Search

Objectives (1) Present deprescribing experiences of patients living with frailty, their informal carers and healthcare professionals; (2) interpret whether their experiences are reflective of person-centred/collaborative care; (3) complement our findings with existing evidence to present a model for person-centred deprescribing for patients living with frailty, based on a previous collaborative care model. Methods Qualitative design in English primary care (general practice). Semi-structured interviews were undertaken immediately post-deprescribing and 5/6 weeks later with nine patients aged 65+ living with frailty and three informal carers of patients living with frailty. Fourteen primary care professionals with experience in deprescribing were also interviewed. In total, 38 interviews were conducted. A two-staged approach to data analysis was undertaken. Key findings Three themes were developed: attitudes, beliefs and understanding of medicines management and responsibility; attributes of a collaborative, person-centred deprescribing consultation; organisational factors to support person-centred deprescribing. Based on these findings and complementary to existing evidence, we offer a model for person-centred deprescribing for patients living with frailty. Conclusions Previous models of deprescribing for patients living with frailty while, of value, do not consider the contextual factors that govern the implementation and success of models in practice. In this paper, we propose a novel person-centred model for deprescribing for people living with frailty, based on our own empirical findings, and the wider evidence base.

Objectives To explore consumers' beliefs and preferences for benefit information in medicine leaflets and examine their understanding and reaction to treatment benefits. Methods Forty-five participants were recruited to eight focus groups, run concurrently in Australia (23 participants in four groups) and the UK (22 participants in four groups). Participants were provided with amended leaflets based on the medicine clopidogrel, containing textual and numerical benefit information presented using numbers needed to treat (NNT). A topic guide which explored use of leaflets, preferences and opinions was used to direct discussion. Focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed verbatim and content analysed using adapted cross-case study analysis. Key findings The consensus was that the inclusion of benefit information was a positive factor. Many participants felt that textual benefit information offered an incentive to take a medicine, although some Australian participants had concerns that included benefit information could create anxiety. The presentation of numerical benefit information provoked strong feelings of disbelief and shock. Participants were surprised that so few people would benefit. Some participants struggled to understand and interpret the NNT and others found it difficult to comprehend the magnitude of the benefit information, instead operating on initial and often crude assumptions of what the data meant. In both countries the provision of numerical benefit information appeared to shake participants' faith in drug treatments. Participants were concerned about how this might affect the ‘less-informed’ patient. However, in the UK, participants stated that their adherence to treatment was also reinforced by their doctor's advice. Conclusions Participants wanted to receive information about the benefits of their medicines. However, they may misinterpret the numerical information provided.

Aim The identification of medication-monitoring errors requires a validated definition. This paper describes the development and validation of a definition which includes criteria for specific medicines to determine whether a medication-monitoring error has occurred in the care home setting. Setting Criteria were developed for older people (aged 65 years or older) living in care homes. Methods Criteria were developed by two clinical pharmacists using published guidelines. The criteria were divided into those relating to initiation of therapy and maintenance monitoring. The study steering group, made up of clinical pharmacists, a general practitioner (GP) and pharmacy academics, then reviewed the criteria and a consensus was achieved. The criteria were then reviewed by a sample of 21 GPs and 11 clinical pharmacists. The threshold for acceptance for each criterion was set at 70% by agreement of all participants. Key findings The definition of a medication-monitoring error was accepted as ‘when a prescribed medicine is not monitored in the way which would be considered acceptable in routine general practice. It includes the absence of tests being carried out at the frequency listed in the criteria for each medicine, with tolerance of +50%’. Seventy per cent agreement was reached on all criteria for the initiation of therapy, except warfarin (69%), and on all criteria for maintenance monitoring, except penicillamine (63%) and potassium (63%). Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first study to define a medication-monitoring error, and to determine and validate specific criteria to identify such errors in older people living in care homes.

Objectives To describe the rate and nature of pharmacist interventions following clinical medication review of elderly people living in care homes. Setting Care home residents aged 65+ years, prescribed at least one repeat medication, living in nursing, residential and mixed care homes for older people in Leeds, UK. Method Analysis of data from care home residents receiving clinical medication review in the intervention arm of a randomised controlled trial. Intervention outcomes for each medicine were evaluated for each resident. Key findings Three-hundred and thirty-one residents were randomised to receive a clinical medication review and 315 (95%) were reviewed by the study pharmacist; 256 (77%) residents had at least one recommendation made to the general practitioner. For the 2280 medicines prescribed, there were 672 medicine-related interventions: medicines for cardiovascular system (167 (25%)), nutrition and blood (121 (18%)), central nervous system (113 (17%)) and gastrointestinal conditions (86 (13%)) accounted for 487 (73%) of medicine-related interventions. There were 75 non-medicine-related interventions. The most common interventions were ‘technical’ (225 (30%)), ‘test to monitor medicine’ (161 (22%)), ‘stop drug’ (100 (13%)), ‘test to monitor conditions' (75 (10%)), ‘start drug’ (76 (10%)), ‘alter dose’ (40 (5%)) and ‘switch drug’ (37 (5%)). Recommendations to stop a medicine were most common for CNS drugs (32 (32%)). The most common medicine to be recommended to be started was calcium and vitamin D (45 (59%)). Following a recommendation to test to monitor a medicine, 23 (14%) medicines required a change. Conclusions This study has demonstrated that clinical medication review by a pharmacist can identify medicine problems in approximately 80% of care home residents, requiring intervention in 1 in 4 of their prescribed medications.

Objectives To describe the nature and rate of interventions made by a pharmacist conducting clinical medication reviews in general practice. Method Patients, randomly allocated to the intervention group, in a randomised controlled trial of 1,188 patients, were invited to a pharmacist-conducted medication review clinic at their general practice. Patients were seen over one year from June 1, 1999, to May 31, 2000. In the consultation an assessment was made of the patient, their clinical conditions and medication. Consultation outcomes for each patient and intervention outcomes for each medicine were evaluated. Setting Patients were recruited from four randomly selected general practices in Leeds, UK. Patients were eligible if aged 65 years or over and on at least one repeat medicine. Key findings Consultations were held with 590 patients in the intervention group (97 per cent). A recommendation for change was made in 44 per cent (258/591) of consultations. The most common outcome was a change in medication: 29 per cent of consultations (170/591). Doctor referral occurred for 28 patients (5 per cent) and nurse referral for 25 (4 per cent). Study patients were recorded as taking 2,927 repeat medications (mode of two per patient). Interventions were made for 21 per cent of medications (603). Clinically related interventions accounted for 71 per cent (430/603). Recommendations were spread evenly across therapy groups. At the study end, 90 per cent (433/484) of recommendations remained implemented. Conclusion A pharmacist who clinically reviewed elderly patients, their conditions and their medications, intervened in nearly half the patients. The pharmacist was able to implement most interventions without referring the patient to a doctor or nurse.

Pharmacists can influence patients' compliance with prescribed medicines not only by educating and informing patients but also by helping to simplify their medication regimens. This article discusses the measurement of compliance and looks at ways of improving it.

Focal points □ The government proposes an extension to pharmacists' role to medicine management, including services such as medication review □ We found that pharmacist-conducted clinical medication review identified medication related problems in nearly half of the patients seen and a quarter of medicines reviewed □ Pharmacist-conducted clinical medication review is effective in identifying clinical issues related to patients' repeat medication and recommendations are accepted by general practitioners □ There are education and training issues for pharmacy if this model is to be accepted more widely. The pharmacist will need to be part of the primary health care team with access to medical records