Negotiating "Unmeasurable Harm and Benefit": Perspectives of General Practitioners and Consultant Pharmacists on Deprescribing in the Primary Care Setting

The patient's perspectives of safe and routine proactive deprescribing in primary care for older people living with polypharmacy: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The process of identifying and discontinuing medicines in instances in which harms outweigh benefits (deprescribing) can mitigate the negative consequences of problematic polypharmacy. This process should be conducted with a focus on the patient and involve collaborative decision-making. Evidence is needed regarding patients' views on how deprescribing should be safely and routinely implemented in English primary care to improve its application. This study aimed to identify optimal methods of introducing and actioning deprescribing from the patient's perspective.

METHODS

Participants in England aged 65 and above who were taking five or more medicines and residing in their own homes were recruited through social media and service user groups. An interview guide was created from deprescribing literature and input from patients and the public, guided by the Normalisation Process Theory (NPT). The interviews were held online using Microsoft Teams® or via phone, recorded, and then transcribed. The data was analysed using the Framework analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty patients (mean age of 74.5, SD = 6.93), with 75% being female, were enrolled in the study. Three main themes emerged: (1) 'Why deprescribe now?' emphasised the significance of explaining the reasons behind deprescribing; (2) 'Monitoring and follow-up' underscored the necessity of safety measures during deprescribing and patients' willingness to self-monitor post-intervention; (3) 'Roles and relationships' explored patient perceptions of various healthcare professionals involved in deprescribing and the essential interpersonal skills for fostering therapeutic relationships.

CONCLUSION

Optimal methods of introducing deprescribing included communicating a convincing rationale for stopping medicines and preparing patients for deprescribing conversations. Patients required support from a range of healthcare professionals with whom they had an existing therapeutic relationship. Whilst patients were motivated to self-monitor unwanted/unexpected effects post-deprescribing, timely support was required. The nature of such bolstered collective action and cognitive participation within NPT enhances the normalisation potential of deprescribing. These findings highlight the significance of considering the content and process of deprescribing consultations to enhance normalisation and tackle problematic polypharmacy. This provides a deeper understanding of patients' needs for implementing safe and routine deprescribing in primary care, which should be considered when designing medication review and deprescribing services.

Perspectives on deprescribing in older people with type 2 diabetes and/or cardiovascular conditions: challenges from healthcare provider, patient and caregiver perspective, and interventions to support a proactive approach

INTRODUCTION

For people with type 2 diabetes and/or cardiovascular conditions, deprescribing of glucose-lowering, blood pressure-lowering and/or lipid-lowering medication is recommended when they age, and their health status deteriorates. So far, deprescribing rates of these so-called cardiometabolic medications are low. A review of challenges and interventions addressing these challenges in this population is pertinent.

AREAS COVERED

We first provide an overview of relevant deprescribing recommendations. Next, we review challenges for healthcare providers (HCPs) to deprescribe cardiometabolic medication and provide insight in the patient and caregiver perspective on deprescribing. We summarize findings from research on implementing deprescribing of cardiometabolic medication and reflect on strategies to enhance deprescribing. We have used a combination of methods to search for relevant articles.

EXPERT OPINION

There is a need for rigorous development and evaluation of intervention strategies aimed at proactive deprescribing of cardiometabolic medication. To address challenges at different levels, these should be multifaceted interventions. All stakeholders must become aware of the relevance of deintensifying medication in this population. Education and training for HCPs and patients should support patient-centered communication and shared decision-making. Development of procedures and tools to select eligible patients and conduct targeted medication reviews are important for implementation of deprescribing in routine care.

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of primary healthcare practitioners regarding pharmacist clinics: a cross-sectional study in Shanghai

BACKGROUND

Pharmacist clinics offer professional pharmaceutical services that can improve public health outcomes. However, primary healthcare staff in China face various barriers and challenges in implementing such clinics. To identify existing problems and provide recommendations for the implementation of pharmacist clinics, this study aims to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of pharmacist clinics among primary healthcare providers.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey based on the Knowledge-Attitude-Practice (KAP) model, was conducted in community health centers (CHCs) and private hospitals in Shanghai, China in May, 2023. Descriptive analytics and the Pareto principle were used to multiple-answer questions. Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, and binary logistic regression models were employed to identify factors associated with the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of pharmacist clinics.

RESULTS

A total of 223 primary practitioners participated in the survey. Our study revealed that most of them had limited knowledge (60.1%, n = 134) but a positive attitude (82.9%, n = 185) towards pharmacist clinics, with only 17.0% (n = 38) having implemented them. The primary goal of pharmacist clinics was to provide comprehensive medication guidance (31.5%, n = 200), with medication education (26.3%, n = 202) being the primary service, and special populations (24.5%, n = 153) identified as key recipients. Logistic regression analysis revealed that education, age, occupation, position, work seniority, and institution significantly influenced their perceptions. Practitioners with bachelor's degrees, for instance, were more likely than those with less education to recognize the importance of pharmacist clinics in medication guidance (aOR: 7.130, 95%CI: 1.809-28.099, p-value = 0.005) and prescription reviews (aOR: 4.675, 95% CI: 1.548-14.112, p-value = 0.006). Additionally, practitioners expressed positive attitudes but low confidence, with only 33.3% (n = 74) feeling confident in implementation. The confidence levels of male practitioners surpassed those of female practitioners (p-value = 0.037), and practitioners from community health centers (CHCs) exhibited higher confidence compared to their counterparts in private hospitals (p-value = 0.008). Joint physician-pharmacist clinics (36.8%, n = 82) through collaboration with medical institutions (52.0%, n = 116) emerged as the favored modality. Daily sessions were preferred (38.5%, n = 86), and both registration and pharmacy service fees were considered appropriate for payment (42.2%, n = 94). The primary challenge identified was high outpatient workload (30.9%, n = 69).

CONCLUSIONS

Although primary healthcare practitioners held positive attitudes towards pharmacist clinics, limited knowledge, low confidence, and high workload contributed to the scarcity of their implementation. Practitioners with diverse sociodemographic characteristics, such as education, age, and institution, showed varying perceptions and practices regarding pharmacist clinics.

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.

Polypharmacy and Deprescribing in Older Adults

Older adults commonly end up on many medications. Deprescribing is an important part of individualizing care for older adults. It is an opportunity to discuss treatment options and revisit medications that may not have been reassessed in many years. A large evidence base exists in the field, suggesting that deprescribing is feasible and safe, though questions remain about the potential clinical benefits. Deprescribing research faces a myriad of challenges, such as identifying and employing the optimal outcome measures. Further, there is uncertainty about which deprescribing approaches are likely to be most effective and in what contexts. Evidence on barriers and facilitators to deprescribing has underscored how deprescribing in routine clinical practice can be complex and challenging. Thus, finding practical, sustainable ways to implement deprescribing is a priority for future research in the field.

Attitudes and barriers towards deprescribing in older patients experiencing polypharmacy: a narrative review

Polypharmacy, commonly defined as ≥5 medications, is a rising public health concern due to its many risks of harm. One commonly recommended strategy to address polypharmacy is medication reviews, with subsequent deprescription of inappropriate medications. In this review, we explore the intersection of older age, polypharmacy, and deprescribing in a contemporary context by appraising the published literature (2012-2022) to identify articles that included new primary data on deprescribing medications in patients aged ≥65 years currently taking ≥5 medications. We found 31 articles were found which describe the current perceptions of clinicians towards deprescribing, the identified barriers, key enabling factors, and future directions in approaching deprescribing. Currently, clinicians believe that deprescribing is a complex process, and despite the majority of clinicians reporting feeling comfortable in deprescribing, fewer engage with this process regularly. Common barriers cited include a lack of knowledge and training around the deprescribing process, a lack of time, a breakdown in communication, perceived 'abandonment of care', fear of adverse consequences, and resistance from patients and/or their carers. Common enabling factors of deprescribing include recognition of key opportunities to instigate this process, regular medication reviews, improving lines of communication, education of both patients and clinicians and a multidisciplinary approach towards patient care. Addressing polypharmacy requires a nuanced approach in a generally complex group of patients. Key strategies to reducing the risks of polypharmacy include education of patients and clinicians, in addition to improving communication between healthcare providers in a multidisciplinary approach.

