The OptimaMed intervention to reduce inappropriate medications in nursing home residents with severe dementia: results from a quasi-experimental feasibility pilot study

Consolidated guidance for behavioral intervention pilot and feasibility studies

BACKGROUND

In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences.

METHODS

To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of a well-known PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences.

RESULTS

A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the three-round Delphi survey (round 1, N = 46; round 2, N = 24; round 3, N = 22). A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (intervention design, study design, conduct of trial, implementation of intervention, statistical analysis, and reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading.

CONCLUSION

We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.

Expert Perspectives on Pilot and Feasibility Studies: A Delphi Study and Consolidation of Considerations for Behavioral Interventions

Background

In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences.

Methods

To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of well-know PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences.

Results

A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the Delphi survey, 50 (10.1%) of which completed all three rounds, representing 60 (37.3%) of the 161 identified PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations. A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (Intervention Design, Study Design, Conduct of Trial, Implementation of Intervention, Statistical Analysis and Reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading.

Conclusion

We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.

Medication Reviews and Clinical Outcomes in Persons with Dementia: A Scoping Review

Persons diagnosed with dementia are often faced with challenges related to polypharmacy and inappropriate medication use and could benefit from regular medication reviews. However, the benefit of such reviews has not been examined in this population. Therefore, the current scoping review was designed to identify the gaps in the current knowledge regarding the impact of medication reviews on the clinical outcomes in older adults with dementia. Relevant studies were identified by searching three databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and Scopus) from inception to January 2022 with a combination of keywords and medical subject headings. After the removal of duplicates and ineligible articles, 22 publications of the initial 8346 were included in this review. A total of 57 outcomes were identified, including those pertaining to the evaluation of medication use (n = 17), drug-related interventions (n = 11), drug-related problems (n = 10), dementia-related behavioral symptoms (n = 8), cost-effectiveness (n = 2), drug-related hospital admissions (n = 1), as well as outcomes classified as other (n = 7). Gaps identified through this scoping review included the paucity of studies measuring the impact of medication reviews on the medication management capacity and medication adherence, quality of life, and mortality.

The OptimaMed intervention to reduce medication burden in nursing home residents with severe dementia: results from a pragmatic, controlled study

BACKGROUND

Nursing home (NH) residents with severe dementia use many medications, sometimes inappropriately within a comfort care approach. Medications should be regularly reviewed and eventually deprescribed. This pragmatic, controlled trial assessed the effect of an interprofessional knowledge exchange (KE) intervention to decrease medication load and the use of medications of questionable benefit among these residents.

METHODS

A 6-month intervention was performed in 4 NHs in the Quebec City area, while 3 NHs, with comparable admissions criteria, served as controls. Published lists of "mostly", "sometimes" or "exceptionally" appropriate medications, tailored for NH residents with severe dementia, were used. The intervention included 1) information for participants' families about medication use in severe dementia; 2) a 90-min KE session for NH nurses, pharmacists, and physicians; 3) medication reviews by NH pharmacists using the lists; 4) discussions on recommended changes with nurses and physicians. Participants' levels of agitation and pain were evaluated using validated scales at baseline and the end of follow-up.

RESULTS

Seven (7) NHs and 123 participants were included for study. The mean number of regular medications per participant decreased from 7.1 to 6.6 in the intervention, and from 7.7 to 5.9 in the control NHs (p-value for the difference in differences test: < 0.05). Levels of agitation decreased by 8.3% in the intervention, and by 1.4% in the control NHs (p = 0.026); pain levels decreased by 12.6% in the intervention and increased by 7% in the control NHs (p = 0.049). Proportions of participants receiving regular medications deemed only exceptionally appropriate decreased from 19 to 17% (p = 0.43) in the intervention and from 28 to 21% (p = 0.007) in the control NHs (p = 0.22). The mean numbers of regular daily antipsychotics per participant fell from 0.64 to 0.58 in the intervention and from 0.39 to 0.30 in the control NHs (p = 0.27).

CONCLUSIONS

This interprofessional intervention to reduce inappropriate medication use in NH residents with severe dementia decreased medication load in both intervention and control NHs, without important concomitant increase in agitation, but mixed effects on pain levels. Practice changes and heterogeneity within these 7 NHs, and a ceiling effect in medication optimization likely interfered with the intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: # NCT05155748 (first registration 03-10-2017).

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.

A systematic review of interventions to reduce anticholinergic burden in older people with dementia in primary care

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aimed to assess the types and effectiveness of interventions that sought to reduce anticholinergic burden (ACB) in people with dementia (PwD) in primary care.

