Communication Techniques for Deprescribing Conversations #369

Factors influencing deprescribing in primary care for those towards the end of life: A qualitative interview study with patients and healthcare practitioners

BACKGROUND

For people with limited lifetime expectancy, the benefit of many medications may be outweighed by their potential harms. Despite the relevance of reducing unnecessary medication use, deprescribing is poorly enacted in primary care practice.

AIM

This study aims to describe factors, as identified by primary care professionals and patients, that influence deprescribing in the last phase of life.

DESIGN

Semi-structured interviews were conducted and analysed using a thematic approach.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

This study was performed in primary care settings, including general practices, hospices and community care teams in The Netherlands. Purposefully identified primary care professionals (general practitioners, pharmacists, nurses) and patients with limited lifetime expectancy due to advanced chronic illness or cancer and their caretakers were interviewed.

RESULTS

Three themes emerged detailing factors influencing deprescribing in the last phase of life in primary care: (1) non-maleficence, the wish to avoid additional psychological or physical distress; (2) reactive care, the lack of priority and awareness of eligible patients; and (3) discontinuity of care within primary care and between primary care and specialty care.

CONCLUSIONS

Deprescribing is an incremental process, complicated by the unpredictability of life expectancy and attitudes of patients and health care professionals that associate continued medication use with clinical stability. Opportunities to facilitate the deprescribing process and its acceptance include the routinely systematic identification of patients with limited life expectancy and potentially inappropriate medications, and normalisation of deprescribing as component of regular primary care, occurring for all patients and continuing into end-of-life care.

Strategies to guide the successful implementation of deprescribing in community practice: Lessons learned from the front line

Background

Sustainable implementation of new professional services into clinical practice can be difficult. In 2019, a population-wide initiative called SaferMedsNL was implemented across the province of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), to promote appropriate medication use. Two evidence-based interventions were adapted to the context of NL to promote deprescribing of proton pump inhibitors and sedatives. The objective of this study was to identify and prioritize which actions supported the implementation of deprescribing in community practice for pharmacists, physicians and nurse practitioners across the province.

Methods

Community pharmacists, physicians and nurse practitioners were invited to participate in virtual focus groups. Nominal Group Technique was used to elicit responses to the question: "What actions support the implementation of deprescribing into the daily workflow of your practice?" Participants prioritized actions within each group while thematic analysis permitted comparison across groups.

Results

Five focus groups were held in fall 2020 involving pharmacists (n = 11), physicians (n = 7) and nurse practitioners (n = 4). Participants worked in rural (n = 10) and urban (n = 12) settings. The different groups agreed on what the top 5 actions were, with the top 5 receiving 68% of the scores: (1) providing patient education, (2) allocating time and resources, (3) building interprofessional collaboration and communication, (4) fostering patient relationships and (5) aligning with public awareness strategies.

Conclusion

Pharmacists, physicians and nurse practitioners identified similar actions that supported implementing evidence-based deprescribing into routine clinical practice. Sharing these strategies may help others embed deprescribing into daily practice and assist the uptake of medication appropriateness initiatives by front-line providers. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2024;157:xx-xx.

Categorization of deprescribing communication tools: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Deprescribing can be beneficial to a wide variety of patients but is often not done due to barriers including lack of time and challenges starting conversations.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify and broadly categorize existing deprescribing communication tools for clinicians and patients.

METHODS

Our scoping review protocol was based on the Arksey and O'Malley methods and incorporated the Levac and Joanna Briggs Institute recommendations. EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and grey literature were searched, with two independent reviewers assessing eligibility. A backwards search of the texts chosen for full text screen was completed. Two reviewers independently completed data extraction using a pre-specified data collection form.

FINDINGS

Databases identified 1121 results, searching of grey literature identified 49 results, and backwards searching identified 1323 results. After screening, 32 resources were included which contained 40 unique tools. Most tools were Canadian and targeted adults over 65 years old living in the community. Most tools had not been tested in the intended patient audience or evaluated for effectiveness.

DISCUSSION

Deprescribing tools have been developed to facilitate conversations by providing structure, education, and decision-making approaches. More research is needed to test the effectiveness of existing tools.

Development of Entrustable Professional Activities for Specialist Hospice and Palliative Care Pharmacists

CONTEXT

Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) translate competencies into explicit, practical terms that clearly state the expected roles and responsibilities of clinicians who have achieved proficiency and expertise in a field. EPAs are defined for Hospice and Palliative Medicine physicians but not for other members of Hospice and Palliative Care (HAPC) interprofessional teams, including pharmacists.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to develop EPAs for HAPC pharmacists.