Deprescribing in a multimorbid older adult: A case vignette study among community pharmacists and primary care physicians

Collaborative deprescribing can include pharmacists' medication review with identification and suggestion of potential deprescribing targets to physicians. Case vignettes can be a valuable method for researching variations in clinical decision making, especially in settings unaccustomed to newer clinical approaches such as deprescribing. This study aimed to explore if pharmacists can identify deprescribing targets and if physicians would accept pharmacist's deprescribing rationales. A cross-sectional study was performed using an online case vignette based on a real-life elderly patient. Pharmacists were asked to indicate which medicines they would recommend deprescribing, alongside a rationale. Physicians were asked to state their acceptance of the proposed pharmacist's deprescribing suggestion. Pharmacists gave 1275 deprescribing rationales, and most were given for deprescribing opioids, NSAID and diuretics. Physicians would accept rationales to deprescribe a median of 10 medicines, while pharmacist would recommend deprescribing a median of six medicines. Most difference lays in deprescribing of preventative medicines. Healthcare providers share agreement on deprescribing targets, but pharmacists show hesitancies in making recommendations that could hamper potential collaboration. Action is needed to improve pharmacists' skills in recognizing deprescribing targets and confidence in making suggestions, which could lead to opening of possibilities for joint patient care.

Deprescribing, shared decision-making, and older people: perspectives in primary care

Polypharmacy is an issue that affects many people, especially older adults, and could result in negative outcomes such as lower medication adherence and an increase in the likelihood of adverse drug reactions. Deprescribing is a possible solution to mitigating this issue. Examining polypharmacy and deprescribing in primary care settings is important as it could help older adults living in the community and their relatives by lowering their treatment burden and medication cost. Some guidelines have been developed to help with the deprescribing process; however, these guidelines are not applicable to all patients and situations. Thus, the deprescribing process needs to be based mainly on the patient's current situations, preferences, and values and this could be achieved using shared decision-making. However, some barriers slow down the process to deprescribe in primary care settings and measures should be taken to overcome these barriers. This review aims to examine the current situation of deprescribing, especially in primary care settings, and how SDM can be used to optimize the deprescribing process. To achieve this an illustration using one prominent model in SDM and one prominent model in deprescribing will be presented to showcase how SDM can be used in the deprescribing process.

Ethical Aspects of Physician Decision-Making for Deprescribing Among Older Adults With Dementia

Importance

Physicians endorse deprescribing of risky or unnecessary medications for older adults (aged ≥65 years) with dementia, but there is a lack of information on what influences decisions to deprescribe in this population.

Objective

To understand how physicians make decisions to deprescribe for older adults with moderate dementia and ethical and pragmatic concerns influencing those decisions.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A cross-sectional national mailed survey study of a random sample of 3000 primary care physicians from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile who care for older adults was conducted from January 15 to December 31, 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The study randomized participants to consider 2 clinical scenarios in which a physician may decide to deprescribe a medication for older adults with moderate dementia: 1 in which the medication could cause an adverse drug event if continued and the other in which there is no evidence of benefit. Participants ranked 9 factors related to possible ethical and pragmatic concerns through best-worst scaling methods (from greatest barrier to smallest barrier to deprescribing). Conditional logit regression quantified the relative importance for each factor as a barrier to deprescribing.

Results

A total of 890 physicians (35.0%) returned surveys; 511 (57.4%) were male, and the mean (SD) years since graduation was 26.0 (11.7). Most physicians had a primary specialty in family practice (50.4% [449 of 890]) and internal medicine (43.5% [387 of 890]). A total of 689 surveys were sufficiently complete to analyze. In both clinical scenarios, the 2 greatest barriers to deprescribing were (1) the patient or family reporting symptomatic benefit from the medication (beneficence and autonomy) and (2) the medication having been prescribed by another physician (autonomy and nonmaleficence). The least influential factor was ease of paying for the medication (justice).

Conclusions and Relevance

Findings from this national survey study of primary care physicians suggests that understanding ethical aspects of physician decision-making can inform clinician education about medication management and deprescribing decisions for older adults with moderate dementia.

Antihypertensive treatment in people of very old age with frailty: time for a paradigm shift?

The optimal management of hypertension in individuals aged 80 years or older with frailty remains uncertain due to multiple gaps in evidence. Complex health issues, polypharmacy, and limited physiological reserve make responding to antihypertensive treatments unpredictable. Patients in this age group may have limited life expectancy, so their quality of life should be prioritized when making treatment decisions. Further research is needed to identify which patients would benefit from more relaxed blood pressure targets and which antihypertensive medications are preferable or should be avoided. A paradigm shift is required in attitudes towards treatment, placing equal emphasis on deprescribing and prescribing when optimizing care. This review discusses the current evidence on managing hypertension in individuals aged 80 years or older with frailty, but further research is essential to address the gaps in knowledge and improve the care of this population.

Differences in Factors Influencing Deprescribing between Primary Care Providers: Cross-Sectional Study

Deprescribing is a notable approach to improve medication management, but few healthcare systems recognize it. To introduce a new practice, it is important to examine the factors influencing the provision of a new or elaborate cognitive service within the desired setting. This study explores the perceived barriers and facilitators of deprescribing by primary healthcare providers, and identifies the factors associated with a willingness to suggest deprescribing. A cross-sectional survey was conducted (in Croatia, between October 2021 and January 2022) using a validated comprehensive healthcare providers' opinions, preferences, and attitudes towards deprescribing (CHOPPED) questionnaire. A total of 419 pharmacists and 124 physicians participated. Participants showed a high willingness to deprescribe, with significantly higher scores in physicians than in pharmacists (5.00 (interquartile range-IQR 5-5) vs. 4.00 (IQR 4-5), p < 0.001). Pharmacists had significantly higher scores in seven out of ten factors (knowledge, awareness, collaboration facilitators, competencies facilitators, healthcare system facilitators, collaboration barriers, competencies barriers) while in the remaining three factors (patient facilitators, patient and healthcare system barriers) there was no difference in scores. The strongest positive correlation with willingness to suggest deprescribing was found with the collaboration and healthcare system facilitators factors for pharmacists (G = 0.331, p < 0.001, and G = 0.309, p < 0.001, respectively), and with knowledge, awareness, and patient facilitators factors for physicians (G = 0.446, p = 0.001; G = 0.771, p < 0.001; and G = 0.259, p = 0.043, respectively). Primary healthcare providers are willing to suggest deprescribing but face different barriers and facilitators. For pharmacists, the most important facilitators were extrinsic, while for physicians they were more intrinsic and patient related. The stated results provide target areas which one could focus upon to help to engage healthcare providers in deprescribing.

Negotiating the polypharmacy paradox: a video-reflexive ethnography study of polypharmacy and its practices in primary care

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy is an important safety concern. Medication reviews are recommended for patients affected by polypharmacy, but little is known about how they are conducted, nor how clinicians make sense of them. We used video-reflexive ethnography (VRE) to: illuminate how reviews are conducted; elicit professional dialogue and concerns about polypharmacy; invite new transferable understandings of polypharmacy and its management.

METHODS

We conducted 422 hours of fieldwork (participant observation), filmed 18 consultations between clinicians and patients receiving 10 or more regular items of medication (so-called 'higher risk' polypharmacy) and played short clips of film footage to 34 participants (general practitioners, nurses, clinical pharmacists, practice managers) in seven audio-recorded reflexive workshops. Our analysis focused on 'moments of potentiation' and traced clinicians' shifting understandings of their practices.

RESULTS

Participants rarely referenced biomedical aspects of prescribing (eg, drug-drug interactions, 'Numbers Needed to Treat/Harm') focussing instead on polypharmacy as an emotional and relational challenge. Clinicians initially denigrated their medication review work as mundane. Through VRE they reframed their work as complex, identifying polypharmacy as a delicate matter to negotiate. In patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy it was difficult to disentangle medication review from other aspects of patients' medical care. Such conditions of complexity presented clinicians with competing professional obligations which were difficult to reconcile. Medication review was identified as an ongoing process, rather than a discrete 'one-off' activity. Meaningful progress towards tackling polypharmacy was only possible through small, incremental, carefully supported changes in which both patient and clinician negotiated a sharing of responsibility, best supported by continuity of care.

CONCLUSIONS

Supporting acceptable, feasible and meaningful progress towards addressing problematic polypharmacy may require shifts in how medication reviews are conceptualised. Responsible decision-making under conditions of such complexity and uncertainty depends crucially on the affective or emotional quality of the clinician-patient relationship.

A GP's clinical reasoning in the context of multimorbidity: beyond the perception of an intuitive approach

INTRODUCTION

GP's clinical reasoning processes in the context of patients suffering from multimorbidity are often a process which remains implicit. Therefore, the goal of this case study analysis is to gain a better understanding of the processes at play in the management of patients suffering from multimorbidity.

METHODS

A case study analysis, using a qualitative thematic analysis was conducted. This case follows a 54-year-old woman who has been under the care of her GP for almost 10 years and suffers from a number of chronic conditions. The clinical reasoning of an experienced GP who can explicitly unfold his processes was chosen for this case analysis.

