Appropriate prescribing in nursing homes demonstration project (APDP) study protocol: pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial and mixed methods process evaluation of an Ontario policy-maker initiative to improve appropriate prescribing of antipsychotics

Psychosocial interventions for reducing antipsychotic medication in care home residents

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic medications are regularly prescribed in care home residents for the management of behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) despite questionable efficacy, important adverse effects, and available non-pharmacological interventions. Prescription rates are related to organisational factors, staff training and job satisfaction, patient characteristics, and specific interventions. Psychosocial intervention programmes aimed at reducing the prescription of antipsychotic drugs are available. These programmes may target care home residents (e.g. improving communication and interpersonal relationships) or target staff (e.g. by providing skills for caring for people with BPSD). Therefore, this review aimed to assess the effectiveness of these interventions, updating our earlier review published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of psychosocial interventions to reduce antipsychotic medication use in care home residents compared to regular care, optimised regular care, or a different psychosocial intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 14 July 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included individual or cluster-randomised controlled trials comparing a psychosocial intervention aimed primarily at reducing the use of antipsychotic medication with regular care, optimised regular care, or a different psychosocial intervention. Psychosocial interventions were defined as non-pharmacological intervention with psychosocial components. We excluded medication withdrawal or substitution interventions, interventions without direct interpersonal contact and communication, and interventions solely addressing policy changes or structural interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Critical appraisal of studies addressed risks of selection, performance, attrition and detection bias, as well as criteria related to cluster randomisation. We retrieved data on the complex interventions on the basis of the TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) checklist. Our primary outcomes were 1. use of regularly prescribed antipsychotic medication and 2.

ADVERSE EVENTS

Our secondary outcomes were 3. mortality; 4. BPSD; 5. quality of life; 6. prescribing of regularly psychotropic medication; 7. regimen of regularly prescribed antipsychotic medication; 8. antipsychotic medication administered 'as needed'; 9. physical restraints; 10. cognitive status; 11. depression; 12. activities of daily living; and 13.

COSTS

We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five cluster-randomised controlled studies (120 clusters, 8342 participants). We found pronounced clinical heterogeneity and therefore decided to present study results narratively. All studies investigated complex interventions comprising, among other components, educational approaches. Because of the heterogeneity of the results, including the direction of effects, we are uncertain about the effects of psychosocial interventions on the prescription of antipsychotic medication. One study investigating an educational intervention for care home staff assessed the use of antipsychotic medication in days of use per 100 resident-days, and found this to be lower in the intervention group (mean difference 6.30 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.05 to 6.66; 1152 participants). The other four studies reported the proportion of participants with a regular antipsychotic prescription. Of two studies implementing an intervention to promote person-centred care, one found a difference in favour of the intervention group (between-group difference 19.1%, 95% CI 0.5% to 37.7%; 338 participants), while the other found a difference in favour of the control group (between-group difference 11.4%, 95% CI 0.9% to 21.9%; 862 participants). One study investigating an educational programme described as "academic detailing" found no difference between groups (odds ratio 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.20; 5363 participants). The fifth study used a factorial design to compare different combinations of interventions to supplement person-centred care. Results showed a positive effect of medication review, and no clear effect of social interaction or exercise. We considered that, overall, the evidence about this outcome was of low certainty. We found high-certainty evidence that psychosocial interventions intended primarily to reduce antipsychotic use resulted in little to no difference in the number of falls, non-elective hospitalisations, or unplanned emergency department visits. Psychosocial interventions intended primarily to reduce antipsychotic use also resulted in little to no difference in quality of life (moderate-certainty evidence), and BPSD, regular prescribing of psychotropic medication, use of physical restraints, depression, or activities of daily living (all low-certainty evidence). We also found low-certainty evidence that, in the context of these interventions, social interaction and medication review may reduce mortality, but exercise does not.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All included interventions were complex and the components of the interventions differed considerably between studies. Interventions and intervention components were mostly not described in sufficient detail. Two studies found evidence that the complex psychosocial interventions may reduce antipsychotic medication use. In addition, one study showed that medication review might have some impact on antipsychotic prescribing rates. There were no important adverse events. Overall, the available evidence does not allow for clear generalisable recommendations.

