Implementation of the Goal-directed Medication review Electronic Decision Support System (G-MEDSS)© into home medicines review: a protocol for a cluster-randomised clinical trial in older adults

The RESPECT-tool as a facilitator for person-centered medication reviews for nursing home residents: tool development and pilot study

BACKGROUND

Although support is needed, no method exists to elicit and integrate personal goals into medication optimization interventions for nursing home residents.

AIM

To develop and evaluate a tool to (1) elicit and evaluate residents' personal goals during medication optimization, and (2) elicit involvement preferences regarding medication decision-making.

METHOD

A draft was composed by the research team, on which feedback was collected through four focus groups with healthcare professionals (n = 23) and pilot interviews with residents (n = 6). The tool was then pilot tested in 11 nursing homes as means to facilitate person-centered medication reviews, focusing on feasibility, appropriateness, and meaningfulness. Evaluation was performed through interviews and focus groups with residents and healthcare professionals, and reports for executed medication reviews. Interview summaries and reports were analyzed inductively.

RESULTS

The RESident's Participation in the Evaluation and Customization of Therapy tool (RESPECT-tool) was drafted as a modular approach of five modules. Pilot study results showed that the tool supported the formulation of personal goals. Goals resulted in changes in all aspects of the nursing home stay, indicating the tool's potential to promote person-centered care. The RESPECT-tool showed value in the context of medication optimization as it allowed to determine potential links between residents' personal goals and medication plans, and its use regularly led to medication changes.

CONCLUSION

A person-centered medication review facilitated by the RESPECT-tool holds a promising approach to medication optimization in nursing homes. Further research should assess impact on relevant outcomes like goal attainment, appropriateness of prescribing and quality of life.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Deprescribing Anticholinergic and Sedative Drugs to Reduce Polypharmacy in Frail Older Adults Living in the Community: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy is associated with poor outcomes in older adults. Targeted deprescribing of anticholinergic and sedative medications may improve health outcomes for frail older adults. Our pharmacist-led deprescribing intervention was a pragmatic 2-arm randomized controlled trial stratified by frailty. We compared usual care (control) with the intervention of pharmacists providing deprescribing recommendations to general practitioners.

METHODS

Community-based older adults (≥65 years) from 2 New Zealand district health boards were recruited following a standardized interRAI needs assessment. The Drug Burden Index (DBI) was used to quantify the use of sedative and anticholinergic medications for each participant. The trial was stratified into low, medium, and high-frailty. We hypothesized that the intervention would increase the proportion of participants with a reduction in DBI ≥ 0.5 within 6 months.

RESULTS

Of 363 participants, 21 (12.7%) in the control group and 21 (12.2%) in the intervention group had a reduction in DBI ≥ 0.5. The difference in the proportion of -0.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -7.9% to 7.0%) provided no evidence of efficacy for the intervention. Similarly, there was no evidence to suggest the effectiveness of this intervention for participants of any frailty level.

CONCLUSION

Our pharmacist-led medication review of frail older participants did not reduce the anticholinergic/sedative load within 6 months. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lockdown measures required modification of the intervention. Subgroup analyses pre- and post-lockdown showed no impact on outcomes. Reviewing this and other deprescribing trials through the lens of implementation science may aid an understanding of the contextual determinants preventing or enabling successful deprescribing implementation strategies.

Clinical pharmacists' reported approaches and processes for undertaking Home Medicines Review services: A national survey

INTRODUCTION

Comprehensive medicines reviews are a strategy to reduce medicines-related harm. In Australia, Home Medicines Review services (HMRs) are provided by consultant pharmacists to community-dwelling consumers, on referral from the consumer's medical practitioner. Limited research exists on the processes undertaken by consultant pharmacists when delivering HMRs, particularly as it relates to the information types received, collected, and reported.

OBJECTIVE

Describe the types of information consultant pharmacists report receiving in HMR referrals, collect before and during consumer consultations, and include in their written reports.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a national online survey of Australian consultant pharmacists who deliver HMRs. Participants were recruited using a broad advertising strategy, including social and traditional media platforms, and snowballing. Data were analysed descriptively.

