Medication management strategy for older people with polypharmacy in general practice: a qualitative study on prescribing behaviour in primary care

'Troubling' medication reviews in the context of polypharmacy and ageing: A linguistic ethnography

Healthy ageing is a global priority. Polypharmacy (the use of 5+ medicines) amongst older people is increasing, with over one-third of adults in England, aged 80-89, prescribed at least eight medications. Although sometimes necessary, polypharmacy can be harmful; the risk of harm increases with age and number of medicines prescribed. Medication reviews are recommended as one way of reducing the potential harms of polypharmacy although evidence of clinically significant benefit of medication reviews as currently delivered is limited. What happens in medication reviews in practice is poorly understood. We used a linguistic ethnography approach to explore how medication reviews proceed and what is accomplished during these consultations. We studied 18 video-recorded medication review consultations from three general practices in England. The consultations involved patients aged 65 or older, prescribed 10+ medications ('higher risk' polypharmacy), and primary care clinicians (general practitioner or clinical pharmacist). Video-recordings were gathered as part of a wider ethnographic study investigating practices of polypharmacy in primary care between 2017 and 2021. We conducted microanalysis of consultation data, drawing on our ethnographic knowledge of the organisational, institutional and domestic contexts of polypharmacy to inform our interpretation of these interactions. Consultations were time-consuming and involved lengthy stretches of interactional trouble: non-understandings; misunderstandings; misalignments. These stretches revealed profound uncertainties as to the effectiveness of medicines in the context of multimorbidity and polypharmacy. These uncertainties seeped further into 'troubles talk' concerning patients' existential concerns relating to enduring illness, ageing and mortality. Although these existential concerns were partially articulated, clinicians and patients left such troubles talk unelaborated, unresolved and unfinished. Participants succeeded in smoothing over interactional difficulties and maintaining respectful relationships but often fell short of addressing problematic polypharmacy more directly.

Defining, identifying and addressing problematic polypharmacy within multimorbidity in primary care: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Polypharmacy and multimorbidity pose escalating challenges. Despite numerous attempts, interventions have yet to show consistent improvements in health outcomes. A key factor may be varied approaches to targeting patients for intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To explore how patients are targeted for intervention by examining the literature with respect to: understanding how polypharmacy is defined; identifying problematic polypharmacy in practice; and addressing problematic polypharmacy through interventions.

DESIGN

We performed a scoping review as defined by the Joanna Briggs Institute.

SETTING

The focus was on primary care settings.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Cochrane along with ClinicalTrials.gov, Science.gov and WorldCat.org were searched from January 2004 to February 2024.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included all articles that had a focus on problematic polypharmacy in multimorbidity and primary care, incorporating multiple types of evidence, such as reviews, quantitative trials, qualitative studies and policy documents. Articles focussing on a single index disease or not written in English were excluded.

EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a narrative synthesis, comparing themes and findings across the collective evidence to draw contextualised insights and conclusions.

RESULTS

In total, 157 articles were included. Case-finding methods often rely on basic medication counts (often five or more) without considering medical history or whether individual medications are clinically appropriate. Other approaches highlight specific drug indicators and interactions as potentially inappropriate prescribing, failing to capture a proportion of patients not fitting criteria. Different potentially inappropriate prescribing criteria also show significant inconsistencies in determining the appropriateness of medications, often neglecting to consider multimorbidity and underprescribing. This may hinder the identification of the precise population requiring intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Improved strategies are needed to target patients with polypharmacy, which should consider patient perspectives, individual factors and clinical appropriateness. The development of a cross-cutting measure of problematic polypharmacy that consistently incorporates adjustment for multimorbidity may be a valuable next step to address frequent confounding.

