Pharmacist-led medication review in community-dwelling older patients using the GheOP3 S-tool: General practitioners' acceptance and implementation of pharmacists' recommendations

What makes a multidisciplinary medication review and deprescribing intervention for older people work well in primary care? A realist review and synthesis

BACKGROUND

A third of older people take five or more regular medications (polypharmacy). Conducting medication reviews in primary care is key to identify and reduce/ stop inappropriate medications (deprescribing). Recent recommendations for effective deprescribing include shared-decision making and a multidisciplinary approach. Our aim was to understand when, why, and how interventions for medication review and deprescribing in primary care involving multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) work (or do not work) for older people.

METHODS

A realist synthesis following the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards guidelines was completed. A scoping literature review informed the generation of an initial programme theory. Systematic searches of different databases were conducted, and documents screened for eligibility, with data extracted based on a Context, Mechanisms, Outcome (CMO) configuration to develop further our programme theory. Documents were appraised based on assessments of relevance and rigour. A Stakeholder consultation with 26 primary care health care professionals (HCPs), 10 patients and three informal carers was conducted to test and refine the programme theory. Data synthesis was underpinned by Normalisation Process Theory to identify key mechanisms to enhance the implementation of MDT medication review and deprescribing in primary care.

FINDINGS

A total of 2821 abstracts and 175 full-text documents were assessed for eligibility, with 28 included. Analysis of documents alongside stakeholder consultation outlined 33 CMO configurations categorised under four themes: 1) HCPs roles, responsibilities and relationships; 2) HCPs training and education; 3) the format and process of the medication review 4) involvement and education of patients and informal carers. A number of key mechanisms were identified including clearly defined roles and good communication between MDT members, integration of pharmacists in the team, simulation-based training or team building training, targeting high-risk patients, using deprescribing tools and drawing on expertise of other HCPs (e.g., nurses and frailty practitioners), involving patents and carers in the process, starting with 'quick wins', offering deprescribing as 'drug holidays', and ensuring appropriate and tailored follow-up plans that allow continuity of care and management.

CONCLUSION

We identified key mechanisms that could inform the design of future interventions and services that successfully embed deprescribing in primary care.

The Prognostic Utility of Anticholinergic Burden Scales: An Integrative Review and Gap Analysis

BACKGROUND

Anticholinergic drugs are commonly prescribed, especially to older adults. Anticholinergic burden scales (ABS) have been used to evaluate the cumulative effects of multiple anticholinergics. However, studies have shown inconsistent results regarding the association between anticholinergic burden assessed with ABS and adverse clinical outcomes such as cognitive impairment, functional decline, and frailty. This review aims to identify gaps in research on the development, validation, and evaluation of ABS, and provide recommendations for future studies.

METHOD

A comprehensive search of five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, CINAHL, CENTRAL) was conducted for relevant studies published from inception until 25 May 2023. Two reviewers screened for eligibility and assessed the quality of studies using different tools based on the study design and stage of the review framework. Research evidence was evaluated, and gaps were identified and grouped into evidence, knowledge, and methodological gaps, using evidence tables to summarize data.

RESULTS

Several evidence, knowledge, and methodological gaps in existing development, validation, and evaluation studies of ABS were identified. There is no universally accepted scale, and there is a need to define a clinically relevant threshold for measuring total anticholinergic burden. The current evidence has limitations, underrepresenting low- and middle-income countries, younger individuals, and populations with cognitive disabilities. The impact of anticholinergic burden on frailty is also understudied. Existing evaluation studies provide limited evidence on the benefit of reducing anticholinergic burden on clinical outcomes or the safety of anticholinergic deprescribing. There is also uncertainty regarding optimal reduction, clinically significant anticholinergic burden thresholds, and cost effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research recommendations to bridge knowledge gaps include developing a risk assessment framework, refining ABS scales, establishing a standardized consensus scale, and creating a longitudinal measure of cumulative anticholinergic risk. Strategies to minimize bias, consider frailty, and promote multidisciplinary and multinational collaborations are also necessary to improve patient outcomes.

General practitioners' attitude towards cooperation with other health professionals in managing patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy: A cross-sectional study

Background

Cooperation between general practitioners (GPs) and other healthcare professionals appears to help reduce the risk of polypharmacy-related adverse events in patients with multimorbidity.

Objectives

To investigate GPs profiles according to their opinions and attitudes about interprofessional cooperation and to study the association between these profiles and GPs’ characteristics.

Methods

Between May and July 2016, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of a panel of French GPs about their management of patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy, focussing on their opinions on the roles of healthcare professionals and interprofessional cooperation. We used agglomerative hierarchical cluster analysis to identify GPs profiles, then multivariable logistic regression models to study their associations with the characteristics of these doctors.

Results

1183 GPs responded to the questionnaire. We identified four profiles of GPs according to their declared attitudes towards cooperation: GPs in the ‘very favourable’ profile (14%) were willing to cooperate with various health professionals, including the delegation of some prescribing tasks to pharmacists; GPs in the ‘moderately favourable’ profile (47%) had favourable views on the roles of health professionals, with the exception for this specific delegation of the task; GPs from the ‘selectively favourable’ profile (27%) tended to work only with doctors; GPs from the ‘non-cooperative’ profile (12%) did not seem to be interested in cooperation. Some profiles were associated with GPs’ ages or participation in continuing medical education.

Conclusion

Our study highlights disparities between GPs regarding cooperation with other professionals caring for their patients and suggests ways to improve cooperation.

