admitted to the ACE unit.

Deprescribing medicines in older people living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy: the TAILOR evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Tackling problematic polypharmacy requires tailoring the use of medicines to individual needs and circumstances. This may involve stopping medicines (deprescribing) but patients and clinicians report uncertainty on how best to do this. The TAILOR medication synthesis sought to help understand how best to support deprescribing in older people living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy.

OBJECTIVES

We identified two research questions: (1) what evidence exists to support the safe, effective and acceptable stopping of medication in this patient group, and (2) how, for whom and in what contexts can safe and effective tailoring of clinical decisions related to medication use work to produce desired outcomes? We thus described three objectives: (1) to undertake a robust scoping review of the literature on stopping medicines in this group to describe what is being done, where and for what effect; (2) to undertake a realist synthesis review to construct a programme theory that describes 'best practice' and helps explain the heterogeneity of deprescribing approaches; and (3) to translate findings into resources to support tailored prescribing in clinical practice.

DATA SOURCES

Experienced information specialists conducted comprehensive searches in MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Joanna Briggs Institute Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, Google (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA) and Google Scholar (targeted searches).

REVIEW METHODS

The scoping review followed the five steps described by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for conducting a scoping review. The realist review followed the methodological and publication standards for realist reviews described by the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) group. Patient and public involvement partners ensured that our analysis retained a patient-centred focus.

RESULTS

Our scoping review identified 9528 abstracts: 8847 were removed at screening and 662 were removed at full-text review. This left 20 studies (published between 2009 and 2020) that examined the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of deprescribing in adults (aged ≥ 50 years) with polypharmacy (five or more prescribed medications) and multimorbidity (two or more conditions). Our analysis revealed that deprescribing under research conditions mapped well to expert guidance on the steps needed for good clinical practice. Our findings offer evidence-informed support to clinicians regarding the safety, clinician acceptability and potential effectiveness of clinical decision-making that demonstrates a structured approach to deprescribing decisions. Our realist review identified 2602 studies with 119 included in the final analysis. The analysis outlined 34 context-mechanism-outcome configurations describing the knowledge work of tailored prescribing under eight headings related to organisational, health-care professional and patient factors, and interventions to improve deprescribing. We conclude that robust tailored deprescribing requires attention to providing an enabling infrastructure, access to data, tailored explanations and trust.

LIMITATIONS

Strict application of our definition of multimorbidity during the scoping review may have had an impact on the relevance of the review to clinical practice. The realist review was limited by the data (evidence) available.

CONCLUSIONS

Our combined reviews recognise deprescribing as a complex intervention and provide support for the safety of structured approaches to deprescribing, but also highlight the need to integrate patient-centred and contextual factors into best practice models.

FUTURE WORK

The TAILOR study has informed new funded research tackling deprescribing in sleep management, and professional education. Further research is being developed to implement tailored prescribing into routine primary care practice.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018107544 and PROSPERO CRD42018104176.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 32. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.