Decreasing polypharmacy in older adults with cancer: A pilot cluster-randomized trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

Polypharmacy is prevalent in older adults with cancer and associated with multiple adverse outcomes. A single-site, cluster-randomized clinical trial will enroll older adults with cancer and polypharmacy starting chemotherapy and will assess the effectiveness and feasibility of deprescribing interventions by comparing two arms: a pharmacist-led deprescribing intervention and a patient educational brochure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study will be conducted in two phases. In phase I, focus groups and semi-structured individual interviews will guide adaptation of deprescribing interventions for the oncology clinic (phase Ia), and eight patients will undergo the pharmacist-led deprescribing intervention with iterative adaptations (phase Ib). In phase II, a pilot cluster-randomized trial (n = 72) will compare a pharmacist-led deprescribing intervention with a patient education brochure, with treating oncologists as the cluster. Both efficacy (relative dose intensity of planned chemotherapy, potentially inappropriate medications successfully deprescribed, chemotherapy toxicity, functional status, hospitalizations, falls, and symptoms) and implementation outcomes (barriers and facilitators) will be assessed.

DISCUSSION

This study is anticipated to provide pilot data to inform a nationwide randomized clinical trial of deprescribing in older adults starting cancer treatment. The cluster randomization is intended to provide an initial estimate for the intervention effect as well as oncologists' intra-class correlation coefficient. Deprescribing interventions may improve outcomes in older adults starting cancer treatment, but these interventions are understudied in this population, and it is unknown how best to implement them into oncology practice. The results of this trial will inform the design of large, randomized phase III trials of deprescribing.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov Identifier:NCT05046171. Date of registration: September 16, 2021.

Experience of living with multimorbidity and health workers perspectives on the organization of health services for people living with multiple chronic conditions in Bahir Dar, northwest Ethiopia: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Multimorbidity-the simultaneous occurrence of two or more chronic Non-Communicable Diseases) in an individual is increasing globally and challenging health systems. Although individuals living with multimorbidity face a range of adverse consequences and difficulty in getting optimal health care, the evidence base in understanding the burden and capacity of the health system in managing multimorbidity is sparse in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aimed at understanding the lived experiences of patients with multimorbidity and perspective of service providers on multimorbidity and its care provision, and perceived capacity of the health system for managing multimorbidity in Bahir Dar City, northwest Ethiopia.

METHODS

A facility-based phenomenological study design was conducted in three public and three private health facilities rendering chronic outpatient Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) care in Bahir Dar City, Ethiopia. Nineteen patient participants with two or more chronic NCDs and nine health care providers (six medical doctors and three nurses) were purposively selected and interviewed using semi-structured in-depth interview guides. Data were collected by trained researchers. Interviews were audio-recorded using digital recorders, stored and transferred to computers, transcribed verbatim by the data collectors, translated into English and then imported into NVivo V.12 software for data analysis. We employed a six-step inductive thematic framework analysis approach to construct meaning and interpret experiences and perceptions of individual patients and service providers. Codes were identified and categorized into sub-themes, organizing themes and main themes iteratively to identify similarities and differences across themes, and to interpret them accordingly.

RESULTS

A total of 19 patient participants (5 Females) and nine health workers (2 females) responded to the interviews. Participants' age ranged from 39 to 79 years for patients and 30 to 50 years for health professionals. About half (n = 9) of the participants had three or more chronic conditions. The key themes produced were feeling dependency, social rejection, psychological distress, poor medication adherence and poor quality of care. Living with multimorbidity poses a huge burden on the physical, psychological, social and sexual health of patients. In addition, patients with multimorbidity are facing financial hardship to access optimal multimorbidity care. On the other hand, the health system is not appropriately prepared to provide integrated, person-centered and coordinated care for people living with multiple chronic conditions.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Living with multimorbidity poses huge impact on physical, psychological, social and sexual health of patients. Patients seeking multimorbidity care are facing challenges to access care attributable to either financial constraints or the lack of integrated, respectful and compassionate health care. It is recommended that the health system must understand and respond to the complex care needs of the patients with multimorbidity.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Prevalence of polypharmacy in community-dwelling older adults from seven centres in five European countries: a cross-sectional study of DO-HEALTH