METHODS

One trial registry and eight electronic databases were systematically searched to identify eligible English language studies from inception until December 2021. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to be randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised studies (NRS), including controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time-series studies, of interventions to reduce ACB in PwD aged ≥65 years (either community-dwelling or care home residents). All outcomes were to be considered. Quality was to be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and ROBINS-I tool for NRS. If data could not be pooled for meta-analysis, a narrative synthesis was to be conducted.

RESULTS

In total, 1880 records were found, with 1594 records remaining after removal of duplicates. Following title/abstract screening, 13 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. None of these studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Reasons for exclusion were incorrect study design, ineligible study population, lack of focus on reducing ACB, and studies conducted outside the primary care setting.

CONCLUSIONS

This 'empty' systematic review highlights the lack of interventions to reduce ACB in PwD within primary care, despite this being highlighted as a priority area for research in recent clinical guidance. Future research should focus on development and testing of interventions to reduce ACB in this patient population through high-quality clinical trials.

Experience and Appreciation of Health Care Teams Regarding a New Model of Pharmaceutical Care in Long-Term Care Settings

In long-term care (LTC) homes, the management of frail older residents’ pharmacotherapy may be challenging for health care teams. A new pharmaceutical care model highlighting the recently expanded scope of pharmacists’ practice in Quebec, Canada, was implemented in two LTC homes. This study aimed to evaluate health care providers’ experience and satisfaction with this new practice model. Twenty-three semi-structured interviews were performed and analyzed thematically. Positive results of the model have been identified, such as increased timeliness of interventions. Barriers were encountered, such as lack of clarity regarding roles, and suboptimal communication. The increased involvement of pharmacists was perceived as useful in the context of scarce medical resources. Although requiring time and adjustments from health care teams, the new model seems to contribute to the health care providers’ work satisfaction and to positively influence the timeliness and quality of care offered to LTC residents.

Structured Interventions to Optimize Polypharmacy in Psychiatric Treatment and Nursing Homes: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy is a common clinical issue. It increases in prevalence with older age and comorbidities of patients and has been recognized as a major cause for treatment complications. In psychiatry, polypharmacy is also commonly seen in younger patients and can lead to reduced treatment satisfaction and incompliance. A variety of structured polypharmacy interventions have been investigated. This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of the field and identifies research gaps.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review on structured interventions aimed at optimizing polypharmacy of psychotropic and somatic medication in psychiatric inpatient and outpatient settings as well as nursing homes. A search protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020187304). Data were synthesized narratively.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight studies with a total of 30,554 participants met the inclusion criteria. Interventions were most commonly guided by self-developed or national guidelines, drug assessment scores, and lists of potentially inappropriate medications. Tools to identify underprescribing were less commonly used. Most frequently reported outcomes were quantitative drug-related measures; clinical outcomes such as falls, hospital admission, cognitive status, and neuropsychiatric symptom severity were reported less commonly. Reduction of polypharmacy and improvement of medication appropriateness were shown by most studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement of drug-related outcomes can be achieved by interventions such as individualized medication review and educational approaches in psychiatric settings and nursing homes. Changes in clinical outcomes, however, are often nonsubstantial and generally underreported. Patient selection and intervention procedures are highly heterogeneous. Future investigations should establish standards in intervention procedures, identify and assess patient-relevant outcome measures, and consider long-term follow-up assessments.

