Development and dissemination of a statewide system to minimize use of Potentially Inappropriate Medications (PIMs)

Tools and guidelines to assess the appropriateness of medication and aid deprescribing: An umbrella review

AIMS

The aim of this umbrella review was to identify tools and guidelines to aid the deprescribing process of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), evaluate development and validation methods, and describe evidence levels for medication inclusion.

METHODS

Searches were conducted on MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase.com, Cochrane CDSR, CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science Core Collection and guideline databases from the date of inception to 7 July 2022. Following the initial search, an additional search was conducted to identify an updated versions of tools on 17 July 2023. We analysed the contents of tools and guidelines.

RESULTS

From 23 systematic reviews and guidelines, we identified 95 tools (72 explicit, 12 mixed and 11 implicit) and nine guidelines. Most tools (83.2%) were developed to use for older persons, including 14 for those with limited life expectancy. Seven tools were for children <18 years (7.37%). Most explicit/mixed tools (78.57%) and all guidelines were validated. We found 484 PIMs and 202 medications with different appropriateness independent of disease for older persons with normal and limited life expectancy, respectively. Only two tools and eight guidelines reported the evidence level, and a quarter of medications had high-quality evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Tools are available for a diversity of populations. There were discrepancies, with the same medication being classified as inappropriate in some tools and appropriate in others, possibly due to low-quality evidence. In particular, tools for patients with limited life expectancy were developed based on very limited evidence, and research to generate this evidence is urgently needed. Our medication lists, along with the level of evidence, could facilitate efforts to strengthen the evidence.

Optimising prescribing practices in older adults with multimorbidity: a scoping review of guidelines

OBJECTIVE

Inappropriate polypharmacy occurs when multiple medications are prescribed without clear indications or where harms outweigh their benefits. The aims of this scoping review are to (1) identify prescribing guidelines that are available for older adults with multimorbidity and (2) to identify cross-cutting themes used in these guidelines.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library databases, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, grey literature sources, six key geriatrics journals, and reference lists of identified review papers. The search was conducted in November 2018 and updated in September 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

General prescribing guidelines tailored to or for adults including older adults with multimorbidity.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data for publication description, guideline characteristics, information for users and criteria were extracted. The synthesis contains summarised qualitative descriptions of the studies and guideline characteristics as well as identified cross-cutting themes.

RESULTS

Our search strategy yielded 10 427 unique citations, of which 70 fulfilled the inclusion criteria for synthesis. Among these, there were 61 unique guidelines and tools which used implicit, explicit, mixed or other approaches in the prescriber decision-making process. There are 11 cross-cutting themes identified in the guidelines. Prescriber-related themes are: conduct a comprehensive assessment before prescribing, identify patients' needs, goals and priorities, adopt shared decision-making, consider evidence-based recommendations, use clinical prescribing tools, incorporate multidisciplinary inputs and embrace technology-enabled prescribing. Wider organisation-related and system-related themes related to education, training and the work environment are also identified.

CONCLUSIONS

From guidelines and tools identified, eleven cross-cutting themes provide a usable knowledge base when seeking to optimise prescribing among older adults with multimorbidity. Incorporating these themes in an approach that uses mixed criteria and implementation information could facilitate greater uptake of published prescribing recommendations.

Process evaluation of implementation strategies to reduce potentially inappropriate medication prescribing in older population: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Several implementation strategies can reduce potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) prescribing. Although use of PIMs has declined in recent years, it remains prevalent. Various strategies exist to improve the appropriateness of medication use. However, little is known about the processes of these different implementation strategies. This scoping review aims to investigate how the process evaluation of implementation strategies for reducing PIM prescribing in the older population has been studied.

METHODS

We searched for process evaluations of implementation strategies for reducing PIM prescribing in PUBMED, SCOPUS and Web of Science published between January 2000 and November 2019 in English. We applied the following inclusion criteria: patients aged ≥65 years, validated PIM criteria, and implementation process evaluated. The review focuses on decision support for health care professionals. We described the findings of the process evaluations, and compared the authors' concepts of process evaluation of the included publications to those of Proctor et al.( 2010).