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prevalence of polypharmacy and characteristics associated with polypharmacy in older adults from seven European cities.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study of baseline data from DO-HEALTH.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

DO-HEALTH enrolled 2157 community-dwelling adults age 70 and older from seven centres in Europe. Participants were excluded if they had major health problems or Mini-Mental State Examination Score <24 at baseline.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Extensive information on prescription and over-the-counter medications were recorded. Polypharmacy was defined as the concomitant use of five or more medications, excluding vitamins or dietary supplements. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression was used to test the association of sociodemographic factors (age, sex, years of education, living situation and city) and health-related indicators (number of comorbidities, cognitive function, frailty status, body mass index (BMI), prior fall, self-rated health and smoking status) with polypharmacy.

RESULTS

27.2% of participants reported polypharmacy ranging from 16.4% in Geneva to 60.8% in Coimbra. In the multivariable logistic regression analyses, older age (OR 1.07; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.10), greater BMI (OR 1.09; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.12) and increased number of comorbidities (OR 2.13; 95% CI 1.92 to 2.36) were associated with polypharmacy. Women were less likely to report polypharmacy than men (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.84). In comparison to participants from Zurich, participants from Coimbra were more likely to report polypharmacy (OR 2.36; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.55), while participants from Geneva or Toulouse were less likely to report polypharmacy ((OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.59 and OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.96), respectively). Living situation, smoking status, years of education, prior fall, cognitive function, self-rated health and frailty status were not significantly associated with polypharmacy.

CONCLUSION

Polypharmacy is common among relatively healthy older adults, with moderate variability across seven European cities. Independent of several confounders, being a woman, older age, greater BMI and greater number of comorbidities were associated with increased odds for polypharmacy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01745263.

Polypharmacy Management in the Older Adults: A Scoping Review of Available Interventions

Background: Polypharmacy paves the way for non-adherence, adverse drug reactions, negative health outcomes, increased use of healthcare services and rising costs. Since it is most prevalent in the older adults, there is an urgent need for introducing effective strategies to prevent and manage the problem in this age group. Purpose: To perform a scoping review critically analysing the available literature referring to the issue of polypharmacy management in the older adults and provide narrative summary. Data sources: Articles published between January 2010-March 2018 indexed in CINHAL, EMBASE and PubMed addressing polypharmacy management in the older adults. Results: Our search identified 49 papers. Among the identified interventions, the most often recommended ones involved various types of drug reviews based on either implicit or explicit criteria. Implicit criteria-based approaches are used infrequently due to their subjectivity, and limited implementability. Most of the publications advocate the use of explicit criteria, such as e.g. STOPP/START, Beers and Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI). However, their applicability is also limited due to long lists of potentially inappropriate medications covered. To overcome this obstacle, such instruments are often embedded in computerised clinical decision support systems. Conclusion: Multiple approaches towards polypharmacy management are advised in current literature. They vary in terms of their complexity, applicability and usability, and no "gold standard" is identifiable. For practical reasons, explicit criteria-based drug reviews seem to be advisable. Having in mind that in general, polypharmacy management in the older adults is underused, both individual stakeholders, as well as policymakers should strengthen their efforts to promote these activities more strongly.

Multimorbidity and clinical reasoning through the eyes of GPs: a qualitative study

Objectives

Despite the high prevalence of patients suffering from multimorbidity, the clinical reasoning processes involved during the longitudinal management are still sparse.

This study aimed to investigate what are the different characteristics of the clinical reasoning process clinicians use with patients suffering from multimorbidity, and to what extent this clinical reasoning differs from diagnostic reasoning.

Design

Given the exploratory nature of this study and the difficulty general practitioners (GPs) have in expressing their reasoning, a qualitative methodology was therefore, chosen. The Clinical reasoning Model described by Charlin et al was used as a framework to describe the multifaceted processes of the clinical reasoning.