RESULTS

Four main themes emerged from this case analysis: The different roles that GPs have to manage; the GP's cognitive flexibility and continual adaptation of their clinical reasoning processes, the patient's empowerment, and the challenges related to the collaboration with specialists and healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSION

This could help GPs gain a clearer understanding of their clinical reasoning processes and motivate them to communicate their findings with others during clinical supervision or teaching. Furthermore, this may emphasize the importance of valuing the role of the primary care physician in the management of multimorbid patients.

Attitudes towards deprescribing and patient-related factors associated with willingness to stop medication among older patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Indonesia: a cross-sectional survey study

BACKGROUND

Deprescribing of preventive medication is recommended in older patients with polypharmacy, including people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). It seems that many patients in low-middle-income countries are not willing to have their medicines deprescribed. This study aims to assess attitudes of Indonesian patients with T2D towards deprescribing in general and regarding specific cardiometabolic medicines, and factors influencing their willingness to stop medicines.

METHODS

Primary care patients with T2D of ≥60 years in Indonesia completed the revised Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire. Attitudes in general and for cardiometabolic medicines were reported descriptively. Proportions of patients willing to stop one or more medicines when recommended by different healthcare professionals were compared with Chi-square test. Multiple regression analysis was used to analyse the influence between patient-related factors and the willingness to stop medicines.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 196 participants (median age 69 years, 73% female). The percentages willing to stop medicines were 69, 67, and 41%, when the general practitioner (GP), the specialist, or the pharmacist initiates the process (p-value < 0.001). Higher perceived burden of medicines (p-value = 0.03) and less concerns about stopping (p-value < 0.001) were associated with a higher willingness to stop medicines if proposed by the GP. Patients using multiple glucose-regulating medicines were less willing to stop (p-value = 0.02). Using complementary or alternative medicines was not associated with the willingness to stop. If proposed by their pharmacist, patients without substantial education were more willing to stop than educated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Only two-thirds of older people with T2D in Indonesia were willing to stop one or more of their medicines if the GP or specialist recommended this, and even less when the pharmacist proposed this. Attention should be given to concerns about stopping specific medicines, especially among patients using multiple glucose-lowering medicines, who may be more eligible but were less willing to accept deprescribing.

Exploring Older Adult Health Literacy in the Day-to-Day Management of Polypharmacy and Making Decisions About Deprescribing: A Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy use in older adults is increasing and sometimes leads to poor health outcomes. The influence of health literacy in managing polypharmacy and making decisions about stopping medication has received limited attention.

OBJECTIVE

A mixed methods design was used to measure and investigate the influence of health literacy in the management of polypharmacy and decisions about deprescribing. Phase 1 involved two cross-sectional surveys, one with older adults using five or more medications and the other with general practitioners (GPs).

METHODS

Older adult health literacy was measured using the All Aspects of Health Literacy Scale. Phase 2 employed individual interviews with both older adults and GPs and further explored the reported use of health literacy in practice. SPSS version 24 was used to conduct descriptive statistical analysis of the Phase 1 survey responses and Phase 2 interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis with the assistance of NVivo 12.

KEY RESULTS

Phase 1 survey responses were received from 85 GPs and 137 older adults. Phase 2 interviews were conducted with 16 GPs and 25 older adults. Phase 1 results indicated that self-reported older adult health literacy was high, and that GPs believed older patients could engage in decisions about deprescribing. Phase 2 findings showed that older adults developed and employed complex health literacy practices to manage medications between consultations; however, few reported using their health literacy skills in consultations with their GPs. GPs noted that older adult involvement in decision-making varied and generally thought that older adults had low health literacy.

CONCLUSION

Older adults reported using health literacy practices in the management of their sometimes-complex medication regimens. However, the role of health literacy in deprescribing decision-making was limited. The mixed methods approach allowed greater insight into older adult and GP practices that influence the acquisition and use of health literacy. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2023;7(1):e14-e25.] Plain Language Summary: This report explores health literacy in the use of multiple medications and decisions to stop using medication/s in older age. Older adults reported good heath literacy and practiced many health literacy skills in the management of their medications. However, they did not always report the use of their health literacy skills when discussing their medications with their family doctor.

Barriers and facilitators to deprescribing of cardiovascular medications: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise the current knowledge on barriers and facilitators to deprescribing cardiovascular medications (CVMs) at the levels of patients, informal caregivers and healthcare providers (HCPs).

DESIGN/SETTING

We conducted a systematic review of studies exploring/assessing patient, informal caregiver and/or HCP barriers and/or facilitators to deprescribing CVMs.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid/MEDLINE and Embase from January 2003 to November 2021.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We performed a deductive thematic analysis based on the framework of specific barriers and facilitators to deprescribing CVMs created by Goyal et al. We added a quantification of the occurrence of categories and themes in the selected articles to identify the resounding themes that indicate the greater impetus to address in future research.

RESULTS

Most frequent deprescribing barriers for patients, informal caregivers and HCPs included uncertainty due to lack of evidence regarding CVM deprescribing (in n=10 studies), fear of negative consequences following deprescribing (n=13) and social influences (n=14). A frequently reported facilitator to deprescribing, especially for patients and informal caregivers, was the occurrence of adverse drug events (n=7). Another frequently reported facilitator for patients were dislike of CVMs (n=9). Necessity and benefit of CVMs were seen as barriers or facilitators similarly by patients and HCPs.

CONCLUSION

The differences in patient, informal caregiver and HCP regarding barriers and facilitators to deprescribing CVMs stress the need for ground discussions about beliefs and preferences of each stakeholder implicated in deprescribing decisions. Furthermore, HCP uncertainty regarding CVM deprescribing highlights the need to provide HCPs with tools that enable sharing the risks and benefits of deprescribing with patients and ensure a safe deprescribing process.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020221973.

Uncertainty in multimorbidity: a shared experience we should recognise, acknowledge and communicate

Multimorbidity is increasingly common and inevitably results in uncertainties about health, care and the future. Such uncertainties may be experienced by patients, carers and health professionals. Given the ubiquitous presence of uncertainty, all professionals should be prepared to approach and address it in clinical practice. Uncertainty in multimorbidity can rarely be eliminated, and so, must be carefully addressed and communicated; however, there is little evidence on how to approach it. Key areas are: recognising the existence of uncertainty, acknowledging it, and communicating to achieve a shared understanding. Evaluation of what has been discussed, and preparedness to repeat such conversations are also important. Future research should explore optimal communication of uncertainty in multimorbidity.

Managing multimorbidity: a qualitative study of the Australian general practitioner experience

BACKGROUND

Multimorbidity is prevalent in general practice and general practitioners internationally report challenges in its management. Understanding the perspectives of general practitioners at the frontline of care is important for system sustainability and accessibility as populations age.

OBJECTIVE

To explore Australian general practitioner perspectives on managing multimorbidity, the factors supporting their work, and those impeding their ability to meet their own standards of care provision.

METHOD

A qualitative study conducted with Australian general practitioners using semistructured, in-depth interviews and inductive thematic data analysis.

RESULTS

Twelve interviews with general practitioners were conducted. Three main themes were constructed from the data: Multimorbidity as an encounter with complexity and contingency; Evidence constraints in multimorbidity care; and Concerns for patient safety. System structure and the Australian general practice model restrict general practitioners' ability to provide care to their level of satisfaction by linking short consultation times to practice remuneration. Attitudes toward the applicability of guideline evidence were mixed despite most general practitioners questioning its generalizability. Patient safety concerns pervaded most interviews and largely centered on system fragmentation and insufficient intersectoral communication. General practitioners rely on multiple sources of information to provide patient-centered care but chiefly the accumulated knowledge of their patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Australian general practitioners share many multimorbidity concerns with international colleagues. While multimorbidity-specific evidence may be unrealistic to expect in the immediate term, system investment and adaptation is needed to support general practice sustainability and clinician ability to provide adequate multimorbidity care, suitably remunerated, into the future.

Optimising a person-centred approach to stopping medicines in older people with multimorbidity and polypharmacy using the DExTruS framework: a realist review

BACKGROUND

Tackling problematic polypharmacy requires tailoring the use of medicines to individual circumstances and may involve the process of deprescribing. Deprescribing can cause anxiety and concern for clinicians and patients. Tailoring medication decisions often entails beyond protocol decision-making, a complex process involving emotional and cognitive work for healthcare professionals and patients. We undertook realist review to highlight and understand the interactions between different factors involved in deprescribing and to develop a final programme theory that identifies and explains components of good practice that support a person-centred approach to deprescribing in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy.

METHODS

The realist approach involves identifying underlying causal mechanisms and exploring how, and under what conditions they work. We conducted a search of electronic databases which were supplemented by citation checking and consultation with stakeholders to identify other key documents. The review followed the key steps outlined by Pawson et al. and followed the RAMESES standards for realist syntheses.