RESULT

Of 9131 publications screened, 29 met our inclusion criteria. Different process evaluation conceptualizations were identified. Most process evaluations took place in the initial stages of the process (acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, and feasibility) and sustainability and implementation costs were seldom evaluated. None of the included publications evaluated fidelity. Multifaceted interventions were the most studied implementation strategies. Medication review was more common in acceptability evaluations, multidisciplinary interventions in adoption evaluations, and computerized systems and educational interventions in feasibility evaluations. Process evaluations were studied from the health care professionals' viewpoint in most of the included publications, but the management viewpoint was missing.

DISCUSSION

The conceptualization of process evaluation in the field of PIM prescribing is indeterminate. There is also a current gap in the knowledge of sustainability and implementation costs. Clarifying the conceptualization of implementation process evaluation is essential in order to effectively translate research knowledge into practice.

Potentially inappropriate medication in the elderly: a systematic review of validated explicit criteria

PURPOSE

Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use causes preventable adverse drug reactions in older patients. Several assessment tools have been published to identify and avoid PIM use. In this systematic literature review, we aim to provide summaries and comparisons of validated PIMs lists published between 1991 and 2017 internationally.

METHODS

In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement (PRISMA), we performed a systematic review of articles describing the development and validation of criteria for identification of PIMs among older people published between January 1991 and April 2017. The searches were conducted on PUBMED, AgeLine, Academic Search, Academic Search Premier, and CINAHL. We identified the most common medications/classes described as PIM. We also identified the drug-disease interactions and drug-drug interactions reported among criteria.

RESULTS

From 2933 articles screened, 36 met our inclusion criteria. The majority used the Delphi method to validate their criteria. We identified 907 different medications/classes, 536 different drug disease interactions involving 84 diseases/conditions, and 159 drug-drug interactions. Benzodiazepines and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were the medications most commonly reported as potentially inappropriate for older people.

CONCLUSION

Although approaches aimed at detecting inappropriate prescribing have intensified in recent years, we observed limited overlap between different PIM lists. Additionally, some PIM lists did not provide special considerations of use and alternative therapies to avoid PIMs. These facts may compromise the use of PIM lists in clinical practice. Future PIM lists should integrate information about alternative therapies and special considerations of use in order to help clinicians in the drug prescription.

Inappropriate prescribing: a systematic overview of published assessment tools

BACKGROUND

Criteria to assess the appropriateness of prescriptions might serve as a helpful guideline during professional training and in daily practice, with the aim to improve a patient's pharmacotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

To create a comprehensive and structured overview of existing tools to assess inappropriate prescribing.

METHOD

Systematic literature search in Pubmed (1991-2013). The following properties of the tools were extracted and mapped in a structured way: approach (explicit, implicit), development method (consensus technique, expert panel, literature based), focused patient group, health care setting, and covered aspects of inappropriate prescribing.

RESULTS

The literature search resulted in 46 tools to assess inappropriate prescribing.Twenty-eight (61%) of 46 tools were explicit, 8 (17%) were implicit and 10 (22%) used a mixed approach. Thirty-six (78%) tools named older people as target patients and 10 (22%) tools did not specify the target age group. Four (8.5%) tools were designed to detect inappropriate prescribing in hospitalised patients, 9 (19.5%) focused on patients in ambulatory care and 6 (13%) were developed for use in long-term care. Twenty-seven (59%) tools did not specify the health care setting. Consensus methods were applied in the development of 19 tools (41%), the others were based on either simple expert panels (13; 28%) or on a literature search (11; 24%). For three tools (7%) the development method was not described.

CONCLUSION

This overview reveals the characteristics of 46 assessment tools and can serve as a summary to assist readers in choosing a tool, either for research purposes or for daily practice use.