Setting

Semistructured interviews were conducted with nine GPs working in an ambulatory setting in June to September 2018, in Geneva, Switzerland.

Participants

Participants were GPs who came from public hospital or private practice. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and a thematic analysis was conducted.

Results

The results highlighted how some cognitive processes seem to be more specific to the management reasoning.

Thus, the main goal is not to reach a diagnosis, but rather to consider several possibilities in order to maintain a balance between the evidence-based care options, patient’s priorities and maintaining quality of life. The initial representation of the current problem seems to be more related to the importance of establishing links between the different pre-existing diseases, identifying opportunities for actions and trying to integrate the new elements from the patient’s context, rather than identifying the signs and symptoms that can lead to generating new clinical hypotheses. The multiplicity of options to resolve problems is often perceived as difficult by GPs. Furthermore, longitudinal management does not allow them to achieve a final resolution of problems and that requires continuous review and an ongoing prioritisation process.

Conclusion

This study contributes to a better understanding of the clinical reasoning processes of GPs in the longitudinal management of patients suffering from multimorbidity. Through a practical and accessible model, this qualitative study offers new perspectives for identifying the components of management reasoning. These results open the path to new research projects.

Barriers to appropriate prescribing in older adults with multimorbidity: A modified Delphi study

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to understand the barriers experienced by physicians when prescribing for older adults with multimorbidity in specialist outpatient clinics in Singapore.

METHODS

A modified Delphi study was conducted via email with 20 panel experts in the field of geriatric medicine. Barriers identified from an earlier scoping review were presented as statements to the panel.

RESULTS

Eleven barrier statements reached consensus with high importance according to the Delphi panel. Of these statements, seven (64%) belong to the domain of Environmental context and resources in the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), while the remaining barriers belong to the domains of skills, knowledge, intentions, and professional/social role and identity. The barriers are further linked to intervention functions in the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW).

CONCLUSION

Linking the TDF domains to intervention functions revealed strategic directions for the development of an intervention to address the barriers and optimize prescribing.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Management of drug-disease interactions: a best practice from the Netherlands

Background Drug-disease interactions are situations where pharmacotherapy may have a negative effect on patients' comorbidities. In these cases, it can be necessary to avoid that drug, adjust its dose or monitor therapy. In the Netherlands, pharmacists have developed a best practice how to systematically evaluate drug-disease interactions based on pharmacological considerations and implement recommendations for specific drug-disease interactions. Aim To describe the development of recommendations for drug-disease interactions and the implementation in prescribing and dispensing practice in the Netherlands. Setting Pharmacies and physicians' practices in primary care and hospitals in the Netherlands. Development A multi-disciplinary expert panel assessed if diseases had clinically relevant drug-disease interactions and evaluated drug-disease interactions by literature review and expert opinion, and subsequently developed practice recommendations. Implementation The recommendations were implemented in all clinical decision support systems in primary care and hospitals throughout the Netherlands. Evaluation Recommendations were developed for 57 diseases and conditions. Cardiovascular diseases have the most drug-disease interactions (n = 12, e.g. long QT-syndrome, heart failure), followed by conditions related to the reproductive system (n = 7, e.g. pregnancy). The number of drugs with recommendations differed between 6 for endometriosis and tympanostomy tubes, and up to 1171 in the case of porphyria or even all drugs for pregnancy. Conclusion Practice recommendations for drug-disease interactions were developed, and implemented in prescribing and dispensing practice. These recommendations support both pharmacists and physicians by signalling clinically relevant drug-disease interactions at point of care, thereby improving medication safety. This practice may be adopted and contribute to safer medication use in other countries as well.