Palliative care interventions in advanced dementia

BACKGROUND

Dementia is a chronic, progressive and ultimately fatal neurodegenerative disease. Advanced dementia is characterised by profound cognitive impairment, inability to communicate verbally and complete functional dependence. Usual care of people with advanced dementia is not underpinned universally by a palliative approach. Palliative care has focused traditionally on care of people with cancer, but for more than a decade, there have been calls worldwide to extend palliative care services to include all people with life-limiting illnesses in need of specialist care, including people with dementia. This review is an updated version of a review first published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of palliative care interventions in advanced dementia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register on 7 October 2020. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of several major healthcare databases, trial registries and grey literature sources. We ran additional searches across MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), four other databases and two trial registries on 7 October 2020 to ensure that the searches were as comprehensive and as up-to-date as possible.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled trials (nRCTs), controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating the impact of palliative care interventions for adults with advanced dementia of any type. Participants could be people with advanced dementia, their family members, clinicians or paid care staff. We included clinical interventions and non-clinical interventions. Comparators were usual care or another palliative care intervention. We did not exclude studies based on outcomes measured.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors (SW, EM, PC) independently assessed all potential studies identified in the search against the review inclusion criteria. Two authors independently extracted data from eligible studies. Where appropriate, we estimated pooled treatment effects in a fixed-effect meta-analysis. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies (2122 participants) met the review inclusion criteria. Two studies were individually-randomised RCTs, six were cluster-randomised RCTs and one was a controlled before-and-after study. We conducted two separate comparisons: organisation and delivery of care interventions versus usual care (six studies, 1162 participants) and advance care planning interventions versus usual care (three studies, 960 participants). Two studies were carried out in acute hospitals and seven in nursing homes or long-term care facilities. For both comparisons, we found the included studies to be sufficiently similar to conduct meta-analyses. Changes to the organisation and delivery of care for people with advanced dementia may increase comfort in dying (MD 1.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.64; 5 studies, 335 participants; very low certainty evidence). However, the evidence is very uncertain and unlikely to be clinically significant. These changes may also increase the likelihood of having a palliative care plan in place (RR 5.84, 95% CI 1.37 to 25.02; 1 study, 99 participants; I² = 0%; very low certainty evidence), but again the evidence is very uncertain. Such interventions probably have little effect on the use of non-palliative interventions (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.72; 2 studies, 292 participants; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). They may also have little or no effect on documentation of advance directives (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.50 to 4.25; 2 studies, 112 participants; I² = 52%; very low certainty evidence), or whether discussions take place about advance care planning (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.18; 1 study, 193 participants; I² = 0%; very low certainty evidence) and goals of care (RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.54; 1 study, 13 participants; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). No included studies assessed adverse effects. Advance care planning interventions for people with advanced dementia probably increase the documentation of advance directives (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.41; 2 studies, 384; moderate certainty evidence) and the number of discussions about goals of care (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.59; 2 studies, 384 participants; moderate certainty evidence). They may also slightly increase concordance with goals of care (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.79; 1 study, 63 participants; low certainty evidence). On the other hand, they may have little or no effect on perceived symptom management (MD -1.80, 95% CI -6.49 to 2.89; 1 study, 67 participants; very low certainty evidence) or whether advance care planning discussions occur (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.24; 1 study, 67 participants; low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence on palliative care interventions in advanced dementia is limited in quantity and certainty. When compared to usual care, changes to the organisation and delivery of care for people with advanced dementia may lead to improvements in comfort in dying, but the evidence for this was of very low certainty. Advance care planning interventions, compared to usual care, probably increase the documentation of advance directives and the occurrence of discussions about goals of care, and may also increase concordance with goals of care. We did not detect other effects. The uncertainty in the evidence across all outcomes in both comparisons is mainly driven by imprecision of effect estimates and risk of bias in the included studies.

Pharmacist-led interventions to reduce adverse drug events in older people living in residential aged care facilities: A systematic review

AIMS

We aimed to investigate the efficacy and effectiveness of pharmacist-led interventions to reduce adverse drug events (ADEs) in older people living in residential aged care facilities (RACFs).

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PsycINFO from their inceptions to July 2020. We investigated experimental study designs that employed a control group, or quasi-experimental studies conducted in RACFs.

RESULTS

We screened 3826 records and included 23 studies. We found seven single-component and 16 multicomponent pharmacist-led interventions to reduce ADEs in older people living in RACFs. The most frequent single-component pharmacist-led intervention was medication review. Medication review and education provision to healthcare professionals were the most common components in many pharmacist-led multicomponent interventions. Thirteen studies (56%) showed no effect, whereas ten studies (43%) reported significant reductions in ADEs following pharmacist-led interventions either as a sole intervention or as a part of a multi-component intervention. Many interventions focused on reducing the incidence of falls (39%).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review suggests that pharmacist-led interventions have the potential to reduce the incidence of ADEs in older people living in RACFs. Medication review and educational programmes, particularly academic detailing, either as a single component or as part of multicomponent interventions were the most common approaches to reducing drug-related harm in older people living in RACFs. The lack of a positive association between interventions and ADE in many studies suggests that targeted and tailored pharmacist-led interventions are required to reduce ADEs in older people in RACFs.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULT

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

DISCUSSION

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

Acceptability of a Novel Telemedication Review for Older Adults in Nursing Homes in France: A Qualitative Study

Purpose

In France, polypharmacy among older people living in nursing homes (NH) is a major public health concern. In this context, the randomized controlled trial TEM-EHPAD was recently launched in various NH in southern France to evaluate the impact of implementing a novel telemedication review (TMR) on hospital admission rates of NH residents at high risk of iatrogenic disease. A qualitative study was integrated into the main trial study to assess general practitioners' (GP) and other NH healthcare professionals' (HP) acceptability of the proposed TMR before its implementation.