RESULTS

Of the 248 eligible participants, 179 (72%) completed the survey. The most commonly included information in the referral was medication list (97%), the least were details of hospitalisations (8%) and specialist letters (5%). Information pertaining to hospitalisation and specialist letters were collected by 20% of participants prior to the consultation. Details of, and history from, community pharmacy was the most sought information prior to consultations. Less than a quarter of participants 'most of the time' or 'always' formally assess adherence using a validated instrument during the consultation. Participants commonly (80%) report consumer concerns in the written report.

CONCLUSIONS

Consultant pharmacists collect a broad variety of information, beyond medicines-related content. Written HMR reports by consultant pharmacists were often reported to be consumer-centric.

Methods to elicit and evaluate the attainment of patient goals in older adults: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aimed to identify patient goal elicitation and evaluation methods for older adults, and to investigate which methods can be used in medication optimization interventions for nursing home residents (NHRs).

METHODS

The Arksey and O'Malley framework guided the review. A search was launched in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Reference selection and data extraction were performed by three independent reviewers, followed by team discussions to solve discrepancies. Inductive thematic analysis was applied to synthesize the data. Included papers were reconsidered to identify methods for medication optimization interventions for NHRs.

RESULTS

Ninety-six references, encompassing 38 elicitation and 12 evaluation methods, were included. Elicitation methods differed in structure, content, and patient involvement levels. Qualitative and quantitative methods were found to assess goal attainment. Five elicitation and three evaluation methods were developed for NHRs, but none of these contained a medication-related assessment.

CONCLUSION

A variety of goal elicitation and evaluation methods for older adults was found, but none for medication optimization interventions in NHRs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

A holistic approach seems important to integrate patient goals into medication optimization interventions, not limiting goal elicitation to a medication-related assessment. Also, the choice of assessor seems important to obtain patient goals.

Deprescribing to reduce polypharmacy: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial assessing deprescribing of anticholinergic and sedative drugs in a cohort of frail older people living in the community

BACKGROUND

Targeted deprescribing of anticholinergic and sedative medications in older people may improve their health outcomes. This trial will determine if pharmacist-led reviews lead to general practitioners deprescribing anticholinergic and sedative medications in older people living in the community.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The standard protocol items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist was used to develop and report the protocol. The trial will involve older adults stratified by frailty (low, medium, and high). This will be a pragmatic two-arm randomized controlled trial to test general practitioner uptake of pharmacist recommendations to deprescribe anticholinergic and sedative medications that are causing adverse side effects in patients.

STUDY POPULATION

Community-dwelling frail adults, 65 years or older, living in the Canterbury region of New Zealand, seeking publicly funded home support services or admission to aged residential care and taking at least one anticholinergic or sedative medication regularly.

INTERVENTION

New Zealand registered pharmacists using peer-reviewed deprescribing guidelines will visit participants at home in the community, review their medications, and recommend anticholinergic and sedative medications that could be deprescribed to the participant's general practitioner. The total use of anticholinergic and sedative medications will be quantified using the Drug Burden Index (DBI).

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome will be the change in total DBI between baseline and 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include entry into aged residential care, prolonged hospitalization, and death.

DATA COLLECTION POINTS

Data will be collected at the time of interRAI assessments (T0), at the time of the baseline review (T1), at 6 months following the baseline review (T2), and at the end of the study period, or end of study participation for participants admitted into aged residential care, or who died (T3).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been obtained from the Human, Disability and Ethics Committee: ethical number (17CEN265).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ACTRN12618000729224 . Registered on May 2, 2018, with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry.

Development, validation and evaluation of the Goal-directed Medication review Electronic Decision Support System (G-MEDSS)©

OBJECTIVES

1) To understand and investigate the experiences of accredited clinical pharmacists (ACP) using computerised clinical decision support systems (CCDSS) during medication reviews for older people, including those living with dementia; 2) To design, develop, validate, and evaluate a CCDSS that incorporates pharmacological and other deprescribing tools to aid person-centred management of high-risk medications in older adults living with and without dementia.