RESULTS

We included 119 included documents from which data were extracted to produce context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) and a final programme theory. Our programme theory recognises that deprescribing is a complex intervention influenced by a multitude of factors. The components of our final programme theory include the following: a supportive infrastructure that provides clear guidance around professional responsibilities and that enables multidisciplinary working and continuity of care, consistent access to high-quality relevant patient contextual data, the need to support the creation of a shared explanation and understanding of the meaning and purpose of medicines and a trial and learn approach that provides space for monitoring and continuity. These components may support the development of trust which may be key to managing the uncertainty and in turn optimise outcomes. These components are summarised in the novel DExTruS framework.

CONCLUSION

Our findings recognise the complex interpretive practice and decision-making involved in medication management and identify key components needed to support best practice. Our findings have implications for how we design medication review consultations, professional training and for patient records/data management. Our review also highlights the role that trust plays both as a central element of tailored prescribing and a potential outcome of good practice in this area.

Factors associated with statin discontinuation near end of life in a Danish primary health care cohort

BACKGROUND

Long-term preventive treatment such as treatment with statins should be reassessed among patients approaching end of life. The aim of the study was to describe the rate of discontinuation of statin treatment and factors associated with discontinuation in the 6 months before death.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective cohort study using national registers and blood test results from primary health care patients. Patients in the Copenhagen municipality, Denmark who died between 1997 and 2018 and were statin users during the 10-year period before death were included. We calculated the proportion who remained statin users in the 6-month period before death. Factors associated with discontinuation were tested using logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 55,591 decedents were included. More patients continued treatment (64%, n = 35,693) than discontinued (36%, n = 19,898) the last 6 months of life. The 70 and 80 age groups had the lowest odds of discontinuing compared to the 90 (OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.93-2.72) and 100 (OR 3.11, 95% CI 2.79-3.47) age groups. Increasing comorbidity score (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.87; 0.90 per 1-point increase) and use of statins for secondary prevention (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.85; 0.93) reduced the likelihood of discontinuation as did a diagnosis of dementia, heart failure, or cancer.

CONCLUSION

A substantial portion of patients continued statin treatment near end of life. Efforts to promote rational statin use and discontinuation are required among patients with limited life expectancy, including establishing clear, practical recommendations about statin discontinuation, and initiatives to translate recommendations into clinical practice.

Primary-Care Prescribers' Perspectives on Deprescribing Opioids and Benzodiazepines in Older Adults

Purpose

Opioids and benzodiazepines (BZDs) are frequently implicated as contributing to falls in older adults. Deprescribing of these medications continues to be challenging. This study evaluated primary-care prescribers’ confidence in and perceptions of deprescribing opioids and BZDs for older adults.

Methods

For this study, we conducted a quantitative analysis of survey data combined with an analysis of qualitative data from a focus group. A survey evaluating prescriber confidence in deprescribing opioids and BZDs was distributed to providers at 15 primary-care clinics in North Carolina between March-December 2020. Average confidence (scale 0–100) for deprescribing opioids, deprescribing BZDs, and deprescribing under impeding circumstances were reported. A virtual focus group was conducted in March 2020 to identify specific barriers and facilitators to deprescribing opioids and BZDs. Audio recordings and transcripts were analyzed using inductive coding.

Results

We evaluated 61 survey responses (69.3% response rate). Respondents were predominantly physicians (54.8%), but also included nurse practitioners (24.6%) and physician assistants (19.4%). Average overall confidence in deprescribing was comparable for opioids (64.5) and BZDs (65.9), but was lower for deprescribing under impeding circumstances (53.7). In the focus group, prescribers noted they met more resistance when deprescribing BZDs and that issues such as lack of time, availability of mental health resources, and patients seeing multiple prescribers were barriers to deprescribing.

Conclusion

Findings from quantitative and qualitative analyses identified that prescribers were moderately confident in their ability to deprescribe both opioids and BZDs in older adults, but less confident under potentially impeding circumstances. Future studies are needed to evaluate policies and interventions to overcome barriers to deprescribing opioids and BZDs in primary care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40266-022-00967-6.

Development and Validation of Comprehensive Healthcare Providers' Opinions, Preferences, and Attitudes towards Deprescribing (CHOPPED Questionnaire)

Successful implementation of deprescribing requires exploring healthcare professionals’ opinions, preferences, and attitudes towards deprescribing. The aim of this study was to develop and validate the questionnaire exploring healthcare providers’ opinions preferences and attitudes towards deprescribing (CHOPPED questionnaire). This was a cross-sectional on-line survey. A comprehensive 58-item questionnaire, in two versions (for pharmacists and physicians), was developed through an extensive literature review and interviews with experts. The questionnaire was validated, and its reliability was assessed through data collected from 356 pharmacists and 109 physicians. Exploratory factor analysis was performed, and 37- and 35-item questionnaires were developed. Ten factors were identified: knowledge, awareness, patient barriers and facilitators, competencies barriers and facilitators, collaboration barriers and facilitators, and healthcare system barriers and facilitators. The CHOPPED tool has satisfactory face, content (CVR > 0.62) (content validity ratio), construct, and criterion validity. The reliability statistics of all factors in both versions was acceptable with Cronbach’s alpha > 0.6. Test−retest reliability analysis showed that gamma rank correlations of total factor scores were strong and very strong (between 0.519 and 0.938). The CHOPPED tool can be used as a valid and reliable tool to explore healthcare providers’ opinions and attitudes toward discontinuing medications in the primary care setting in Croatia.

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.

Pharmacist interventions to deprescribe opioids and benzodiazepines in older adults: A rapid review

BACKGROUND

Many older adults are prescribed opioids and benzodiazepines (BZDs), despite increased susceptibility to adverse events. Challenges of deprescribing include fragmented care and lack of knowledge or time. Pharmacists are well-positioned to overcome these challenges and facilitate deprescribing of these medications.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate interventions utilizing pharmacists to deprescribe opioids and BZDs in older adults.

METHODS

We conducted a rapid review following a comprehensive literature search to identify interventions with pharmacist involvement for deprescribing opioids and BZDs in older adults. Studies were included based on: (1) inclusion of patients ≥ 65 years old receiving BZDs and/or opioids, (2) evaluation of feasibility or outcomes following deprescribing (3) pharmacists as part of the intervention. We included randomized, observational, cohort, and pilot studies. Studies that did not report specific results for BZD or opioids were excluded.

RESULTS

We screened 687 abstracts and included 17 studies. Most (n = 13) focused on BZD deprescribing. Few studies focused on opioids (n = 2) or co-prescribing of opioids and BZDs (n = 2). The most common intervention was educational brochures (n = 8), majority being the EMPOWER brochure for deprescribing BZDs. Other interventions included chart review with electronic notes (n = 4), pharmacist-led programs/services (n = 2), and multifactorial interventions (n = 3). Many studies were underpowered or lacked suitable control groups. Generally speaking, interventions utilizing educational materials and those in which pharmacists engaged with patients and providers were more effective. Interventions relying on electronic communication by pharmacists were less successful, due to low acceptance or acknowledgement.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a number of feasible interventions to reduce BZD use, but fewer interventions to reduce opioid use in older adults. An optimal approach for deprescribing likely requires pharmacists to engage directly with patients and providers. Larger well-designed studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of deprescribing interventions beyond feasibility.

Primary care physicians' approaches to low-value prescribing in older adults: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Low-value prescribing may result in adverse patient outcomes and increased medical expenditures. Clinicians' baseline strategies for navigating patient encounters involving low-value prescribing remain poorly understood, making it challenging to develop acceptable deprescribing interventions. Our objective was to characterize primary care physicians' (PCPs) approaches to reduce low-value prescribing in older adults through qualitative analysis of clinical scenarios.

METHODS

As part of an overarching qualitative study on low-value prescribing, we presented two clinical scenarios involving potential low-value prescribing during semi-structured interviews of 16 academic and community PCPs from general internal medicine, family medicine and geriatrics who care for patients aged greater than or equal to 65. We conducted a qualitative analysis of their responses to identify salient themes related to their approaches to prescribing, deprescribing, and meeting patients' expectations surrounding low-value prescribing.

RESULTS

We identified three key themes. First, when deprescribing, PCPs were motivated by their desire to mitigate patient harms and follow medication safety and deprescribing guidelines. Second, PCPs emphasized good communication with patients when navigating patient encounters related to low-value prescribing; and third, while physicians emphasized the importance of shared decision-making, they prioritized patients' well-being over satisfying their expectations.

CONCLUSIONS

When presented with real-life clinical scenarios, PCPs in our cohort sought to reduce low-value prescribing in a guideline-concordant fashion while maintaining good communication with their patients. This was driven primarily by a desire to minimize the potential for harm. This suggests that barriers other than clinician knowledge may be driving ongoing use of low-value medications in clinical practice.