Material and Methods

A qualitative study using face-to-face semi-structured interviews was conducted with 16 HP before the beginning of the intervention. A manual thematic analysis was performed on the transcribed interviews.

Results

Four main themes emerged from the thematic analysis: HP perceptions of the TMR, difficulties related to medication management for NH residents, HP perceptions of the roles of different professionals, and facilitators of good practices. Most participants were favorable to the TMR, but some GP expressed fears about loss of control over their prescription writing.

Conclusion

This study fulfilled its objective to assess pre-intervention acceptability by GP and other HP. Results provided important information about how to adapt the TMR intervention to make it more acceptable to HP who will be involved in TEM-EHPAD. One of the main recommendations is the importance of providing participating GP with the opportunity to take part in the process of reviewing prescriptions.

A New Care Model Reduces Polypharmacy and Potentially Inappropriate Medications in Long-Term Care

OBJECTIVES

Assess the impact of a new pharmaceutical care model on (1) polypharmacy and (2) potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use in long-term care facilities (LTCFs).

DESIGN

Pragmatic quasi-experimental study with a control group. This multifaceted model enables pharmacists and nurses to increase their professional autonomy by enforcing laws designed to expand their scope of practice. It also involves a strategic reorganization of care, interdisciplinary training, and systematic medication reviews.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Two LTCFs exposed to the model (409 residents) were compared to 2 control LTCFs (282 residents) in Quebec, Canada. All individuals were aged 65 years or older and residing in included LTCFs.

MEASURES

Polypharmacy (≥10 medications) and PIM (2015 Beers criteria) were analyzed throughout 12 months between March 2017 and June 2018. Groups were compared before and after implementation using repeated measures mixed Poisson or logistic regression models, adjusting for potential confounding variables.

RESULTS

Over 12 months, for regular medications, polypharmacy decreased from 42% to 20% (exposed group) and from 50% to 41% (control group) [difference in differences (DID): 13%, P < .001]. Mean number of PIMs also decreased from 0.79 to 0.56 (exposed group) and from 1.08 to 0.90 (control group) (DID: 0.05, P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Compared with usual care, this multifaceted model reduced the probability of receiving ≥10 medications and the mean number of PIMs. Greater professional autonomy, reorganization of care, training, and medication review can optimize pharmaceutical care. As the role of pharmacists is expanding in many countries, this model shows what could be achieved with increased professional autonomy of pharmacists and nurses in LTCFs.

Provincial legislative and regulatory standards for pain assessment and management in long-term care homes: a scoping review and in-depth case analysis

BACKGROUND

Among Canadian residents living in long-term care (LTC) facilities, and especially among those with limited ability to communicate due to dementia, pain remains underassessed and undermanaged. Although evidence-based clinical guidelines for the assessment and management of pain exist, these clinical guidelines are not widely implemented in LTC facilities. A relatively unexplored avenue for change is the influence that statutes and regulations could exert on pain practices within LTC. This review is therefore aimed at identifying the current landscape of policy levers used across Canada to assess and manage pain among LTC residents and to evaluate the extent to which they are concordant with evidence-based clinical guidelines proposed by an international consensus group consisting of both geriatric pain and public policy experts.

METHODS

Using scoping review methodology, a search for peer-reviewed journal articles and government documents pertaining to pain in Canadian LTC facilities was carried out. This scoping review was complemented by an in-depth case analysis of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario statutes and regulations.

RESULTS

Across provinces, pain was highly prevalent and was associated with adverse consequences among LTC residents. The considerable benefits of using a standardized pain assessment protocol, along with the barriers in implementing such a protocol, were identified. For most provinces, pain assessment and management in LTC residents was not specifically addressed in their statutes or regulations. In Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario, regulations mandate the use of the interRAI suite of assessment tools for the assessment and reporting of pain.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of pain and the benefits of implementing standardized pain assessment protocols has been reported in the research literature. Despite occasional references to pain, however, existing regulations do not recommend assessments of pain at the frequency specified by experts. Insufficient direction on the use of specialized pain assessment tools (especially in the case of those with limited ability to communicate) that minimize reliance on subjective judgements was also identified in current regulations. Existing policies therefore fail to adequately address the underassessment and undermanagement of pain in older adults residing in LTC facilities in ways that are aligned with expert consensus.