Feasibility of a collaborative pharmacist prescribing model for patients with chronic disease(s) attending Australian general practices: a preliminary study

BACKGROUND

Pharmacists working in general practices provide medication reviews with recommendations to general practitioners (GPs) to optimise medications. We describe a model where the pharmacist is empowered with increased responsibility to implement agreed recommendations through collaborative prescribing.

AIM

To assess a collaborative pharmacist prescribing model incorporating increased pharmacist responsibility, for patients with chronic diseases in general practice.

METHOD

This was a pre-test-post-test quasi experimental pilot study using a pharmacist embedded in three Australian general practices. A pharmaceutical care plan was developed with patients and their GP to identify drug related problems (DRPs). The pharmacist discussed recommendations to manage DRPs with the GP and implemented recommendations agreed by the GP and patient over the six-month study period. Outcome measures included acceptance and implementation rate of recommendations made by the pharmacist.

RESULTS

The pharmacist made 135 recommendations to optimise medicine use of which 126 (93.3%) were accepted by the GP. There were 105 (83.3%) implemented by the end of the study of which the pharmacist implemented 62 (49.3%).

CONCLUSION

Compared to other Australian studies using a general practice pharmacist model, this study suggested increased pharmacist responsibility through collaborative prescribing led to high acceptance and implementation rates of recommendations to manage DRPs.

Polypharmacy, potentially inappropriate prescribing and medication complexity in Turkish older patients in the community pharmacy setting

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate polypharmacy, potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) and medication complexity in Turkish older patients in the community pharmacy setting and to determine the factors associated with PIP.

METHODS

This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in the community pharmacy setting in Istanbul. Older patients (≥65 years old) who chronically used at least one medication and visited the community pharmacy for any reason in the past 4 months were invited in this study. PIP was determined by using the Ghent Older People's Prescriptions Community Pharmacy Screening (GheOP³S)-tool. The Turkish version of the Medication Regimen Complexity Index (MRCI) was used to determine medication complexity.

RESULTS

Polypharmacy (defined as the concurrent use of five or more medications) was found in 69.0% of 158 patients. A total of 398 PIPs were detected and 83.5% (n = 132) of older patients had at least one PIP. The median (IQR) MRCI score was 12.5 (7.0-19.6). The factors associated with having ≥2 PIP were advanced age (≥75 years old) (OR = 2.87, 95% CI 1.41-5.81; p < 0.05), higher number of chronic diseases (when ≥3, OR = 8.51, 95% CI 3.66-19.76; p < 0.05), receiving polypharmacy (OR = 8.92, 95% CI 4.09-19.46; p < 0.05), and higher MRCI scores (when MRCI ≥12.5, OR = 4.40, 95% CI 2.22-8.71; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

More than half of the Turkish older patients had polypharmacy and the rate of PIP was high. A higher number of PIP was associated with advanced age, higher number of chronic diseases, polypharmacy, and more complex medication regimens.

Ghent Older People's Prescriptions Community Pharmacy Screening (GheOP3S)-Tool Version 2: Update of a Tool to Detect Drug-Related Problems in Older People in Primary Care

Background

The Ghent Older People’s Prescriptions community Pharmacy Screening (GheOP³S)-tool was developed in 2016 as a screening tool to detect drug-related problems (DRPs) and to help in performing medication reviews in older people (≥ 65 years).

Objective

This study aimed to revise and update the GheOP³S-tool.

Methods

Users’ comments were collected to improve the usability and appropriateness of the original GheOP³S-tool, followed by a two-round modified Delphi process according to the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. This included a literature review, a round zero meeting, a first written round (with 15 international and multidisciplinary experts) and a second face-to-face round (with 11 experts) to change, delete or add GheOP³S-criteria. An additional third round with 14 community pharmacists was organised to preserve criteria applicable in the current community pharmacy practice.

Results

The updated GheOP³S-tool consists of five lists of DRPs and a new addendum containing medications that should be avoided or used with caution in older people with reduced renal function. During the first two rounds, related criteria were grouped, 14 criteria were added and 17 criteria were deleted from the original tool. All criteria were deemed applicable in round 3. This led to a final tool (version 2) with 64 GheOP³S-criteria.

Conclusion

GheOP³S-criteria were revised and updated according to experts’ agreement on their clinical relevance and recent scientific evidence. Future studies should investigate the impact of pharmacist-led medication reviews with GheOP³S-tool version 2 on clinical, humanistic and economic outcomes in primary care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40266-021-00862-6.

Pharmacist-Led Collaborative Medication Management for the Elderly with Chronic Kidney Disease and Polypharmacy

Inappropriate polypharmacy is likely in older adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) owing to the considerable burden of comorbidities. We aimed to describe the impact of pharmacist-led geriatric medication management service (MMS) on the quality of medication use. This retrospective descriptive study included 95 patients who received geriatric MMS in an ambulatory care clinic in a single tertiary-care teaching hospital from May 2019 to December 2019. The average age of the patients was 74.9 ± 7.3 years; 40% of them had CKD Stage 4 or 5. Medication use quality was assessed in 87 patients. After providing MMS, the total number of medications and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) decreased from 13.5 ± 4.3 to 10.9 ± 3.8 and 1.6 ± 1.4 to 1.0 ± 1.2 (both p < 0.001), respectively. Furthermore, the number of patients who received three or more central nervous system-active drugs and strong anticholinergic drugs decreased. Among the 354 drug-related problems identified, “missing patient documentation” was the most common, followed by “adverse effect” and “drug not indicated.” The most frequent intervention was “therapy stopped”. In conclusion, polypharmacy and PIMs were prevalent in older adults with CKD; pharmacist-led geriatric MMS improved the quality of medication use in this population.

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.