A mixed methods study on medicines information needs and challenges in New Zealand general practice

BACKGROUND

Medicines are central to healthcare in aging populations with chronic multi-morbidity. Their safe and effective use relies on a large and constantly increasing knowledge base. Despite the current era of unprecedented access to information, there is evidence that unmet information needs remain an issue in clinical practice. Unmet medicines information needs may contribute to sub-optimal use of medicines and patient harm. Little is known about medicines information needs in the primary care setting. The aim of this study was to investigate the nature of medicines information needs in routine general practice and understand the challenges and influences on the information-seeking behaviour of general practitioners.

METHODS

A mixed methods study involving 18 New Zealand general practitioner participants was undertaken. Quantitative data were collected to characterize the medicines information needs arising during 642 consultations conducted by the participants. Qualitative data regarding participant views on their medicines information needs, resources used, challenges to meeting the needs and potential solutions were collected by semi-structured interview. Integration occurred by comparison of results from each method.

RESULTS

Of 642 consultations, 11% (n = 73/642) featured at least one medicines information need. The needs spanned 14 different categories with dosing the most frequent (26%) followed by side effects (15%) and drug interactions (14%). Two main themes describing the nature of general practitioners' medicines information needs were identified from the qualitative data: a 'common core' related to medicine dose, side effects and interactions and a 'perplexing periphery'. Challenges in the perplexing periphery were the variation in information needs, complexity, 'known unknowns' and 'unknown unknowns'. Key factors affecting general practitioners' strategies for meeting medicines information needs were trust in a resource, presence of the patient, how the information was presented, scarcity of time, awareness of the existence of a resource, and its accessibility.

CONCLUSIONS

General practitioners face challenges in meeting wide-ranging medicines information needs in patients with increasingly complex care needs. Recognising the challenges and factors that influence resource use in practice can inform optimisation of medicines information support resources. Resources for general practitioners must take into account the complexity and time constraints of real-world practice. An individually responsive approach involving greater collaboration with pharmacists and specialist medicines information support services may provide a potential solution.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

From sensitization to adoption? A qualitative study of the implementation of a digitally supported intervention for clinical decision making in polypharmacy

OBJECTIVE

Formative evaluation of the implementation process for a digitally supported intervention in polypharmacy in Germany. Qualitative research was conducted within a cluster randomized controlled trial (C-RCT). It focused on understanding how the intervention influences behavior-related outcomes in the prescription and medication review process.

METHODS/SETTING

Twenty-seven general practitioners (GPs) were included in the study in the two groups of the C-RCT, the intervention, and the wait list control group. Behavior-related outcomes were investigated using three-step data analysis (content analytic approach, documentary method, and design of a model of implementation pathways).

RESULTS

Content analysis showed that physicians were more intensely aware of polypharmacy-related risks, described positive learning effects of the digital technology on their prescribing behavior, and perceived a change in communication with patients and pharmacists. Conversely, they felt uncertain about their own responsibility when prescribing. Three main dimensions were discovered which influenced adoption behavior: (1) the physicians' interpretation of the relevance of pharmaceutical knowledge provided by the intervention in changing decision-making situations in polypharmacy; (2) their medical code of ethics for clinical decision making in the context of progressing digitalization; and (3) their concepts of evidence-based medicine on the basis of professional experiences with polypharmacy in primary care settings. In our sample, both simple and complex pathways from sensitization to adoption were observed. The resulting model on adoption behavior includes a paradigmatic description of different pathways and a visualization of different observed levels and applied methodological approaches. We assumed that the GP habitus can weaken or strengthen interventional effects towards intervention uptake. This formative evaluation strategy is beneficial for the identification of behavior-related implementation barriers and facilitators.

CONCLUSION

Our analyses of the adoption behavior of a digitally supported intervention in polypharmacy revealed both simple and complex pathways from awareness to adoption, which may impact the implementation of the intervention and therefore, its effectiveness. Future consideration of adoption behavior in the planning and evaluation of digitally supported interventions may enhance uptake and support the interpretation of effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03430336 , 12 February 2018.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

"We're really not ready for this": A qualitative exploration of community pharmacy personnel's perspectives on the pharmaceutical care of older people with sensory impairment

Background

In most developed countries there is an increasing ageing population living in the community with long-term conditions and sensory impairment (sight; hearing; dual impairment). Community pharmacy personnel are key providers of pharmaceutical care to this patient population.