Barriers and Enablers of Healthcare Providers to Deprescribe Cardiometabolic Medication in Older Patients: A Focus Group Study

Introduction

Benefits and risks of preventive medication change over time for ageing patients and deprescribing of medication may be needed. Deprescribing of cardiovascular and antidiabetic drugs can be challenging and is not widely implemented in daily practice.

Objective

The aim of this study was to identify barriers and enablers of deprescribing cardiometabolic medication as seen by healthcare providers (HCPs) of different disciplines, and to explore their views on their specific roles in the process of deprescribing.

Methods

Three focus groups with five general practitioners, eight pharmacists, three nurse practitioners, two geriatricians, and two elder care physicians were conducted in three cities in The Netherlands. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Directed content analysis was performed on the basis of the Theoretical Domains Framework. Two researchers independently coded the data.

Results

Most HCPs agreed that deprescribing of cardiometabolic medication is relevant but that barriers include lack of evidence and expertise, negative beliefs and fears, poor communication and collaboration between HCPs, and lack of resources. Having a guideline was considered an enabler for the process of deprescribing of cardiometabolic medication. Some HCPs feared the consequences of discontinuing cardiovascular or antidiabetic medication, while others were not motivated to deprescribe when the patients experienced no problems with their medication. HCPs of all disciplines stated that adequate patient communication and involving the patients and relatives in the decision making enables deprescribing. Barriers to deprescribing included the use of medication initiated by specialists, the poor exchange of information, and the amount of time it takes to deprescribe cardiometabolic medication. The HCPs were uncertain about each other’s roles and responsibilities. A multidisciplinary approach including the pharmacist and nurse practitioner was seen as the best way to support the process of deprescribing and address barriers related to resources.

Conclusion

HCPs recognized the importance of deprescribing cardiometabolic medication as a medical decision that can only be made in close cooperation with the patient. To successfully accomplish the process of deprescribing they strongly recommended a multidisciplinary approach.

Shared decision-making between older people with multimorbidity and GPs: focus group study

Background

Shared decision making (SDM), utilising the expertise of both patient and clinician, is a key feature of good-quality patient care. Multimorbidity can complicate SDM, yet few studies have explored this dynamic for older patients with multimorbidity in general practice.

Aim

To explore factors influencing SDM from the perspectives of older patients with multimorbidity and GPs, to inform improvements in personalised care.

Design and setting

Qualitative study. General practices (rural and urban) in Devon, England.

Method

Four focus groups: two with patients (aged ≥65 years with multimorbidity) and two with GPs. Data were coded inductively by applying thematic analysis.

Results

Patient acknowledgement of clinician medicolegal vulnerability in the context of multimorbidity, and their recognition of this as a barrier to SDM, is a new finding. Medicolegal vulnerability was a unifying theme for other reported barriers to SDM. These included expectations for GPs to follow clinical guidelines, challenges encountered in applying guidelines and in communicating clinical uncertainty, and limited clinician self-efficacy for SDM. Increasing consultation duration and improving continuity were viewed as facilitators.

Conclusion

Clinician perceptions of medicolegal vulnerability are recognised by both patients and GPs as a barrier to SDM and should be addressed to optimise delivery of personalised care. Greater awareness of multimorbidity guidelines is needed. Educating clinicians in the communication of uncertainty should be a core component of SDM training. The incorrect perception that most clinicians already effectively facilitate SDM should be addressed to improve the uptake of personalised care interventions.

GP preferences for discussing statin deprescribing: a discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Deprescribing (planned, supervised discontinuation) of statins may be considered in some older persons. This should be carefully discussed between patients and GPs.

METHODS

We examined GPs' preferences for discussing statin deprescribing by conducting a discrete choice experiment (DCE) sent to a stratified random sample of 500 Danish GPs. Attributes were discussion topics (goals of therapy, evidence on statin use in older persons, adverse effects, uncertainty), and levels were the depth of the discussion topics (none, brief, detailed). We used mixed logistic regression for analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 90 GPs (mean age 48, 54% female, mean 11 years in practice) completed the DCE. There was substantial variability in which topics GPs felt were most important to discuss; however, GPs generally preferred a brief discussion of topics to detailed ones. The most important discussion topic appeared to be goals of therapy. GPs felt a brief discussion of evidence was important but not a detailed one, while adverse effects and uncertainty were felt to be less important to discuss.

CONCLUSION

GPs prefer brief discussions on a range of topics when discussing statin deprescribing but have differing views on which topics are most important. For deprescribing communication tools to be useful to GPs in clinical practice, they may need to focus on brief coverage of the range of relevant topics. Future work should evaluate patient preferences, and opportunities for education and training for GPs on deprescribing communication.

Factors associated with potentially inappropriate prescriptions and barriers to medicines optimisation among older adults in primary care settings: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors that likely contribute to potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) among older adults in primary care settings, as well as barriers to medicines optimisation and recommended potential solutions.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Quantitative studies that analysed the factors associated with PIPs among older adults (≥65 years) in primary care settings, and qualitative studies that explored perceived barriers and potential solutions to medicines optimisation for this population.

INFORMATION SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CNKI and Wanfang.

RESULTS

Of the 13 167 studies identified, 50 were included (14 qualitative, 34 cross-sectional and 2 cohort). Nearly all quantitative studies examined patient-related non-clinical factors (eg, age) and clinical factors (eg, number of medications) and nine studies examined prescriber-related factors (eg, physician age). A greater number of medications were identified as positively associated with PIPs in 25 quantitative studies, and a higher number of comorbidities, physical comorbidities and psychiatric comorbidities were identified as patient-related clinical risk factors for PIPs. However, other factors showed inconsistent associations with the PIPs. Barriers to medicines optimisation emerged within four analytical themes: prescriber related (eg, inadequate knowledge, concerns of adverse consequences, clinical inertia, lack of communication), patient related (eg, limited understanding, patient non-adherence, drug dependency), environment related (eg, lack of integrated care, insufficient investment, time constraints) and technology related (eg, complexity of implementation and inapplicable guidance). Recommended potential solutions were based on each theme of the barriers identified accordingly (eg, prescriber-related factors: incorporating training courses into continuing medical education).

CONCLUSIONS

Older adults with more drugs prescribed and comorbidities may have a greater risk of receiving PIPs in the primary care setting, but it remains unclear whether other factors are related. Barriers to medicines optimisation among primary care older adults comprise multiple factors, and evidence-based and targeted interventions are needed to address these difficulties.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020216258.

Patient and Physician Perspectives of Deprescribing Potentially Inappropriate Medications in Older Adults with a History of Falls: a Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

High-risk medications pose serious safety risks to older adults, including increasing the risk of falls. Deprescribing potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in older adults who have experienced a fall is a key element of fall reduction strategies. However, continued use of PIMs in older adults is common, and clinicians may face substantial deprescribing barriers.

OBJECTIVE

Explore patient and clinician experiences with and perceptions of deprescribing PIMs in patients with a history of falls.

DESIGN

We led guided patient feedback sessions to explore deprescribing scenarios with patient stakeholders and conducted semi-structured interviews with primary care physicians (PCPs) to explore knowledge and awareness of fall risk guidelines, deprescribing experiences, and barriers and facilitators to deprescribing.

PARTICIPANTS

PCPs from Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) and patient members of the KPSC Regional Patient Advisory Committee.

APPROACH

We used maximum variation sampling to identify PCPs with patients who had a fall, then categorized the resulting PIM dispense distribution for those patients into high and low frequency. We analyzed the data using a hybrid deductive-inductive approach. Coders applied initial deductively derived codes to the data, simultaneously using an open-code inductive approach to capture emergent themes.

KEY RESULTS

Physicians perceived deprescribing discussions as potentially contentious, even among patients with falls. Physicians reported varying comfort levels with deprescribing strategies: some felt that the conversations might be better suited to others (e.g., pharmacists), while others had well-planned negotiation strategies. Patients reported lack of clarity as to the reasons and goals of deprescribing and poor understanding of the seriousness of falls.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that key barriers to deprescribing include PCP trepidation about raising a contentious topic and insufficient patient awareness of the potential seriousness of falls. Findings suggest the need for multifaceted, multilevel deprescribing approaches with clinician training strategies, patient educational resources, and a focus on building trusting patient-clinician relationships.

General practitioners' compliance with benzodiazepine discontinuation guidelines in patients treated with long-term lorazepam: A case-vignette cross-sectional survey

AIM

To study determinants associated with GPs' compliance with benzodiazepine discontinuation guidelines through a case-vignette of a patient with multimorbidity treated with long-term lorazepam for insomnia.

METHODS

This cross-sectional survey was performed in a sample of French GPs. The questionnaire included items on their characteristics and questions related to the management of a case-vignette with long-term lorazepam use consulting for a prescription renewal. GPs who proposed a dedicated consultation to discuss discontinuation or progressive discontinuation were considered as "following guidelines", while they were considered as "out-of-guidelines" if they proposed immediate discontinuation or decided not to discontinue lorazepam. A backward selection process was used to select factors to be included in the final logistic regression model. The probabilities of out-of-guidelines practice and their 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were then plotted using a heatmap graph.

