Search

Aims: The Care Home Independent Pharmacist Prescriber Study (CHIPPS) process evaluation hypothesized that contextual factors influenced the likelihood of deprescribing by pharmacist-independent prescribers. The aim of this paper is to test this hypothesis. Methods: From CHIPPS study data, medications deprescribed totalled 284 for 370 residents in UK care homes. Regression analysis was used to describe the relationship between the number of medicines stopped and contextual factors (number of residents cared for, pharmacist employment within associated medical practice, previous care home experience, hours active within trial, years’ experience as a pharmacist and as a prescriber). Results: Number of residents and pharmacist-independent prescriber employment within a medical practice were positive predictors of deprescribing. Conclusion: Previous experiences were not related to deprescribing likelihood. Increasing the number of residents increases the opportunity for deprescribing and therefore this relationship is intuitive. The location within a medical practice is an interesting finding that requires further exploration to understand its exact nature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background hospital deprescribing trials have demonstrated marginal increases in deprescribing activity that are not sustained beyond the trial period. The hospital deprescribing implementation framework (hDIF) links barriers and enablers of deprescribing in hospital with 44 potential intervention components. This study aimed to support geriatricians and pharmacists to select and characterise hDIF components according to affordability, practicability, effectiveness, acceptability, safety and equity (APEASE) to design a deprescribing intervention in the English hospital setting. Methods we convened a modified Nominal Group Technique with a panel of nine geriatricians and pharmacists representing five English hospitals. Panel members selected and characterised intervention components from the hDIF based on the APEASE criteria. We set a consensus threshold of 80% agreement per APEASE criterion in order for the intervention component to be included. Results the panel selected five intervention components supporting engagement with deprescribing: an organisational action plan to prioritise deprescribing, two training activities to address pharmacists' beliefs about negative deprescribing consequences, restructuring pharmacists' working patterns to facilitate their contribution to deprescribing decisions, and sharing experiences of successfully engaging patients/family in deprescribing conversations to support others to do the same. A sixth component was selected to sustain engagement with deprescribing through measuring and sharing deprescribing activity achieved between teams. Conclusions deprescribing interventions targeting geriatricians' and pharmacists' behaviour in the English hospital context should include the six characterised components. A component to sustain deprescribing activity is a notable omission from previously reported deprescribing interventions and may explain their failure to maintain efficacy beyond the short-term trial period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background over 50% of older people in hospital are prescribed a pre-admission medicine that is potentially inappropriate; however, deprescribing by geriatricians and pharmacists is limited. This study aimed to characterise geriatricians' and pharmacists' barriers and enablers to deprescribing in hospital. It also intended to develop a framework of intervention components to facilitate implementation of hospital deprescribing. Methods fifty-four geriatricians and pharmacists representing four UK hospitals attended eight focus groups. We designed a topic guide to invite discussions about barriers and enablers to deprescribing. After thematic analysis, themes were mapped to the theoretical domains framework (TDF), enabling prioritisation of domains for behaviour change. We then identified evidence-based intervention components for changing behaviour within prioritised TDF domains. Results geriatricians and pharmacists described several deprescribing enablers in the hospital setting including alignment with their role and generalist knowledge, and routine patient monitoring. Five prioritised TDF domains represent the key barriers and enabler: patient and caregiver attachment to medication (social influence); perceptions that deprescribing is riskier than continuing to prescribe (beliefs about consequences); pharmacists' working patterns limiting capacity to support deprescribing (environmental context and resources); deprescribing being a low hospital priority (goals) and incentives to deprescribe (reinforcement). Prioritised TDF domains aligned with 44 evidence-based intervention components to address the barriers and enabler to hospital deprescribing. Conclusion the behavioural determinants and their associated intervention components provide a hospital deprescribing implementation framework (hDIF). Intervention components should be selected from the hDIF to provide a theory and evidence-based intervention tailored to hospital contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

SPECIFYING WHOSE BEHAVIOUR NEEDS TO CHANGE Both practitioner and patient behaviour are key to successful proactive deprescribing, and interventions targeting both have been developed. Whilst the practitioner is the recipient of the behaviour change intervention, the patient is the recipient of the resulting practitioner behaviour. Patients want practitioners to initiate the process, yet over a decade of research endeavour has been divided between practitioner and patient behaviour change. [Extracted from the article]

Introduction: Oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) is difficulty manipulating a food bolus from the mouth to the throat. Up to 70% of older adults develop OD; however, it is unmanaged in primary care, leading to avoidable hospitalisation., Objective: This behavioural science realist review aimed to develop programme theories to describe how interventions facilitate primary care healthcare professionals (HCPs) to proactively manage OD., Methods: We developed initial programme theories (IPTs) inductively using the expertise of stakeholders and deductively using the theoretical domains framework (TDF). Databases were searched to identify evidence regarding contexts, behavioural mechanisms and outcomes related to proactive management of OD and comparative behaviours which offer transferrable learning. IPTs were tested with the evidence to confirm, refine or refute, to produce final programme theories., Results: 36 sources of evidence were included. Five final programme theories were generated explaining how primary care HCPs can be facilitated to proactively manage OD: (1) OD education and training, (2) checklists with OD signs and symptoms, (3) incorporating OD identification into existing workflow, (4) making HCPs aware that older adults and carers expect them to manage OD and (5) raising awareness of the adverse outcomes of OD., Conclusion: The five programme theories provide the behavioural mechanisms by which an intervention may facilitate primary care HCPs to proactively manage OD. Through the programme theories' linkage to the TDF, behaviour change techniques (BCTs) mapped to the relevant TDF domain can be selected for an intervention. Operationalisation of selected BCTs into a coherent intervention package should be undertaken using codesign methodology., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42022320327., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)