METHODS

This study consisted of three phases and was designed on scenario-based methodology: a) the development phase, which included an exploratory survey and prototype building; b) the validation phase, which included qualitative data collection and usability testing with ACPs, general practitioners (GPs) and carers for people living with dementia; and c) the evaluation phase, using mixed-methods analyses.

RESULTS

The exploratory survey found that ACPs required a flexible, and reliable CCDSS to support them with clinical decisions regarding high-risk medication use in older adults. The Goal-directed Medication review Electronic Decision Support System (G-MEDSS)© was developed and validated using quantitative and qualitative feedback received from ACPs, GPs and carers for people with dementia. The mean (SD) System Usability Scale score was 69.0 (12.9), which indicated fair-good usability.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Involving end-users in the design process refined and improved the design of G-MEDSS, allowing for a person-centred and goal-directed delivery of pharmaceutical care. G-MEDSS allows healthcare practitioners conducting medication reviews for older adults living with and without dementia to tailor pharmaceutical care to meet their goals and preferences. Future studies may explore integration of G-MEDSS with prescribing or dispensing software.

MediQuit, an Electronic Deprescribing Tool for Patients on Polypharmacy: Results of a Feasibility Study in German General Practice

BACKGROUND

Deprescribing is an important task for general practitioners (GPs) in the face of risky polypharmacy. The electronic tool "MediQuit" was developed to guide GPs and patients through a deprescribing consultation that entails a drug-selection phase, shared decision making, and advice on safe implementation.

OBJECTIVES

A pilot study was conducted to determine the target group of patients that is selected for consultation and to assess the impact, patient involvement, and feasibility of the tool.

METHODS

This was an uncontrolled pilot study. GPs from two German regions were invited to use MediQuit in consultations with a view to deprescribing one drug, if appropriate. They selected patients on the basis of broad inclusion criteria. Collected data entailed participants' characteristics, patients' medication lists, deprescribed drugs, and feasibility assessments. Patients were contacted shortly after the consultation and again after 4 weeks.

RESULTS

In total, 16 GPs agreed to participate, of whom ten actually performed deprescribing consultations. They selected 41 predominately older patients on excessive polypharmacy. Deprescribing was achieved in 70% of consultations in agreement with patients. Drugs deprescribed were symptom-lowering and preventive drugs (mainly anatomical therapeutic chemical classes A and C). GPs found MediQuit useful in initiating communication on this issue and enhancing deliberations for a deprescribing decision. The median consultation length was 15 min (interquartile range 10-20). At follow-up, GPs and patients infrequently disagreed on which drug(s) was discontinued, and GPs rated patient involvement higher than did patients themselves.

DISCUSSION

MediQuit assists in identifying concrete deprescribing opportunities, patient involvement, and shared decision making. The three-step deprescribing procedure is well-accepted once initial organizational efforts are overcome. After revision, further studies are needed to enhance the quality of evidence on acceptance and effectiveness.

Less is More: Deprescribing Medications in Older Adults with Kidney Disease: A Review

Due to age and impaired kidney function, older adults with kidney disease are at increased risk of medication-related problems and related hospitalizations. One proa ctive approach to minimize this risk is deprescribing. Deprescribing refers to the systematic process of reducing or stopping a medication. Aside from preventing harm, deprescribing can potentially optimize patients' quality of life by aligning medications with their goals of care. For some patients, deprescribing could involve less aggressive management of their diabetes and/or hypertension. In other instances, deprescribing targets may include potentially inappropriate medications that carry greater risk of harm than benefit in older adults, medications that have questionable efficacy, including medications that have varying efficacy by degree of kidney function, and that increase medication regimen complexity. We include a guide for clinicians to utilize in deprescribing, the List, Evaluate, Shared Decision-Making, Support (LESS) framework. The LESS framework provides key considerations at each step of the deprescribing process that can be tailored for the medications and context of individu al patients. Patient characteristics or clinical events that warrant consideration of deprescribing include limited life expectancy, cognitive impairment, and health status changes, such as dialysis initiation or recent hospitalization. We acknowledge patient-, clinician-, and system-level challenges to the depre scribing process. These include patient hesitancy and challenges to discussing goals of care, clinician time constraints and a lack of evidence-based guidelines, and system-level challenges of interoperable electronic health records and limited incentives for deprescribing. However, novel evidence-based tools designed to facilitate deprescribing and future evidence on effectiveness of deprescribing could help mitigate these barriers. This review provides foundational knowledge on deprescribing as an emerging component of clinical practice and research within nephrology.