The use of theory in process evaluations conducted alongside randomized trials of implementation interventions: A systematic review

Interventions to implement changes into health care practice (i.e., implementation interventions) are critical to improving care but their effects are poorly understood. Two strategies to better understand intervention effects are conducting process evaluations and using theoretical approaches (i.e., theories, models, frameworks). The extent to which theoretical approaches have been used in process evaluations conducted alongside trials of implementation interventions is unclear. In this study context, we reviewed (a) the proportion of process evaluations citing theoretical approaches, (b) which theoretical approaches were cited, and (c) whether and how theories were used. Systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42016042789). MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched up to July 31, 2017. For all studies, data extraction included names and types of theoretical approaches cited. For studies citing a theory, data extraction included study characteristics and extent of theory use (i.e., "informed by," "applied," "tested," "built/created" theory). We identified 123 process evaluations. Key findings: (a) 77 (63%) process evaluations cited a theoretical approach; (b) the most cited theory was normalization process theory; (c) 32 (26%) process evaluations used theory: 7 (22%) were informed by, 18 (56%) applied, 7 (22%) tested, and none built/created theory. Although nearly two thirds of process evaluations cited a theoretical approach, only a quarter were informed by, applied, or tested a theory-despite the potential complementarity of these strategies. When theory was used, it was primarily applied. Using theory more substantively in process evaluations may accelerate our understanding of how implementation interventions operate.

Enhancing the translation of health behaviour change research into practice: a selective conceptual review of the synergy between implementation science and health psychology

Health psychology is at the forefront of developing and disseminating evidence, theories, and methods that have improved the understanding of health behaviour change. However, current dissemination approaches may be insufficient for promoting broader application and impact of this evidence to benefit the health of patients and the public. Nevertheless, behaviour change theory/methods typically directed towards health behaviours are now used in implementation science to understand and support behaviour change in individuals at different health system levels whose own behaviour impacts delivering evidence-based health behaviour change interventions. Despite contributing to implementation science, health psychology is perhaps doing less to draw from it. A redoubled focus on implementation science in health psychology could provide novel prospects for enhancing the impact of health behaviour change evidence. We report a Health Psychology Review-specific review-of-reviews of trials of health behaviour change interventions published from inception to April 2020. We identified 34 reviews and assessed whether implementation readiness of behaviour change interventions was discussed. We then narratively review how implementation science has integrated theory/methods from health psychology and related discipline. Finally, we demonstrate how greater synergy between implementation science and health psychology could promote greater follow-through on advances made in the science of health behaviour change.

Social norms interventions to change clinical behaviour in health workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

A social norms intervention seeks to change the clinical behaviour of a target health worker by exposing them to the values, beliefs, attitudes or behaviours of a reference group or person. These low-cost interventions can be used to encourage health workers to follow recommended professional practice.

Objective

To summarise evidence on whether or not social norms interventions are effective in encouraging health worker behaviour change, and to identify the most effective social norms interventions.

Design

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Data sources

The following databases were searched on 24 July 2018: Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to week 2 July 2018), EMBASE (1974 to 3 July 2018), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1937 to July 2018), British Nursing Index (2008 to July 2018), ISI Web of Science (1900 to present), PsycINFO (1806 to week 3 July 2018) and Cochrane trials (up to July 2018).

Participants

Health workers took part in the study.

Interventions

Behaviour change interventions based on social norms.

Outcome measures

Health worker clinical behaviour, for example prescribing (primary outcome), and patient health outcomes, for example blood test results (secondary), converted into a standardised mean difference.

Methods

Titles and abstracts were reviewed against the inclusion criteria to exclude any that were clearly ineligible. Two reviewers independently screened the remaining full texts to identify relevant papers. Two reviewers extracted data independently, coded for behaviour change techniques and assessed quality using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We performed a meta-analysis and presented forest plots, stratified by behaviour change technique. Sources of variation were explored using metaregression and network meta-analysis.