Objective

This study explored community pharmacy personnel's experiences with providing pharmaceutical care for older people with sensory impairment.

Methods

Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with community pharmacy personnel across Scotland between 2015 and 2016.

Results

Thirty interviews were completed with community pharmacists (n = 17) and other pharmacy personnel (n = 13). Two overarching themes emerged: safety and communication. Interviewees reported patients' reluctance to disclose their impairment “patients are very good at hiding it” and had considerable safety concerns “it's a fear that they're going to take too much … accidentally taking the same medicine twice”. Difficulties in communication were cited “no matter what you do or how you label things, leaflets and telling people, things can go wrong”. Additionally, interviewees identified training needs to increase their disability awareness and to identify strategies to provide safe and reliable pharmaceutical care to this vulnerable group “We don't specifically have anything in place to deal with anyone with impairments of that kind”.

Conclusions

This is the first in-depth exploration of providing pharmaceutical care to older people with sensory impairment from the perspective of community pharmacy personnel. Strategies are needed to encourage older people to disclose their sensory impairment. Education and training are also needed to optimise the provision of pharmaceutical care to this vulnerable population.

How general practitioners would deprescribe in frail oldest-old with polypharmacy - the LESS study

BACKGROUND

Many oldest-old (> 80-years) with multimorbidity and polypharmacy are at high risk of inappropriate use of medication, but we know little about whether and how GPs would deprescribe, especially in the frail oldest-old. We aimed to determine whether, how, and why Swiss GPs deprescribe for this population.

METHODS

GPs took an online survey that presented case-vignettes of a frail oldest-old patient with and without history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and asked if they would deprescribe any of seven medications. We calculated percentages of GPs willing to deprescribe at least one medication in the case with CVD and compared these with the case without CVD using paired t-tests. We also included open-ended questions to capture reasons for deprescribing and asked which factors could influence their decision to deprescribe by asking for their agreement on a 5-point-Likert-scale.

RESULTS

Of the 282 GPs we invited, 157 (56%) responded: 73% were men; mean age was 56. In the case-vignette without CVD, 98% of GPs deprescribed at least one medication (usually cardiovascular preventive medications) stating it had no indication nor benefit. They would lower the dose or prescribe pain medication as needed to reduce side effects. Their response was much the same when the patient had a history of CVD. GPs reported they were influenced by 'risk' and 'benefit' of medications, 'quality of life', and 'life expectancy', and prioritized the patient's wishes and priorities when deprescribing.

CONCLUSION

Swiss GPs were willing to deprescribe cardiovascular preventive medication when it lacked indication but tended to retain pain medication. Developing tools for GPs to assist them in balancing the risks and benefits of medication in the context of patient values may improve deprescribing activities in practice.

General practitioners' and nurses' views on medication reviews and potentially inappropriate medicines in elderly patients - a qualitative study of reports by educating pharmacists

OBJECTIVE

The aim with this study was to understand more about how general practitioners (GPs) and nurses in primary care experience their work with medication reviews in elderly patients.

DESIGN

This qualitative study was nested within a cluster randomised trial and analysed narrative and unstructured diaries written by two pharmacists who performed academic detailing, i.e. educational outreach visits in primary care. The educational sessions dealt with potentially inappropriate medicines, and stimulated interprofessional dialogue in relation to medication reviews. The purpose of the diaries was to document and structure the pedagogical process of academic detailing and contained quotes from 194 GP and 113 nurse participants in the sessions, and the pharmacists' reflections. The data was explored using thematic analysis.

SETTING

Thirty-three primary care practices in Stockholm, Sweden.

