Confronting Medicine's Dichotomies: Older Adults' Use of Interpretative Repertoires in Negotiating the Paradoxes of Polypharmacy and Deprescribing

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.

Factors which influence the deprescribing decisions of community-living older adults and GPs in Australia

Deprescribing aims to reduce polypharmacy and inappropriate medication use. Both General Practitioners (GPs) and older adults have expressed a willingness to consider deprescribing. However, deprescribing is often deferred in practice. The aim of this study was to identify factors which influence GP and older adult decisions about deprescribing in primary care. Semi-structured interviews were used in this qualitative study, conducted in a regional area in Australia. Participants included GPs and adults aged 65 years or older, using five or more medications and living independently in the community. Data were collected between January 2018 and May 2019. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the verbatim transcribed interviews using NVivo 12. A total of 41 interviews were conducted, 25 with older adults and 16 with GPs. Four key themes influenced deprescribing decisions: views of ageing, shared decision-making, attitudes toward medication use and characteristics of the health care environment. Discussions of deprescribing were limited by the influence of negative stereotypes toward age and ageing, a lack of older adult participation in shared decision-making, a positive attitude towards ongoing medication use and perception of the normality of using medications in older age. Time constraints, poor communication about prescribing information and unclear roles regarding responsibility for deprescribing also prevented discussions. Continuity of care, involvement of older adults in medication reviews and GPs who asserted their generalist role were the main factors which promoted discussion of deprescribing. GPs are well placed to discuss deprescribing with their older patients because they are trusted and can provide continuity of care. Actively encouraging and involving older adults in medication reviews in order to understand their preferences, supports shared decision-making about deprescribing. Active involvement may also reduce the influence of negative views of ageing held by both older adults and GPs.

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.

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.