Results

A total of 4428 abstracts were screened, 477 full texts were screened and findings were based on 106 studies. Most studies were in primary care or hospitals, targeting prescribing, ordering of tests and communication with patients. The interventions included social comparison (in which information is given on how peers behave) and credible source (which refers to communication from a well-respected person in support of the behaviour). Combined data suggested that interventions that included social norms components were associated with an improvement in health worker behaviour of 0.08 standardised mean differences (95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.10 standardised mean differences) (n = 100 comparisons), and an improvement in patient outcomes of 0.17 standardised mean differences (95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.20) (n = 14), on average. Heterogeneity was high, with an overall I 2 of 85.4% (primary) and 91.5% (secondary). Network meta-analysis suggested that three types of social norms intervention were most effective, on average, compared with control: credible source (0.30 standardised mean differences, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.47); social comparison combined with social reward (0.39 standardised mean differences, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.64); and social comparison combined with prompts and cues (0.33 standardised mean differences, 95% confidence interval 0.22 to 0.44).

Limitations

The large number of studies prevented us from requesting additional information from authors. The trials varied in design, context and setting, and we combined different types of outcome to provide an overall summary of evidence, resulting in a very heterogeneous review.

Conclusions

Social norms interventions are an effective method of changing clinical behaviour in a variety of health service contexts. Although the overall result was modest and very variable, there is the potential for social norms interventions to be scaled up to target the behaviour of a large population of health workers and resulting patient outcomes.

Future work

Development of optimised credible source and social comparison behaviour change interventions, including qualitative research on acceptability and feasibility.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016045718.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Policies for Deprescribing: An International Scan of Intended and Unintended Outcomes of Limiting Sedative-Hypnotic Use in Community-Dwelling Older Adults

Policies have been put in place internationally to reduce the overuse of certain medications that have a high risk of harm, such as sedative-hypnotic drugs for insomnia or opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. We explore and compare the outcomes of policies aimed at deprescribing sedative-hypnotic medication in community-dwelling older adults. Prescription monitoring policies led to the highest rate of discontinuation but triggered inappropriate substitutions. Financial deterrents through insurance scheme delistings increased patient out-of-pocket spending and had minimal impact. Pay-for-performance incentives to prescribers proved ineffective. Rescheduling alprazolam to a controlled substance raised the street drug price of the drug and shifted use to other benzodiazepines, causing similar rates of overdose deaths. Driving safety policies and jurisdiction-wide educational campaigns promoting non-drug alternatives appear most promising for achieving intended outcomes and avoiding unintended harms. Sustainable change should be supported with direct-to-patient education and improved access to non-drug therapy, with an emphasis on evaluating both intended and unintended consequences of any deprescribing-oriented policy.

A Canadian Cohort Study to Evaluate the Outcomes Associated with a Multicenter Initiative to Reduce Antipsychotic Use in Long-Term Care Homes

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of a multicenter intervention to reduce potentially inappropriate antipsychotic use in Canadian nursing homes at the individual and facility levels.

DESIGN

Longitudinal, population-based cohort study to evaluate the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement's Spreading Healthcare Innovations Initiative to reduce potentially inappropriate antipsychotic use in 6 provinces/territories.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Adults in nursing homes in 6 provinces/territories in Canada between 2014 and 2016. The sample involved 4927 residents in 45 intervention homes and 122,570 residents in 1193 control homes in the first quarter of the study.

MEASURES

Assessment data based on the Resident Assessment Instrument 2.0 were used in both settings to track antipsychotic use and to obtain risk-adjusters for a quality indicator on potentially inappropriate use.

INTERVENTION

Quality improvement teams in participating organizations were provided with education, training, and support to implement localized strategies intended to reduce antipsychotic medication use in residents without diagnosis of psychosis.

RESULTS

At the resident level, we found that the odds of remaining on potentially inappropriate antipsychotics were 0.75 in intervention compared with control homes after adjusting for age, sex, aggressive behavior, and cognition. These findings were evident within the pooled Canadian data as well as within provinces. At the facility level, the intervention homes had greater improvements in risk-adjusted quality indicator performance than the control homes, and this was true for the worst, median, and best-performing homes at baseline. There was no major change in the quality indicator for worsening of behavior symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS

The Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement intervention was associated with a reduction in potentially inappropriate antipsychotic use at both the individual and facility levels of analysis. This improvement in performance was independent of secular trends toward reduced antipsychotic use in participating provinces. This suggests that substantial improvements in medication use may be achieved through targeted, collaborative quality improvement initiatives in long-term care.