SUBJECTS

GPs and nurses working in primary care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Thematic descriptions of academic detailing by pharmacists.

RESULTS

Five themes were identified: 1) Complexity in 3 'P': patients, pharmacotherapy, and primary care; 2) What, when, who? Clash between GPs' and nurses' experiences and guidelines; 3) Real-world problems and less-than-ideal solutions; 4) Eureka? Experiences with different steps during a medication review; and 5) Threats to GP autonomy.

CONCLUSION

GPs and nurses should participate in the construction and release of guidelines in order to increase their usability in clinical practice. Future research should analyse if alternative strategies such as condensed medical reviews and feedback on prescribing are easier to implement in primary care. Key points Complex medication reviews have been introduced on a large scale in Swedish primary care, but knowledge on GPs' and nurses' views on such reviews is lacking. In the context of primary care alternative strategies such as condensed medication reviews and feedback on prescribing may be more applicable than medication reviews according to guidelines. GPs and nurses should make contributions to the development of guidelines on medication reviews in order to increase their usability in clinical practice.

Deprescribing medications for older adults in the primary care context: A mixed studies review

AIMS

This review investigates the factors that influence deprescribing of medications in primary care from the perspective of general practitioners (GPs) and community-living older adults.

METHODS

A mixed studies review structure was adopted searching Scopus, CINAHL, PsychINFO, ProQuest, and PubMed from January 2000 to December 2017. A manual search of reference lists was also conducted. Studies were included if they were original research available in English and explored general deprescribing rather than deprescribing of a specific class of medications. The Mixed Methods Assessment Tool was used to assess the quality of studies, and content analysis generated common categories across studies.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight articles were included, and 7 key categories were identified. The review found that the factors that influence deprescribing are similar across and within health systems and mostly act as barriers. These factors remained unchanged across the review period. The structural organisation of health systems remains poorly suited to facilitate deprescribing. Individual knowledge gaps of both GPs and older adults influence practices and attitudes towards deprescribing, and significant communication gaps occur between GPs and specialists and between GPs and older adults. As a result, deprescribing decision making is characterised by uncertainty, and deprescribing is often considered only when medication problems have already arisen. Trust plays a complex role, acting as both a barrier and facilitator of deprescribing.

CONCLUSIONS

Deprescribing is influenced by many factors. Despite recent interest, little change has occurred. Multilevel strategies aimed at reforming aspects of the health system and managing uncertainty at the practice and individual level, notably reducing knowledge limitations and closing communications gaps, may achieve change.

Learnings and challenges to deploy an interprofessional and independent medical education programme to a new audience

The importance of interprofessional education (IPE) in continuing medical education and professional development has long been recognised by health organisations and academic societies, benefiting not only patient outcomes and interprofessional relationships but also overall health systems and workforce shortage. We report on the outcomes of an Australian IPE activity on medication-overuse headache (MOH) with general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists as learners. The design of the activity, which followed the predisposing–enabling–reinforcing instructional framework by Green and Kreuter, aimed to: (1) improve knowledge and foster a willingness in GPs and pharmacists to work collaboratively to enhance the prevention, diagnosis and management of MOH; and (2) address their educational gap by demonstrating the utility of a blended learning IPE strategy on MOH. Integrated into the activity was an assessment of its effectiveness and impact to instil change in the participants’ knowledge of MOH, attitude and willingness to treat, and clinical practice behaviours of GPs and pharmacists to work together. The learners gained knowledge and confidence in diagnosing and managing MOH and in their ability to educate patients. The IPE approach suited the activity and was valued by the participating GPs and pharmacists, who seldom experience such learning formats. However, for educational providers in Australia, developing and deploying an independent medical education (IME) programme can be challenging. Providers of IMEs need to be aware of the potential pitfalls when competing with pharmaceutical-company-sponsored and delivered programmes.