RESULTS

Of 1,177 GPs, the majority (92.2%) were aware of the necessity to discontinue lorazepam and reported practice consistent with good practice guidelines. Women GPs aged under 50 years had the lowest estimated probability of out-of-guidelines practice. Conversely, men aged over 58 years with high consideration of patient preferences and low concern about the benefit-risk ratio of lorazepam had the highest probability of out-of-guidelines practice (27.3% [18.7%; 34.7%]).

CONCLUSION

GPs largely reported practice compliant with benzodiazepine discontinuation guidelines, although some GPs, mainly older men who overemphasise patient preferences, were more likely to adopt out-of-guidelines practice.

Understanding GPs' clinical reasoning processes involved in managing patients suffering from multimorbidity: A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative research

BACKGROUND

Most consultations in primary care involve patients suffering from multimorbidity. Nevertheless, few studies exist on the clinical reasoning processes of general practitioners (GPs) during the follow-up of these patients. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise published evidence on how GPs reason and make decisions when managing patients with multimorbidity in the long term.

METHODS

A search of the relevant literature from Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and ERIC databases was conducted in June 2019. The search terms were selected from five domains: primary care, clinical reasoning, chronic disease, multimorbidity, and issues of multimorbidity. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies published in English and French were included. Quality assessment was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

RESULTS

A total of 2 165 abstracts and 362 full-text articles were assessed. Thirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Results showcased that GPs' clinical reasoning during the long-term management of multimorbidity is about setting intermediate goals of care in an ongoing process that adapts to the patients' constant evolution and contributes to preserve their quality of life. In the absence of guidelines adapted to multimorbidity, there is no single correct plan, but competing priorities and unavoidable uncertainties. Thus, GPs have to consider and weigh multiple factors simultaneously. In the context of multimorbidity, GPs describe their reasoning as essentially intuitive and seem to perceive it as less accurate. These clinical reasoning processes are nevertheless more analytical as they might think and rooted in deep knowledge of the individual patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the challenges GPs are facing in the long-term follow-up of patients suffering from multimorbidity are increasingly known, the literature currently offers limited information about GPs' clinical reasoning processes at play. GPs tend to underestimate the complexity and richness of their clinical reasoning, which may negatively impact their practice and their teaching.

Primary Care and Mental Health Prescribers, Key Clinical Leaders, and Clinical Pharmacist Specialists' Perspectives on Opioids and Benzodiazepines

OBJECTIVE

Due to increased risks of overdose fatalities and injuries associated with coprescription of opioids and benzodiazepines, healthcare systems have prioritized deprescribing this combination. Although prior work has examined providers' perspectives on deprescribing each medication separately, perspectives on deprescribing patients with combined use is unclear. We examined providers' perspectives on coprescribed opioids and benzodiazepines and identified barriers and facilitators to deprescribing.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using semistructured interviews.

SETTING

One multisite Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system in the United States of America.

SUBJECTS

Primary care and mental health prescribers, key clinical leaders, clinical pharmacist specialists (N = 39).

METHODS

Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Themes were identified iteratively, through a multidisciplinary team-based process.

RESULTS

Analyses identified four themes related to barriers and facilitators to deprescribing: inertia, prescriber self-efficacy, feasibility of deprescribing/tapering, and promoting deprescribing, as well as a fifth theme, consequences of deprescribing. Results highlighted the complexity of deprescribing when multiple prescribers are involved, a need for additional support and time, and concerns about patients' reluctance to discontinue these medications. Facilitators included agreement with the goal of deprescribing and fear of negative consequences if medications are continued. Providers spoke to how deprescribing efforts impaired patient-provider relationships and informed their decisions not to start patients on these medications.

CONCLUSIONS

Although providers agree with the goal, prescribers' belief in a limited deprescribing role, challenges with coordination among prescribers, concerns about insufficient time and patients' resistance to discontinuing these medications need to be addressed for efforts to be successful.

Healthcare professionals' knowledge, attitudes and practices toward deprescribing: a protocol of cross-sectional study (Desmedica Study-Brazil)

BACKGROUND

Deprescribing is the planned and supervised process of dose reduction or stopping of medication that might be causing harm, or no longer be of benefit. It is an activity that should be a normal part of care/the prescribing cycle. Although now broadly recognised, there are still challenges in its effective implementation.

OBJECTIVES

To develop and validate an instrument to measure Brazilian healthcare professionals' knowledge, attitudes and practices towards deprescribing.

METHODS

This study will include the following steps: (1) development of the preliminary instrument; (2) content validation; (3) pilot study; (4) evaluation of psychometric characteristics. After the elaboration of items of the instrument through the literature review, we will use a hybrid Delphi method to develop and establish the content validity of the instrument. Further, a pilot survey will be performed with 30 healthcare professionals. Finally, for the evaluation of psychometric characteristics, a cross-sectional study will be accomplished with a representative sample of different healthcare professionals from different Brazilian states using respondent-driven sampling. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis will be performed. For assessing the model fit, we will use the ratio of χ² and df (χ²/df), comparative fit index, the goodness of fit index and root mean square error of approximation. In addition, the reliability of the instrument will be estimated by test-retest reproducibility and Cronbach's alpha coefficient (α).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Ethics Committee for Research at the University of Sorocaba (ethics approval number: 3.848.916) approved the study. Study findings will be circulated to healthcare professionals and scientists in the field through publication in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.

Community pharmacists' perceptions on providing fall prevention services: a mixed-methods study

Background Pharmacists may contribute to fall prevention particularly by identifying and deprescribing fall risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs) in patients with high fall risk. Objective To assess community pharmacists’ perceptions on providing fall prevention services, and to identify their barriers and facilitators in offering these fall prevention services including deprescribing of FRIDs. Setting A mixed-methods study was conducted with Dutch pharmacists. Method Quantitative (ranking statements on a Likert scale, survey) and qualitative data (semi-structured interviews) were collected. Out of 466 pharmacists who were invited to participate, 313 Dutch pharmacists ranked statements, about providing fall prevention, that were presented during a lecture, and 205 completed a survey. To explore pharmacists’ perceptions in-depth, 16 were interviewed. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. All interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. The capability opportunity motivation-behaviour model was applied to interpret and analyse the findings of qualitative data. Main outcome measure Community pharmacists’ views on providing fall prevention. Results Pharmacists stated that they were motivated to provide fall prevention. They believed they were capable of providing fall prevention by FRID deprescribing. They perceived limited opportunities to contribute. Major barriers included insufficient multidisciplinary collaboration, patient unwillingness to deprescribe FRIDs, and lack of time. Facilitators included goal-setting behaviour, financial compensation, and skilled communication. Conclusion Despite the complex decision-making process in medication-related fall prevention, community pharmacists are motivated and feel capable of providing fall prevention. Opportunities for pharmacists to provide fall prevention services should be enhanced, for example by implementing multidisciplinary agreements.

The extent of polypharmacy and use of 'fall risk increasing drugs' in the oldest old admitted to a regional New South Wales hospital

OBJECTIVE(S)

Polypharmacy is associated with significant morbidity including cognitive decline and falls. We sought to quantify the extent of polypharmacy and use of medications associated with fall risk in the very old admitted to a regional NSW hospital.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study of patients aged over 80 years admitted to a regional NSW hospital from September to October 2019. Demographic data and medication usage on admission were collected. Polypharmacy was defined as regular use of five or more medications.

RESULTS

A total of 401 patients were included: mean age was 87.2 (±4.6) years and 56.9% were female. Of the participations, 82.9% experienced polypharmacy, and the mean number of medications was 8.2 (±4.2). Of the patients, 91.6% utilised medications associated with risk of falls. There was no association between age and number of preadmission regular medications.

CONCLUSION

Polypharmacy is extremely common prior to acute hospitalisation for regional older individuals. This highlights the importance of medication rationalisation to reduce medication-related harm.

General practitioners' deprescribing decisions in older adults with polypharmacy: a case vignette study in 31 countries

BACKGROUND

General practitioners (GPs) should regularly review patients' medications and, if necessary, deprescribe, as inappropriate polypharmacy may harm patients' health. However, deprescribing can be challenging for physicians. This study investigates GPs' deprescribing decisions in 31 countries.

METHODS

In this case vignette study, GPs were invited to participate in an online survey containing three clinical cases of oldest-old multimorbid patients with potentially inappropriate polypharmacy. Patients differed in terms of dependency in activities of daily living (ADL) and were presented with and without history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). For each case, we asked GPs if they would deprescribe in their usual practice. We calculated proportions of GPs who reported they would deprescribe and performed a multilevel logistic regression to examine the association between history of CVD and level of dependency on GPs' deprescribing decisions.