Effect of Academic Detailing on Promoting Appropriate Prescribing of Antipsychotic Medication in Nursing Homes: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Strategies to reduce the inappropriate prescription of antipsychotics have been the focus of recent attention but have shown considerable variation in their effectiveness.

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of academic detailing in nursing homes targeting appropriate prescribing of antipsychotics.

Design, Setting, and Participants

We conducted a pragmatic, cluster randomized clinical trial comparing the effect of academic detailing vs usual care on prescribing antipsychotics in 40 nursing homes with 5363 residents in Ontario, Canada. Data were collected from October 2015 to March 2016 and analyzed from April to August 2018. Primary analyses were conducted using intention to treat.

Intervention

Academic detailing delivered by health professionals (eg, nurses or pharmacists) who arranged meetings (with administrators, physicians, pharmacists, nurses, and support workers), presentations, group visits (with 2-6 clinicians), and 1-on-1 visits (traditional academic detailing visits). Academic detailers had direct and ongoing contact with the nursing homes from the time of launch.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome, defined at the level of the resident, was whether continuous antipsychotics were dispensed in the past week. Secondary outcomes included prescribing of other psychotropic medications and clinical outcomes and scores. Prescribing outcomes were assessed at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months, and clinical outcomes and scores were assessed at baseline and 3 and 6 months.

Results

A total of 40 nursing homes with 5363 residents were randomized, with 18 intervention homes (45.0%; 2303 [42.9%] residents) and 22 control homes (55.0%; 3060 [57.1%] residents). Participants in the intervention and control groups had similar median (interquartile range) age (86 [79-91] years vs 85 [78-90] years) and sex (674 [29.3%] men vs 970 [31.7%] men). At 12 months, there was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of daily antipsychotic use (intervention: 569 patients [25.2%]; control: 769 [25.6%]; odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.93-1.20; P = .49). There were no significant differences in the rates of health care utilization, but the intervention group did experience a statistically significant reduction in pain compared with the control group (mean [SD] pain score, 0.30 [0.59] vs 0.38 [0.66]; P < .001) and depression (mean [SD] Depression Rating Scale score, 2.18 [2.37] vs 2.81 [2.65]; P < .001) at 6 months.

Conclusions and Relevance

The intervention did not further reduce antipsychotic prescribing in nursing homes beyond system-level secular trends occurring alongside usual care. Our findings highlight the need for a more targeted approach to quality improvement strategies, including academic detailing, that account for the timing and topic of interventions.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02604056.

Effectiveness of confidential reports to physicians on their prescribing of antipsychotic medications in nursing homes

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic medication use in nursing homes is associated with potential for harms. In Ontario, Canada, an agency of the provincial government offers nursing home physicians quarterly audit and feedback on their antipsychotic prescribing. We compared the characteristics of physicians who did and did not engage with the intervention, and assessed early changes in prescribing.

METHODS

This population-level, retrospective cohort study used linked administrative databases to track prescribing practices in nursing homes pre-intervention (baseline), immediately post-initiative (3 months), and at follow-up (6 months). Exposure variables identified whether a physician signed up to participate (or not) or viewed the feedback following sign up (or not). Differences in the proportion of days that residents received antipsychotic medications at 6 months compared to baseline by exposure(s) were assessed using a linear mixed effects regression analysis to adjust for a range of resident, physician, and nursing home factors. Benzodiazepine and statin prescribing were assessed as a balance and tracer measures, respectively.

RESULTS

Of 944 eligible physicians, 210 (22.3%) signed up to recieve the feedback report and 132 (13.9%) viewed their feedback. Physicians who signed up for feedback were more likely to have graduated from a Canadian medical school, work in urban nursing homes, and care for a larger number of residents. The clinical and functional characteristics of residents were similar across physician exposure groups. At 6 months, antipsychotic prescribing had decreased in all exposure groups. Those who viewed their feedback report had a signicantly greater reduction in antipsychotic prescribing than those who did not sign up (0.94% patient-days exposed; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.54%, p = 0.002). Trends in prescribing patterns across exposure groups for benzodiazepines and statins were not statistically significant.