Implementation fidelity of a clinical medication review intervention: process evaluation

Background Implementation of clinical medication reviews in daily practice is scarcely evaluated. The Opti-Med intervention applied a structured approach with external expert teams (pharmacist and physician) to conduct medication reviews. The intervention was effective with respect to resolving drug related problems, but did not improve quality of life. Objective The objective of this process evaluation was to gain more insight into the implementation fidelity of the intervention. Setting Process evaluation alongside a cluster randomized trial in 22 general practices and 518 patients of 65 years and over. Method A mixed methods design using quantitative and qualitative data and the conceptual framework for implementation fidelity was used. Implementation fidelity is defined as the degree to which the various components of an intervention are delivered as intended. Main outcome measure Implementation fidelity for key components of the Opti-Med intervention. Results Patient selection and preparation of the medication analyses were carried out as planned, although mostly by the Opti-Med researchers instead of practice nurses. Medication analyses by expert teams were performed as planned, as well as patient consultations and patient involvement. 48% of the proposed changes in the medication regime were implemented. Cooperation between expert teams members and the use of an online decision-support medication evaluation facilitated implementation. Barriers for implementation were time constraints in daily practice, software difficulties with patient selection and incompleteness of medical files. The degree of embedding of the intervention was found to influence implementation fidelity. The total time investment for healthcare professionals was 94 min per patient. Conclusion Overall, the implementation fidelity was moderate to high for all key components of the Opti-Med intervention. The absence of its effectiveness with respect to quality of life could not be explained by insufficient implementation fidelity.

Geriatric assessment-driven polypharmacy discussions between oncologists, older patients, and their caregivers

OBJECTIVES

Polypharmacy (PP) and potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) are common in older adults with cancer, increasing the risk of adverse outcomes. Approaches to identifying and addressing PP/PIM are needed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients ≥70 years with advanced cancer were enrolled in this cluster-randomized study. All underwent geriatric assessment (GA), and oncologists randomized to the intervention arm received GA-driven recommendations; no information was provided to oncologists at usual care sites. For patients with PP (≥5 medications or ≥1 high-risk medication), clinic visits with treating oncologists were audiorecorded and transcribed, and discussions regarding PP/PIM identified. Quality of provider response was coded as dismissed, mentioned, acknowledged, or addressed.

RESULTS

Forty patient transcripts were analyzed (20 per arm). More discussions occurred in the intervention group (n = 81) versus the usual care group (n = 51). More concerns per patient were brought up in the intervention group (4.1 vs. 2.6, p = 0.07). Physician-initiated discussions were higher in the intervention group (73% vs. 49%, p = 0.006). More PP concerns were "addressed" in the intervention group (59% vs. 45%, p = 0.1). Oncology supportive care medication concerns were more often addressed in the usual care group (58% vs. 18%, p = 0.008), but medication management concerns were addressed more commonly in the intervention group (38% vs. 79%, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

In this secondary analysis, a GA-driven intervention increased PP discussions, particularly about total number of medications and medication management. PP/PIM concerns were more commonly addressed in the intervention group, except for the subset of conversations about supportive care medications.

Prevention in the elderly: A necessary priority for general practitioners

Prevention is viewed as a key issue for general practice, yet there is a lack of evidence regarding general practitioners' interventions in both middle-aged and elderly people. This is despite the fact that recommendations and key indicators for monitoring the use of clinical preventive strategies aimed at these groups are available and that both the World Health Organization and European Commission endorse the importance of interventions for healthy and active ageing. This paper draws on two keynote presentations given at the 2015 autumn meeting of the European General Practice Research Network (EGPRN) in Edirne, Turkey (17-20 October 2015). According to the EU2020 strategy, general practitioners should design and implement prevention services and programmes to promote healthy and active ageing. Their primary focus should be on interventions on multimorbid patients, either by improving prescribing and adherence to medical plans or by targeting to fall and frailty prevention and vaccination uptake.