RESULTS

Of 3,175 invited GPs, 54% responded (N = 1,706). The mean age was 50 years and 60% of respondents were female. Despite differences across GP characteristics, such as age (with older GPs being more likely to take deprescribing decisions), and across countries, overall more than 80% of GPs reported they would deprescribe the dosage of at least one medication in oldest-old patients (> 80 years) with polypharmacy irrespective of history of CVD. The odds of deprescribing was higher in patients with a higher level of dependency in ADL (OR =1.5, 95%CI 1.25 to 1.80) and absence of CVD (OR =3.04, 95%CI 2.58 to 3.57).

INTERPRETATION

The majority of GPs in this study were willing to deprescribe one or more medications in oldest-old multimorbid patients with polypharmacy. Willingness was higher in patients with increased dependency in ADL and lower in patients with CVD.

Low-Dose Aspirin Use Among African American Older Adults

OBJECTIVES

Existing epidemiologic information shows disparities in low-dose aspirin use by race. This study investigates the frequency, pattern, and correlates of both self- and clinician-prescribed low-dose aspirin use among underserved African Americans aged 55 years and older.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study conducted a comprehensive evaluation of all over-the-counter and prescribed medications used among 683 African American older adults in South Central Los Angeles, California. Correlation between use of low-dose aspirin and sociodemographic variables, health care continuity, health behaviors, and several major chronic medical conditions were examined. In addition, the use of low-dose aspirin as self prescribed versus clinician prescribed was examined. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to examine correlates of low-dose aspirin use.

RESULTS

Overall, 37% of participants were taking low-dose aspirin. Sixty percent of low-dose aspirin users were taking low-dose aspirin as self prescribed and 40% were taking it as prescribed by a clinician. Major aspirin-drug interactions were detected in 75% of participants who used low-dose aspirin, but no significant differences in aspirin-drug interactions were found between those who used aspirin as self prescribed and those who used it as clinician prescribed. No negative association between being diagnosed with gastrointestinal conditions and aspirin used was detected. Being diagnosed with diabetes mellitus or a heart condition was associated with higher use of aspirin. However, only 50% with high risk of cardiovascular took prescribed (38%) or self-prescribed (62%) low-dose aspirin. One third of participants aged 70 years and older with low risk of cardiovascular were using aspirin.

CONCLUSIONS

Among underserved African-American middle-aged and older adults, many who could potentially benefit from aspirin are not taking it; and many taking aspirin have no indication to do so and risk unnecessary side effects. Compared with non-Hispanic Whites, African Americans are more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, and heart conditions at earlier stages of life; as a result, the role of preventive intervention, including safe and appropriate use of low-dose aspirin among this segment of our population, is more salient. Interventional studies are needed to promote safe and effective use of low-dose aspirin among underserved African-American adults.

Barriers to effective prescribing in older adults: applying the theoretical domains framework in the ambulatory setting - a scoping review

BACKGROUND

As the population ages, potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in the older adults may become increasingly prevalent. This undermines patient safety and creates a potential source of major morbidity and mortality. Understanding the factors that influence prescribing behaviour may allow development of interventions to reduce PIP. The aim of this study is to apply the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to explore barriers to effective prescribing for older adults in the ambulatory setting.

METHODS

A scoping review was performed based on the five-stage methodological framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley. From 30 Aug 2018 to 5 Sep 2018, we conducted our search on PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science. We also searched five electronic journals, Google and Google Scholar to identify additional sources and grey literature. Two reviewers applied eligibility criteria to the title and abstract screening, followed by full text screening, before systematically charting the data.

RESULTS

A total of 5731 articles were screened. Twenty-nine studies met the selection criteria for qualitative analysis. We mapped our results using the 14-domain TDF, eventually identifying 10 domains of interest for barriers to effective prescribing. Of these, significant domains include physician-related factors such as "Knowledge", "Skills", and "Social/Professional Role and Identity"; issues with "Environmental Context and Resources"; and the impact of "Social Influences" and "Emotion" on prescribing behaviour.

CONCLUSION

The TDF elicited multiple domains which both independently and collectively lead to barriers to effective prescribing for older adults in the ambulatory setting. Changing the prescribing climate will thus require interventions targeting multiple stakeholders, including physicians, patients and hospital/clinic systems. Further work is needed to explore individual domains and guide development of frameworks to aid guide prescribing for older adults in the ambulatory setting.

Impact of the Goal-directed Medication Review Electronic Decision Support System on Drug Burden Index: A cluster-randomised clinical trial in primary care

AIMS

The Goal-directed Medication Review Electronic Decision Support System (G-MEDSS) assesses and reports a patient's goals, attitudes to deprescribing and Drug Burden Index (DBI) score, a measure of cumulative exposure to anticholinergic and sedative medications. This study evaluated the effect of implementing G-MEDSS in home medicines reviews (HMRs) on DBI exposure and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A cluster-randomised clinical trial was performed across Australia. Accredited clinical pharmacists were randomised into intervention (G-MEDSS with usual care HMR) or comparison groups (usual care HMR alone). Patients were recruited by pharmacists from those routinely referred by general practitioners for HMR. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with any reduction in DBI at 3-months follow-up. Secondary outcomes included change in DBI continuous score at 3-months, HMR recommendations to change DBI and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 201 patient participants at baseline (n = 88 intervention, n = 113 comparison), with 159 followed-up at 3-months (n = 63 intervention, n = 96 comparison). The proportion of patients with a reduction in DBI was not significantly different at 3-months (intervention 17%, comparison 11%; adjusted odds ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval 0.56-3.80). Regarding secondary outcomes, there was no difference in change in DBI score at 3-months. However, the HMR report made recommendations to reduce DBI for a significantly greater proportion of patients in the intervention than in the comparison group (intervention 37%, comparison 14%; adjusted odds ratio 3.20, 95% confidence interval 1.50-6.90). No changes were observed in clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of G-MEDSS within HMR did not reduce patients' DBI at 3 months compared with usual care HMR.

Issues with deprescribing in haemodialysis: a qualitative study of patient and provider experiences

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Patients undergoing haemodialysis receive on average 10-17 medications, which increase the risk of falls, adverse drug reactions and hospitalizations. Supervised discontinuation of potentially inappropriate medications may lower these risks. Although many calls have been made for deprescribing in the haemodialysis setting, little is known about how patients and providers in this setting experience it. The aim of this study is to explore patient and provider experiences and perceptions of one of the rare deprescribing intervention in haemodialysis.

METHODS

Ten semi-structured interviews were held with patients, and a focus group was done with dialysis clinic team members at a Montreal area health network's haemodialysis clinic after the implementation of a standardized deprescribing intervention using the patient-as-partner approach. The interviews and focus group were recorded, and verbatims were coded to determine emerging themes. Grounded theory was used for interview guide design and data analysis.

RESULTS

The three emerging themes were (1) ambivalence towards medication creating a favourable context for deprescribing, (2) the empowering elements of the deprescribing process and (3) the uncertain future of deprescribing in the clinics even though the intervention was considered successful.

CONCLUSION

Haemodialysis patients and providers viewed deprescribing favourably, believed the intervention was valuable, and offered suggestions for long term implementation while expressing concerns about feasibility. Notwithstanding the underlying uncertainties, a structured and integrated approach in routine practice involving all members of the care team may facilitate the continuity of deprescribing as an intervention in the setting of a haemodialysis clinic.

The evolution of an evidence based intervention designed to improve prescribing and reduce polypharmacy in older people with multimorbidity and significant polypharmacy in primary care (SPPiRE)

Introduction

By the time an intervention is ready for evaluation in a definitive RCT the context of the evidence base may have evolved. To avoid research waste, it is imperative that intervention design and evaluation is an adaptive process incorporating emerging evidence and novel concepts. The aim of this study is to describe changes that were made to an evidence based intervention at the protocol stage of the definitive RCT to incorporate emerging evidence.

Methods

The original evidence based intervention, a GP delivered web guided medication review, was modified in a five step process:Identification of core components of the original intervention.Literature review.Modification of the intervention.Pilot study.Final refinements. A framework, developed in public health research, was utilised to describe the modification process.

Results

The population under investigation changed from older people with a potentially inappropriate prescription (PIP) to older people with significant polypharmacy, a proxy marker for complex multimorbidity. An assessment of treatment priorities and brown bag medication review, with a focus on deprescribing were incorporated into the original intervention. The number of repeat medicines was added as a primary outcome measure as were additional secondary patient reported outcome measures to assess treatment burden and attitudes towards deprescribing.

Conclusions

A framework was used to systematically describe how and why the original intervention was modified, allowing the new intervention to build upon an effective and robustly developed intervention but also to be relevant in the context of the current evidence base.