INTERPRETATION

Almost a quarter of eligible physicians engaged early in a voluntary audit and feedback intervention related to antipsychotic prescribing in nursing homes. Those who viewed their feedback achieved a small but statistically significant change in prescribing, equivalent to approximately 14,000 fewer days that nursing home residents received antipsychotic medications over 6 months. This study adds to the literature regarding the role of audit and feedback interventions to improve quality of care.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing a pragmatic trial to improve advance care planning in the nursing home setting

Background

The PRagmatic trial Of Video Education in Nursing homes (PROVEN) aims to test the effectiveness of an advance care planning (ACP) video intervention. Relatively little is known about the challenges associated with implementing ACP interventions in the nursing home (NH) setting, especially within a pragmatic trial. To address this research gap, this report sought to identify facilitators of and barriers to implementing PROVEN from the perspective of the Champions charged with introducing the ACP video program delivery to patients and families.

Methods

In semi-structured telephone interviews at 4 and 15 months of the 18-month implementation period, ACP Champions at all PROVEN intervention facilities (N = 119) were asked about their perceptions of program implementation. Forty interviews were purposively sampled, transcribed, and analyzed using a hybrid deductive/inductive approach to thematic analysis incorporating the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research’s domains: Intervention Characteristics (IC), Inner Setting (IS), Characteristics of Individuals (CI), Outer Setting (OS), and Process (P).

Results

Implementation facilitators identified by Champions included: the intervention’s adaptable mode of presentation and minimal time burden (IC) as well as the program’s customizable delivery to patients and families and opportunity for group reflection on implementation among ACP Champions (P). Barriers included mandated protocol-driven aspects of the program (OS), limited time to deliver the intervention (IS), and lack of perceived relevance and emotional readiness for ACP amongst stakeholders (CI).

Conclusions

Despite the promise of PROVEN’s intervention for improving ACP in nursing homes, unchangeable setting and characteristics of Champions, patients, and family members presented implementation barriers. Researchers need to engage all program participants (i.e., facility staff, patients, and families), in addition to corporate-level stakeholders, in early pragmatic trial design to minimize such obstacles. Further, despite the facilitating nature of PROVEN’s implementation processes, the study encountered tension between scientific rigor and real-world demands. Researchers need to optimize the real-world authenticity of pragmatic trial design while avoiding excessive implementation protocol deviations.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02612688. Registered 19 November 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4309-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Importance of Team Functioning as a Target of Quality Improvement Initiatives in Nursing Homes: A Qualitative Process Evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Quality improvement interventions demonstrate variable degrees of effectiveness. The aim of this work was to (1) qualitatively explore whether, how, and why an academic detailing intervention could improve evidence uptake and (2) identify perceived changes that occurred to inform outcomes appropriate for quantitative evaluation.

METHODS

A qualitative process evaluation was conducted involving semistructured interviews with nursing home staff. Interviews were analyzed inductively using the framework method.

RESULTS

A total of 29 interviews were conducted across 13 nursing homes. Standard processes to reduce falls are well-known but not fully implemented due to a range of mostly postintentional factors that influence staff behavior. Conflicting expectations around professional roles impeded evidence uptake; physicians report a disconnection between the information they would like to receive and the information communicated; and a high proportion of casual and part-time staff creates challenges for those looking to effect change. These factors are amenable to change in the context of an active, tailored intervention such as academic detailing. This seems especially true when the entire care team is actively engaged and when the intervention can be tailored to the varied determinants of behaviors across different team members.

DISCUSSION

Interventions aiming to increase evidence-based practice in the nursing home sector need to move beyond education to explicitly address team functioning and communication. Variability in team functioning requires a flexible intervention with the ability to tailor to individual- and home-level needs. Evaluations in this setting may benefit from measuring changes in team functioning as an early indicator of success.

Interprovincial Variation of Psychotropic Prescriptions Dispensed to Older Canadian Adults

Background

Utilization of psychotropic medications among the elderly has garnered attention due to concerns about safety and degree of efficacy, but may be used differently across regions.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study of all antipsychotic, benzodiazepine, and trazodone prescriptions dispensed to seniors ( ≥ 65 years) leveraging IQVIA (Durham, NC) GPM data in 2013. We report the units dispensed (per 100 seniors) by province.