Leveraging implementation science to increase the translation of deprescribing evidence into practice

Implementation science may address some of the limitations that impede the translation of deprescribing recommendations into practice and policy. Application of principles and standard terminologies from implementation science could improve understanding and interpretation of deprescribing research findings. As such, in this commentary we propose three main avenues to help achieve this. These include: The application of these concepts derived from implementation science could help inform future deprescribing needs for clinicians and researchers. Ultimately, this could help ensure the quality use of medications and examination of meaningful outcomes in deprescribing studies. This could result in more consistent and widespread translation of deprescribing evidence into practice and policy across various healthcare settings.

Supporting deprescribing in hospitalised patients: formative usability testing of a computerised decision support tool

Background

Despite growing evidence that deprescribing can improve clinical outcomes, quality of life and reduce the likelihood of adverse drug events, the practice is not widespread, particularly in hospital settings. Clinical risk assessment tools, like the Drug Burden Index (DBI), can help prioritise patients for medication review and prioritise medications to deprescribe, but are not integrated within routine care. The aim of this study was to conduct formative usability testing of a computerised decision support (CDS) tool, based on DBI, to identify modifications required to the tool prior to trialling in practice.

Methods

Our CDS tool comprised a DBI MPage in the electronic medical record (clinical workspace) that facilitated review of a patient’s DBI and medication list, access to deprescribing resources, and the ability to deprescribe. Two rounds of scenario-based formative usability testing with think-aloud protocol were used. Seventeen end-users participated in the testing, including junior and senior doctors, and pharmacists.

Results

Participants expressed positive views about the DBI CDS tool but testing revealed a number of clear areas for improvement. These primarily related to terminology used (i.e. what is a DBI and how is it calculated?), and consistency of functionality and display. A key finding was that users wanted the CDS tool to look and function in a similar way to other decision support tools in the electronic medical record. Modifications were made to the CDS tool in response to user feedback.

Conclusion

Usability testing proved extremely useful for identifying components of our CDS tool that were confusing, difficult to locate or to understand. We recommend usability testing be adopted prior to implementation of any digital health intervention. We hope our revised CDS tool equips clinicians with the knowledge and confidence to consider discontinuation of inappropriate medications in routine care of hospitalised patients. In the next phase of our project, we plan to pilot test the tool in practice to evaluate its uptake and effectiveness in supporting deprescribing in routine hospital care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-021-01484-z.

CCCDTD5: Reducing the risk of later-life dementia. Evidence informing the Fifth Canadian Consensus Conference on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia (CCCDTD-5)

The Fifth Canadian Consensus Conference on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia (CCCDTD-5) was a year-long process to synthesize the best available evidence on several topics. Our group undertook evaluation of risk reduction, in eight domains: nutrition; physical activity; hearing; sleep; cognitive training and stimulation; social engagement and education; frailty; and medications. Here we describe the rationale for the undertaking and summarize the background evidence-this is also tabulated in the Appendix. We further comment specifically on the relationship between age and dementia, and offer some suggestions for how reducing the risk of dementia in the seventh decade and beyond might be considered if we are to improve prospects for prevention in the near term. We draw to attention that a well-specified model of success in dementia prevention need not equate to the elimination of cognitive impairment in late life.

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.

Correction to: Implementation of the goal-directed medication review electronic decision support system (G-MEDSS)© into home medicines review: a protocol for a clusterrandomised clinical trial in older adults

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.