Professional roles of general practitioners, community pharmacists and specialist providers in collaborative medication deprescribing - a qualitative study

Background

Collaborative care approaches between general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists have received international recognition for medication optimization and deprescribing efforts. Although specialist providers have been shown to influence deprescribing, their profession so far remains omitted from collaborative care approaches for medication optimization. Similarly, while explorative studies on role perception and collaboration between GPs and pharmacists grow, interaction with specialists for medication optimization is neglected. Our qualitative study therefore aims to explore GPs’, community pharmacists’ and specialist providers’ role perceptions of deprescribing, and to identify interpersonal as well as structural factors that may influence collaborative medication optimization approaches.

Method

Seven focus-group discussions with GPs, community pharmacists and community specialists were conducted in Hesse and Lower Saxony, Germany. The topic guide focused on views and experiences with deprescribing with special attention to inter-professional collaboration. We conducted conventional content analysis and conceptualized emerging themes using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

Results

Twenty-six GPs, four community pharmacists and three community specialists took part in the study. The main themes corresponded to the four domains ‘Social/professional role and identity’ (1), ‘Social influences’ (2), ‘Reinforcement’ (3) and ´Environmental context and resources’ (4) which were further described by beliefs statements, that is inductively developed key messages. For (1), GPs emerged as central medication managers while pharmacists and specialists were assigned confined or subordinated tasks in deprescribing. Social influences (2) encompassed patients’ trust in GPs as a support, while specialists and pharmacists were believed to threaten GPs’ role and deprescribing attempts. Reinforcements (3) negatively affected GPs’ and pharmacists’ effort in medication optimization by social reprimand and lacking reward. Environmental context (4) impeded deprescribing efforts by deficient reimbursement and resources as well as fragmentation of care, while informational and gate-keeping resources remained underutilized.

Conclusion

Understanding stakeholders’ role perceptions on collaborative deprescribing is a prerequisite for joint approaches to medication management. We found that clear definition and dissemination of roles and responsibilities are premise for avoiding intergroup conflicts. Role performance and collaboration must further be supported by structural factors like adequate reimbursement, resources and a transparent continuity of care.

Barriers and facilitators to deprescribing in primary care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Managing polypharmacy is a challenge for healthcare systems globally. It is also a health inequality concern as it can expose some of the most vulnerable in society to unnecessary medications and adverse drug-related events. Care for most patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy occurs in primary care. Safe deprescribing interventions can reduce exposure to inappropriate polypharmacy. However, these are not fully accepted or routinely implemented.

AIM

To identify barriers and facilitators to safe deprescribing interventions for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in primary care.

DESIGN & SETTING

A systematic review of studies published from 2000, examining safe deprescribing interventions for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy.

METHOD

A search of electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINHAL), Cochrane, and Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) from inception to 26 Feb 2019, using an agreed search strategy. This was supplemented by handsearching of relevant journals, and screening of reference lists and citations of included studies.

RESULTS

In total, 40 studies from 14 countries were identified. Cultural and organisational barriers included: a culture of diagnosing and prescribing; evidence-based guidance focused on single diseases; a lack of evidence-based guidance for the care of older people with multimorbidities; and a lack of shared communication, decision-making systems, tools, and resources. Interpersonal and individual-level barriers included: professional etiquette; fragmented care; prescribers' and patients' uncertainties; and gaps in tailored support. Facilitators included: prudent prescribing; greater availability and acceptability of non-pharmacological alternatives; resources; improved communication, collaboration, knowledge, and understanding; patient-centred care; and shared decision-making.

CONCLUSION

A whole systems, patient-centred approach to safe deprescribing interventions is required, involving key decision-makers, healthcare professionals, patients, and carers.

General practitioner strategies for managing patients with multimorbidity: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative research

Background

General practitioners (GPs) increasingly manage patients with multimorbidity but report challenges in doing so. Patients describe poor experiences with health care systems that treat each of their health conditions separately, resulting in fragmented, uncoordinated care. For GPs to provide the patient-centred, coordinated care patients need and want, research agendas and health system structures and policies will need to adapt to address this epidemiologic transition. This systematic review seeks to understand if and how multimorbidity impacts on the work of GPs, the strategies they employ to manage challenges, and what they believe still needs addressing to ensure quality patient care.

Methods

Systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies reporting GP experiences of managing patients with multimorbidity. The search included nine major databases, grey literature sources, Google and Google Scholar, a hand search of Journal of Comorbidity, and the reference lists of included studies.

Results

Thirty-three studies from fourteen countries were included. Three major challenges were identified: practising without supportive evidence; working within a fragmented health care system whose policies and structures remain organised around single condition care and specialisation; and the clinical uncertainty associated with multimorbidity complexity and general practitioner perceptions of decisional risk. GPs revealed three approaches to mitigating these challenges: prioritising patient-centredness and relational continuity; relying on knowledge of patient preferences and unique circumstances to individualise care; and structuring the consultation to create a sense of time and minimise patient risk.

Conclusions

GPs described an ongoing tension between applying single condition guidelines to patients with multimorbidity as security against uncertainty or penalty, and potentially causing patients harm. Above all, they chose to prioritise their long-term relationships for the numerous gains this brought such as mutual trust, deeper insight into a patient’s unique circumstances, and useable knowledge of each individual’s capacity for the work of illness and goals for life. GPs described a need for better multimorbidity management guidance. Perhaps more than this, they require policies and models of practice that provide remunerated time and space for nurturing trustful therapeutic partnerships.

Role of nurses in supporting proactive deprescribing

Deprescribing is the term used to describe the discontinuation of medicines. It can be either 'reactive', for example in response to an adverse event or therapeutic failure, or 'proactive', when the prescriber and patient decide to discontinue the medicine because its future benefits no longer outweigh its potential for harm. At present, there is a limited amount of proactive deprescribing activity in primary and secondary care. This article provides the rationale for increasing proactive deprescribing activity, lists the medicines this relates to, identifies the barriers and enablers to its implementation, and describes the potential role of the nurse in this process.

Influencers on deprescribing practice of primary healthcare providers in Nova Scotia: An examination using behavior change frameworks

Background:

Deprescribing is a complex process requiring consideration of behavior change theory to improve implementation and uptake.

Aim:

The aim of this study was to describe the knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that influence deprescribing for primary healthcare providers (family physicians, nurse practitioners (NPs), and pharmacists) within Nova Scotia using the Theoretical Domains Framework version 2 (TDF(v2)) and the Behavior Change Wheel.

Methods:

Interviews and focus groups were completed with primary care providers (physicians, NPs, and pharmacists) in Nova Scotia, Canada. Coding was completed using the TDF(v2) to identify the key influencers. Subdomain themes were also identified for the main TDF(v2) domains and results were then linked to the Behavior Change Wheel—Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation components.

Results:

Participants identified key influencers for deprescribing including areas related to Opportunity, within TDF(v2) domain Social Influences, such as patients and other healthcare providers, as well as Physical barriers (TDF(v2) domain Environmental Context and Resources), such as lack of time and reimbursement.

Conclusion:

Our results suggest that a systematic approach to deprescribing in primary care should be supported by opportunities for patient and healthcare provider collaborations, as well as practice and system level enhancements to support sustainability of deprescribing practices.

Exploring how GPs discuss statin deprescribing with older people: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Given uncertainty surrounding benefits and harms, shifts in patient health status, and changing patient goals and preferences, statin deprescribing may be considered in some older people. This decision should be carefully discussed between GPs and patients.

AIM

To explore how GPs discuss deprescribing of statins with their older patients.

DESIGN & SETTING

A qualitative study was undertaken using face-to-face, semi-structured interviews with Danish GPs from the regions of Southern Demark and Zealand.

METHOD

The GP participants belonged to group practices and were identified from personal networks and snowballing. The interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes and were conducted in English. They were analysed using systematic text condensation.

RESULTS

A total of 11 GPs were interviewed and three themes were identified. (1) Reason for initiating a discussion: statin deprescribing mainly came up when GPs reviewed medication lists. There were differences between GPs regarding when or if they brought up deprescribing. (2) Discussion topics: GPs often discussed their interpretation of evidence surrounding statin use in older people. There were differences in how and if GPs discussed patient preferences. GPs viewed uncertainty and life expectancy as difficult to discuss. (3) Depth of discussion: the perceived level of patient engagement, and clinical context, could influence the extent of discussion.

CONCLUSION

GPs identified a range of topics that could be discussed with patients surrounding statin deprescribing. The depth and content of discussions varied according to the situation, and between GPs. Challenges may exist in communicating around certain topics, such as uncertainty and life expectancy. Further understanding of how to best communicate around challenging topics, and development of structured frameworks, may help facilitate statin deprescribing discussions. Identifying what patients think is important to discuss would provide necessary insight to promote quality discussions and shared understanding of the decision.