Results

Nationally, on average, 26,210 units of antipsychotics, 24,257 of benzodiazepines, and 7,519 of trazodone were dispensed in 2013 for every 100 seniors; reports varied across Canada. The rate of antipsychotic and benzodiazepine prescribing was highest in New Brunswick (AP: 35,375 units per 100, BZD: 43,989 units per 100), and lowest in Newfoundland & Labrador for antipsychotics (20,974 per 100) and Saskatchewan for benzodiazepines (12,692 per 100). Trazodone unit dispensation rates were highest in Nova Scotia (9,164 per 100) and lowest in Newfoundland & Labrador (2,968 per 100).

Conclusions

There is considerable geographic variation in the prescribing patterns of antipsychotics, benzodiazepine, and trazodone. This study serves as the first step in understanding these differences, while future work is needed to develop region-specific strategies to optimize the prescribing of psychotropic medications to older Canadian adults.

Comparing the application of two theoretical frameworks to describe determinants of adverse medical device event reporting: secondary analysis of qualitative interview data

BACKGROUND

Post-market surveillance of medical devices is reliant on physician reporting of adverse medical device events (AMDEs). Few studies have examined factors that influence whether and how physicians report AMDEs, an essential step in the development of behaviour change interventions. This study was a secondary analysis comparing application of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) framework to identify potential behaviour change interventions that correspond to determinants of AMDE reporting.

METHODS

A previous study involving qualitative interviews with Canadian physicians that implant medical devices identified themes reflecting AMDE reporting determinants. In this secondary analysis, themes that emerged from the primary analysis were independently mapped to the TDF and TICD. Determinants and corresponding intervention options arising from both frameworks (and both mappers) were compared.

RESULTS

Both theoretical frameworks were useful for identifying interventions corresponding to behavioural determinants of AMDE reporting. Information or education strategies that provide evidence about AMDEs, and audit and feedback of AMDE data were identified as interventions to target the theme of physician beliefs; improving information systems, and reminder cues, prompts and awards were identified as interventions to address determinants arising from the organization or systems themes; and modifying financial/non-financial incentives and sharing data on outcomes associated with AMDEs were identified as interventions to target device market themes. Numerous operational challenges were encountered in the application of both frameworks including a lack of clarity about how directly relevant to themes the domains/determinants should be, how many domains/determinants to select, if and how to resolve discrepancies across multiple mappers, and how to choose interventions from among the large number associated with selected domains/determinants.

CONCLUSIONS

Given discrepancies in mapping themes to determinants/domains and the resulting interventions offered by the two frameworks, uncertainty remains about how to choose interventions that best match behavioural determinants in a given context. Further research is needed to provide more nuanced guidance on the application of TDF and TICD for a broader audience, which is likely to increase the utility and uptake of these frameworks in practice.

Professional, structural and organisational interventions in primary care for reducing medication errors