METHODS

An 11-member workgroup of HAPC pharmacists was convened to develop candidate EPAs using nominal group and modified-Delphi methods. Content validity index was used as a measure of consensus, defined a priori at ≥ 60%. Vetting occurred via intra- and interprofessional stakeholder reactor groups and a national survey of HAPC pharmacists.

RESULTS

Following an iterative process of workgroup and stakeholder consensus-building, 15 HAPC pharmacist EPAs were developed. Among the workgroup, all 15 EPAs reached ≥ 70% consensus, indicating appropriate internal validity. In a national survey of 185 HAPC pharmacists with a 20% response rate, 13 EPAs were rated by most respondents as "essential" and 2 were rated by most respondents as "important but not essential." Respondents indicated the 15 EPA set represented the core professional activities of HAPC pharmacists well (median rating of 5 on a Likert-like scale, IQR 1).

CONCLUSION

Fifteen consensus EPAs describe essential activities of HAPC pharmacists in direct patient care, leadership, education, and scholarship. These EPAs will further guide pharmacist training programs, HAPC services seeking to incorporate a specialized pharmacist on the team, and currently practicing HAPC pharmacists.

Deprescribing Education vs Usual Care for Patients With Cognitive Impairment and Primary Care Clinicians: The OPTIMIZE Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial

Background

Individuals with dementia or mild cognitive impairment frequently have multiple chronic conditions (defined as ≥2 chronic medical conditions) and take multiple medications, increasing their risk for adverse outcomes. Deprescribing (reducing or stopping medications for which potential harms outweigh potential benefits) may decrease their risk of adverse outcomes.

Objective

To examine the effectiveness of increasing patient and clinician awareness about the potential to deprescribe unnecessary or risky medications among patients with dementia or mild cognitive impairment.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This pragmatic, patient-centered, 12-month cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020, at 18 primary care clinics in a not-for-profit integrated health care delivery system. The study included 3012 adults aged 65 years or older with dementia or mild cognitive impairment who had 1 or more additional chronic medical conditions and were taking 5 or more long-term medications.

Interventions

An educational brochure and a questionnaire on attitudes toward deprescribing were mailed to patients prior to a primary care visit, clinicians were notified about the mailing, and deprescribing tip sheets were distributed to clinicians at monthly clinic meetings.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The number of prescribed long-term medications and the percentage of individuals prescribed 1 or more potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis.

Results

This study comprised 1433 individuals (806 women [56.2%]; mean [SD] age, 80.1 [7.2] years) in 9 intervention clinics and 1579 individuals (874 women [55.4%]; mean [SD] age, 79.9 [7.5] years) in 9 control clinics who met the eligibility criteria. At baseline, both groups were prescribed a similar mean (SD) number of long-term medications (7.0 [2.1] in the intervention group and 7.0 [2.2] in the control group), and a similar proportion of individuals in both groups were taking 1 or more PIMs (437 of 1433 individuals [30.5%] in the intervention group and 467 of 1579 individuals [29.6%] in the control group). At 6 months, the adjusted mean number of long-term medications was similar in the intervention and control groups (6.4 [95% CI, 6.3-6.5] vs 6.5 [95% CI, 6.4-6.6]; P = .14). The estimated percentages of patients in the intervention and control groups taking 1 or more PIMs were similar (17.8% [95% CI, 15.4%-20.5%] vs 20.9% [95% CI, 18.4%-23.6%]; P = .08). In preplanned subgroup analyses, adjusted differences between the intervention and control groups were -0.16 (95% CI, -0.34 to 0.01) for individuals prescribed 7 or more long-term medications at baseline (n = 1434) and -0.03 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.13) for those prescribed 5 to 6 medications (n = 1578) (P = .28 for interaction; P = .19 for subgroup interaction for PIMs).

Conclusions and Relevance

This large-scale educational deprescribing intervention for older adults with cognitive impairment taking 5 or more long-term medications and their primary care clinicians demonstrated small effect sizes and did not significantly reduce the number of long-term medications and PIMs. Such interventions should target older adults taking relatively more medications.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03984396.

Deprescribing in Hospice Patients: Discontinuing Aspirin, Multivitamins, and Statins

Objective

To facilitate deprescribing of aspirin, multivitamins, and statins in hospice patients enrolled in Mayo Clinic Hospice, Rochester, Minnesota.

Patients and Methods

During the fall of 2019, we conducted a quality improvement project to improve care of Mayo Clinic Hospice patients by decreasing the percentage of patients taking aspirin, multivitamins, or statins. Project interventions included the addition of a palliative medicine fellow to the hospice interdisciplinary team, nurse education, and implementation of an evidence-based deprescribing resource tool. The resource tool included a communication framework to guide deprescribing conversations and a literature summary supporting deprescribing. The project team recorded the number of patients taking 1 of these medications by intermittently surveying the hospice census. Process and counterbalance measures were tracked with online surveys of hospice nursing staff.