Pharmacist-led medication reviews in aged care residents with dementia: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate outcomes associated with pharmacist-led medication reviews in residential aged care facility (RACF) residents with dementia.

METHODS

Six scientific databases were searched. All study designs investigating pharmacist-led medication reviews in RACF residents with dementia were considered. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019121681).

RESULTS

One randomised controlled trial (RCT) and five observational studies were identified. Two studies reported reductions in medication usage per resident, and one study reported improved appropriateness of psychotropic use following reviews as part of multi-faceted, collaborative interventions. In three studies, reviews undertaken as an isolated intervention or by a visiting pharmacist with minimal collaboration with physicians were associated with low implementation rates of recommendations to alter therapy.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacist-led medication reviews, when conducted collaboratively, may improve the use of medicines in RACF residents with dementia. However, robust conclusions cannot be drawn, largely due to the low quality of evidence available, including only one RCT.

Impact of Automated Targeted Medication Review Electronic Alerts to Reduce Potentially Inappropriate Medication Prescribing Among Medicare Enrolled Patients With Dementia

BACKGROUND

Background:Finding ways to reduce prescribing of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) among patients with dementia is necessary.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate an automated targeted medication review (TMR) service to reduce PIM prescribing among patients with dementia.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational analysis of patients in a Medication Therapy Management (MTM) program for year 2017. Patients included if Medicare enrolled, MTM eligible, had dementia, and with PIM prescribing. Descriptive statistics described reduced PIM prescribing. Odds ratios (ORs) assessed prescriber relationship with PIM prescribing. Regression evaluated relationship between patient characteristics and discontinued PIMs.

RESULTS

A total of 33 696 TMRs were triggered for 17 933 patients. Four months later, 11 608 TMRs led to a discontinued PIM among 8002 patients. Medications with the largest discontinuations were antihistamines (56%), muscle relaxants (53%), antiemetics (53%), and typical antipsychotics (40%). Physician primary care providers (PCPs) were more likely than nonphysician PCPs (OR = 4.54; 95% CI = 4.15-4.97; P < 0.001), psychiatrists (OR = 1.64; 95%CI = 1.44-1.86; P < 0.001), and neurologists (OR = 4.48; 95% CI = 4.07-4.93; P < 0.001) to prescribe medications to treat dementia and PIMs. Regression showed that younger age, female gender, higher poverty level, and a greater number of pharmacies, medications, and prescribers were associated with discontinued PIMs. Conclusions and Relevance: TMRs were effective in reducing PIM prescribing. Younger patients, individuals living in higher poverty levels, and patients with multiple prescribers or pharmacies may benefit most from this service. TMRs in primary care offices may reduce PIM prescribing.

Impact of medication review via tele-expertise on unplanned hospitalizations at 3 months of nursing homes patients (TEM-EHPAD): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Inappropriate drug prescribing causes preventable drug-related adverse events that result in increased morbidity and mortality, additional costs and diminished quality of life. Numerous initiatives have been launched to improve the quality of drug prescribing and safeguard the security of drug administration processes in nursing homes. Against the backdrop of implementation of telemedicine services, the focus of the present work is to evaluate the impact of a telemedication review carried out by a hospital physician and pharmacist as part of the telemedicine offer.

Methods

The present study is a randomized controlled clinical trial. A total of 364 patients will be randomized into two groups: (1) an experimental group (182 patients) benefiting from a telemedication review using tele-expertise and (2) a control group (182 patients) receiving standard care. The primary endpoint will be rate of all-cause unplanned hospital admissions occurring within 3 months of randomization. The secondary endpoints will be rate of unplanned admissions at 6 months, patient quality of life, incidence of behavioral disturbances, number of falls, number of residents prescribed at least one inappropriate medication, nursing staff satisfaction, proposed medication reviews and their acceptability rate, characteristics of patients whose general practitioners have taken account of tele-expertise, efficacy of tele-expertise as compared to standard prescription and acceptability and satisfaction surveys of participating caregivers.

Discussion

In the literature, various studies have investigated the utility of structured medication review processes, but outcome measures are heterogeneous, and results vary widely. Medication review can detect medication-related problems in many patients, but evidence of clinical impact is scant. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios will be used to compare the cost and effectiveness of the experimental strategy and that of standard care. Our approach, involving the combination of an acceptability survey and a mixed-method (qualitative and quantitative) satisfaction survey, is particularly innovative. The results of this randomized trial are expected to confirm that medication review using tele-expertise has potential as a worthwhile care management strategy for nursing home residents.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03640845; registered August 21, 2018 (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03640845).