BACKGROUND

Medication-related adverse events in primary care represent an important cause of hospital admissions and mortality. Adverse events could result from people experiencing adverse drug reactions (not usually preventable) or could be due to medication errors (usually preventable).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of professional, organisational and structural interventions compared to standard care to reduce preventable medication errors by primary healthcare professionals that lead to hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and mortality in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trial registries on 4 October 2016, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We also searched several sources of grey literature.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials in which healthcare professionals provided community-based medical services. We also included interventions in outpatient clinics attached to a hospital where people are seen by healthcare professionals but are not admitted to hospital. We only included interventions that aimed to reduce medication errors leading to hospital admissions, emergency department visits, or mortality. We included all participants, irrespective of age, who were prescribed medication by a primary healthcare professional.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data. Each of the outcomes (hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and mortality), are reported in natural units (i.e. number of participants with an event per total number of participants at follow-up). We presented all outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE tool to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 30 studies (169,969 participants) in the review addressing various interventions to prevent medication errors; four studies addressed professional interventions (8266 participants) and 26 studies described organisational interventions (161,703 participants). We did not find any studies addressing structural interventions. Professional interventions included the use of health information technology to identify people at risk of medication problems, computer-generated care suggested and actioned by a physician, electronic notification systems about dose changes, drug interventions and follow-up, and educational interventions on drug use aimed at physicians to improve drug prescriptions. Organisational interventions included medication reviews by pharmacists, nurses or physicians, clinician-led clinics, and home visits by clinicians.There is a great deal of diversity in types of professionals involved and where the studies occurred. However, most (61%) of the interventions were conducted by pharmacists or a combination of pharmacists and medical doctors. The studies took place in many different countries; 65% took place in either the USA or the UK. They all ranged from three months to 4.7 years of follow-up, they all took place in primary care settings such as general practice, outpatients' clinics, patients' homes and aged-care facilities. The participants in the studies were adults taking medications and the interventions were undertaken by healthcare professionals including pharmacists, nurses or physicians. There was also evidence of potential bias in some studies, with only 18 studies reporting adequate concealment of allocation and only 12 studies reporting appropriate protection from contamination, both of which may have influenced the overall effect estimate and the overall pooled estimate. Professional interventionsProfessional interventions probably make little or no difference to the number of hospital admissions (risk ratio (RR) 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.96; 2 studies, 3889 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Professional interventions make little or no difference to the number of participants admitted to hospital (adjusted RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 1 study, 3661 participants; high-certainty evidence). Professional interventions may make little or no difference to the number of emergency department visits (adjusted RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.02; 2 studies, 1067 participants; low-certainty evidence). Professional interventions probably make little or no difference to mortality in the study population (adjusted RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.17; 1 study, 3538 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Organisational interventionsOverall, it is uncertain whether organisational interventions reduce the number of hospital admissions (adjusted RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.03; 11 studies, 6203 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Overall, organisational interventions may make little difference to the total number of people admitted to hospital in favour of the intervention group compared with the control group (adjusted RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99; 13 studies, 152,237 participants; low-certainty evidence. Overall, it is uncertain whether organisational interventions reduce the number of emergency department visits in favour of the intervention group compared with the control group (adjusted RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.15; 5 studies, 1819 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Overall, it is uncertain whether organisational interventions reduce mortality in favour of the intervention group (adjusted RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03; 12 studies, 154,962 participants; very low-certainty evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on moderate- and low-certainty evidence, interventions in primary care for reducing preventable medication errors probably make little or no difference to the number of people admitted to hospital or the number of hospitalisations, emergency department visits, or mortality. The variation in heterogeneity in the pooled estimates means that our results should be treated cautiously as the interventions may not have worked consistently across all studies due to differences in how the interventions were provided, background practice, and culture or delivery of the interventions. Larger studies addressing both professional and organisational interventions are needed before evidence-based recommendations can be made. We did not identify any structural interventions and only four studies used professional interventions, and so more work needs to be done with these types of interventions. There is a need for high-quality studies describing the interventions in more detail and testing patient-related outcomes.

Improving the appropriateness of antipsychotic prescribing in nursing homes: a mixed-methods process evaluation of an academic detailing intervention

BACKGROUND

In 2014, nursing home administration and government officials were facing increasing public and media scrutiny around the variation of antipsychotic medication (APM) prescribing across Ontario nursing homes. In response, policy makers partnered to test an academic detailing (AD) intervention to address appropriate prescribing of APM in nursing homes in a cluster-randomized trial. This mixed-methods study aimed to explore how and why the AD intervention may have resulted in changes in the nursing home context. The objectives were to understand how the intervention was implemented, explore contextual factors associated with implementation, and examine impact of the intervention on prescribing.