Results

At the start of the project, 22 of 69 patients (32%) were taking aspirin, a multivitamin, or a statin. After introduction of the deprescribing resource tool and the addition of a palliative medicine fellow to the interdisciplinary team, this was reduced to 20 of 83 patients (24%), a 24% decrease. Results appeared to be driven primarily by a reduction in multivitamin use (33% decrease). Self-reported comfort and knowledge about deprescribing improved among the hospice nursing staff, as did satisfaction in their workflow from 5.4 to 6.0 (maximum, 7).

Conclusion

The addition of a dedicated team member to address medication issues and provision of an evidence-based deprescribing resource tool appear to reduce the use of unnecessary and potentially harmful medications in ambulatory hospice patients.

The OPTIMIZE patient- and family-centered, primary care-based deprescribing intervention for older adults with dementia or mild cognitive impairment and multiple chronic conditions: study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial

Background

Most individuals with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) have multiple chronic conditions (MCC). The combination leads to multiple medications and complex medication regimens and is associated with increased risk for significant treatment burden, adverse drug events, cognitive changes, hospitalization, and mortality. Optimizing medications through deprescribing (the process of reducing or stopping the use of inappropriate medications or medications unlikely to be beneficial) may improve outcomes for MCC patients with dementia or MCI.

Methods

With input from patients, family members, and clinicians, we developed and piloted a patient-centered, pragmatic intervention (OPTIMIZE) to educate and activate patients, family members, and primary care clinicians about deprescribing as part of optimal medication management for older adults with dementia or MCI and MCC. The clinic-based intervention targets patients on 5 or more medications, their family members, and their primary care clinicians using a pragmatic, cluster-randomized design at Kaiser Permanente Colorado. The intervention has two components: a patient/ family component focused on education and activation about the potential value of deprescribing, and a clinician component focused on increasing clinician awareness about options and processes for deprescribing. Primary outcomes are total number of chronic medications and total number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). We estimate that approximately 2400 patients across 9 clinics will receive the intervention. A comparable number of patients from 9 other clinics will serve as wait-list controls. We have > 80% power to detect an average decrease of − 0.70 (< 1 medication). Secondary outcomes include the number of PIM starts, dose reductions for selected PIMs (benzodiazepines, opiates, and antipsychotics), rates of adverse drug events (falls, hemorrhagic events, and hypoglycemic events), ability to perform activities of daily living, and skilled nursing facility, hospital, and emergency department admissions.

Discussion

The OPTIMIZE trial will examine whether a primary care-based, patient- and family-centered intervention educating patients, family members, and clinicians about deprescribing reduces numbers of chronic medications and PIMs for older adults with dementia or MCI and MCC.

Trial registration

NCT03984396. Registered on 13 June 2019

Risk Assessment and Monitoring of Patients with Cancer Receiving Opioid Therapy

To provide safe and effective management of cancer pain, a thorough risk assessment is needed when conducting a comprehensive pain evaluation. This information provides the basis for decisions about appropriate pain relief interventions and for measures that can be taken to mitigate the potential for misuse of opioids and other substances.

The primary objective of this article is to assist oncologists and advanced practice prescribers to safely and effectively minimize risk when providing opioids for cancer pain relief. The majority of people with cancer are unlikely to misuse or divert opioid medications, yet the prescriber is often unaware of those who are at risk for these behaviors. To provide skillful pain management to each patient in the oncology setting, while limiting harm to the community, all prescribers must consider the potential for risk of misuse, addiction, or diversion. To minimize this risk to the greatest degree possible, it is imperative to include a thorough risk assessment when conducting a comprehensive pain evaluation. This information is then used to triage pain relief interventions based upon the degree of risk, including whether or not to incorporate opioids into the plan of care. Risk mitigation strategies, incorporating universal precautions, are implemented to assess, monitor, and reduce the potential for opioid misuse. Universal precautions include strategies such as the use of urine toxicology, state prescription drug monitoring programs, and agreements. Ongoing monitoring is conducted with the goal being to identify aberrant behaviors early so that they can be addressed and managed appropriately. Referral to addiction specialists may be warranted when substance use disorder precludes safe use of opioids.

Implications for Practice.

Throughout the trajectory of cancer care, opioid use is often indicated, and, in fact, it may be unethical to limit or prohibit the use of opioids when pain is severe. Oncologists face the significant challenge of providing cancer pain control that is safe and effective, while limiting individual risk for abuse or overdose and keeping the community free of diverted substances. Most oncology providers report inadequate training in chronic pain principles and in managing addiction. Risk assessment and mitigation measures can be incorporated within oncology care to enhance effective pain management while reducing the potential for harm.