METHODS

Administrative data for the primary outcome of the full randomized trial will not be available for a minimum of 1 year. Therefore, this paper reports the findings of a planned, quantitative interim trial analysis assessed mean APM dose and prescribing prevalence at baseline and 3 and 6 months across 40 nursing homes (18 intervention, 22 control). Patient-level administrative data regarding prescribing were analyzed using generalized linear mixed effects regression. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nursing home staff from the intervention group to explore opinions and experiences of the AD intervention. Interviews were analyzed using the framework method, with constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) applied as pre-defined deductive codes. Open coding was applied when emerging themes did not align with CFIR constructs. Qualitative and quantitative findings were triangulated to examine points of divergence to understand how the intervention may work and to identify areas for future opportunities and areas for improvement.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in prescribing outcomes. A total of 22 interviews were conducted, including four academic detailers and 18 nursing home staff. Constructs within the CFIR domains of Outer Setting, Inner Setting, and Characteristics of Individuals presented barriers to antipsychotic prescribing. Intervention Source, Evidence Strength and Quality, and Adaptability explained participant engagement in the AD intervention; nursing homes that exhibited a Tension for Change and Leadership Engagement reported positive changes in processes and communication.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants described their experiences with the intervention against the backdrop of a range of factors that influence APM prescribing in nursing homes that exist at the system, facility, provider, and resident levels. In this context, the perceived credibility and flexibility of the intervention were critical features that explained engagement with and potential impact of the intervention. Development of a common language across the team to enable communication was reported as a proximal outcome that may eventually have an effect on APM prescribing rates. Process evaluations may be useful during early stages of evaluation to understand how the intervention is working and how it might work better. Qualitative results suggest the lack of early changes observed in prescribing may reflect the number of upstream factors that need to change for APM rates to decrease.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02604056.

Pragmatic trials may help to identify effective strategies to reduce nursing home antipsychotic medication use

Despite widespread agreement that nursing homes’ use of antipsychotic medications for residents without specific psychiatric diagnoses is a marker of poor quality of care, prevalence remains high. Additionally, variation suggests continued opportunity to improve care even in countries, like the United States, that have long-standing policies designed to decrease antipsychotic medication use. In a recent Israel Journal of Health Policy Research article, Frankenthal et al. presented results linking increased antipsychotic medication use prevalence in Tel Aviv nursing homes with facility characteristics, including some that “undermine quality of care,” and called for increased national focus on this area. While we agree with the authors that government focus can help to decrease antipsychotic medication use, experience in the United States shows that such efforts may not be sufficient: we present data showing significant variation among United States nursing homes’ antipsychotic medication use prevalence after more than ten years of national warnings and programs. This suggests that United States nursing home clinicians and caregivers continue to need effective non-pharmacologic interventions to substitute for antipsychotic medications. We suggest expanded use of cluster-randomized trials to test strategies to withdraw residents from antipsychotic medications and to implement alternate, non-pharmacological approaches for addressing the behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia.

A pragmatic randomized control trial and realist evaluation on the implementation and effectiveness of an internet application to support self-management among individuals seeking specialized mental health care: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Mental illness is a substantial and rising contributor to the global burden of disease. Access to and utilization of mental health care, however, is limited by structural barriers such as specialist availability, time, out-of-pocket costs, and attitudinal barriers including stigma. Innovative solutions like virtual care are rapidly entering the health care domain. The advancement and adoption of virtual care for mental health, however, often occurs in the absence of rigorous evaluation and adequate planning for sustainability and spread.

METHODS

A pragmatic randomized controlled trial with a nested comparative effectiveness arm, and concurrent realist process evaluation to examine acceptability, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of the Big White Wall (BWW) online platform for mental health self-management and peer support among individuals aged 16 and older who are accessing mental health services in Ontario, Canada. Participants will be randomized to 3 months of BWW or treatment as usual. At the end of the 3 months, participants in the intervention group will have the opportunity to opt-in to an intervention extension arm. Those who opt-in will be randomized to receive an additional 3 months of BWW or no additional intervention. The primary outcome is recovery at 3 months as measured by the Recovery Assessment Scale-revised (RAS-r). Secondary outcomes include symptoms of depression and anxiety measured with the Personal Health Questionnaire-9 item (PHQ-9) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire-7 item (GAD-7) respectively, quality of life measured with the EQ-5D-5L, and community integration assessed with the Community Integration Questionnaire. Cost-effectiveness evaluations will account for the cost of the intervention and direct health care costs. Qualitative interviews with participants and stakeholders will be conducted throughout.

DISCUSSION

Understanding the impact of virtual strategies, such as BWW, on patient outcomes and experience, and health system costs is essential for informing whether and how health system decision-makers can support these strategies system-wide. This requires clear evidence of effectiveness and an understanding of how the intervention works, for whom, and under what circumstances. This study will produce such effectiveness data for BWW, while simultaneously exploring the characteristics and experiences of users for whom this and similar online interventions could be helpful.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02896894 . Registered on 31 August 2016 (retrospectively registered).