Search

Introduction: Over the past decade, polypharmacy has increased dramatically. Measurable harms include falls, fractures, cognitive impairment, and death. The associated costs are massive and contribute substantially to low-value health care. Deprescribing is a promising solution, but there are barriers. Establishing a network to address polypharmacy can help overcome barriers by connecting individuals with an interest and expertise in deprescribing and can act as an important source of motivation and resources., Areas Covered: Over the past decade, several deprescribing networks were launched to help tackle polypharmacy, with evidence of individual and collective impact. A network approach has several advantages; it can spark interest, ideas and enthusiasm through information sharing, meetings and conversations with the public, providers, and other key stakeholders. In this special report, the details of how four deprescribing networks were established across the globe are detailed., Expert Opinion: Networks create links between people who lead existing and/or budding deprescribing practices and policy initiatives, can influence people with a shared passion for deprescribing, and facilitate sharing of intellectual capital and tools to take initiatives further and strengthen impact.This report should inspire others to establish their own deprescribing networks, a critical step in accelerating a global deprescribing movement.

Background: Quality of life (QoL) is an important outcome to capture in clinical trials evaluating deprescribing interventions., Objective: We aimed to conduct a scoping review to examine how QoL has been measured in deprescribing trials among older people and identify potentially relevant QoL scales, to better inform QoL measurement in future deprescribing trials., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, Epistemonikos, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of eligible studies (from inception to October 2023). We included randomized and non-randomized comparative studies with a control group that evaluated deprescribing and polypharmacy reduction interventions in people ≥ 65 years of age and measured QoL as an outcome. We also included studies describing the development and validation of QoL scales related to deprescribing, polypharmacy, or medication burden in adults ≥ 18 years of age. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, then full texts. Two independent reviewers extracted data from 25% of eligible studies in order to verify agreement, then a single reviewer extracted data from the remaining studies, which a second reviewer cross-checked. We critically appraised scales based on the COSMIN checklist., Results: We retrieved 7290 articles, of which 52 were eligible for inclusion, including 44 deprescribing trials and eight scale development studies. From these studies, we found 21 scales that have been used in the context of deprescribing/polypharmacy (12 generic scales used in clinical trials and nine medication-specific scales). Variations of the generic EQ-5D were the most used scales. The measurement properties of scales for capturing changes in QoL from deprescribing were uncertain. Medication-specific QoL scales have not been employed in deprescribing clinical trials and thus, their performance in this context is also not clear., Conclusions: Several existing QoL scales have been applied to the context of deprescribing/polypharmacy clinical trials, and new scales specific to the problem have been proposed. If deprescribing does impact QoL, our findings suggest it is uncertain whether existing QoL scales can practically and reliably capture such a change or whether any scale is best. However, this review compares various aspects of the scales that researchers and clinicians can consider in decisions about measuring QoL in deprescribing trials, and in planning future research., Protocol Registration: Open Science Framework: osf.io/aez6w., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Introduction: Over 50% of older adults are prescribed a medicine where the risk of harm outweighs the chances of benefit. During a hospital admission, older adults and carers expect medicines to be reviewed for appropriateness and any inappropriate medicines proactively deprescribed. While the principle of proactive deprescribing is an expectation of good prescribing practice, it is yet to become routine. The CompreHensive geriAtRician-led MEdication Review (CHARMER) study aims to develop and test a five-component behaviour change intervention to equip geriatricians and pharmacists to proactively deprescribe inappropriate medicines with older adults in hospital. This study aims to test the feasibility and acceptability of study processes and CHARMER implementation., Methods and Analysis: A two-arm purposive allocation feasibility study is being undertaken at four acute hospitals in England, UK (three intervention and one control). The target sample is 400 patients across all hospitals. Primary outcome measures are: (1) participant recruitment rate and (2) participant attrition rate. Secondary outcome measures are: (1) hospital readmission rate; (2) mortality rate and (3) quality of life. Quantitative data will be checked for completeness and quality, and practitioner and patient demographics descriptively analysed. We will undertake a rapid qualitative analysis on observations, interviews and study meeting minutes data. A subsequent thematic analysis will be undertaken with codes mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework and Normalisation Process Theory. Triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data will be undertaken., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval was obtained from Wales Research Ethics Committee 1 (IRAS ID 312494) and study approval from the Health Research Authority (22/WA/0087). Informed consent will be sought from all hospital staff involved in data collection activities and for patients involved in enhanced data collection activities. The findings of this study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations., Trial Registration: ISRCTN11899506., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Trials of hospital deprescribing interventions have demonstrated limited changes in practitioner behaviour. Our previous research characterised four barriers and one enabler to geriatricians and pharmacists deprescribing in hospital that require addressing by a behaviour change intervention. Six behaviour change techniques (BCTs) have also been selected by the target audience using the hospital Deprescribing Implementation Framework (hDIF). This research aimed to co-design and operationalise the content, mode of delivery and duration/intensity of the six selected BCTs to develop the CompreHensive geriAtRician-led MEdication Review (CHARMER) deprescribing intervention., Methods: We established co-design panels at three hospitals representing contextual factors likely to influence CHARMER implementation. Panels comprised geriatricians, pharmacists and other hospital staff likely to be involved in implementation. We convened two rounds of co-design workshops with each hospital to design a prototype for each BCT, which went for feedback at a final workshop attended by all three hospital panels., Results: The six BCTs were co-designed into an intervention comprising:( 1&2 ) Pharmacists' workshop with pros and cons of deprescribing activities, and videos of salient patient cases 3 Regular geriatrician and pharmacist deprescribing briefings 4 Videos of geriatricians navigating challenging deprescribing consultations 5 Hospital deprescribing action plan 6 Dashboard to benchmark deprescribing activitiesAutomated prompts to flag high-risk patients for deprescribing and a primary and secondary care deprescribing forum were proposed as additional BCTs by stakeholders. These were later excluded as they were not fidelitous to the theoretical determinants of geriatricians' and pharmacists' deprescribing behaviours., Conclusions: This study illustrates the integration of theory and co-design methodology with the target audience and staff likely to be involved in implementation of a hospital deprescribing behaviour change intervention. The development of an intervention that remains faithful to the underpinning mechanisms of action of behaviour change is a strength of this approach., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Over 70% of care home residents are prescribed potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) associated with morbidity and mortality. Deprescribing is a common recommendation by pharmacists performing medication reviews in care homes, however requiring prescriber authorisation is a barrier. Care home Independent Pharmacist Prescribing Study (CHIPPS), a cluster randomised control trial integrated pharmacist independent prescriber (PIPs) into care homes to improve medication management, providing a unique opportunity to identify their barriers and enablers to deprescribing., Objectives: To identify barriers and enablers to PIPs deprescribing medications in care homes., Methods: Secondary qualitative framework analysis was performed on interviews with CHIPPS' PIPs. A maximum variation sampling approach was used to select from the 14 PIPs included in the process evaluation to achieve diversity of PIPs' contextual factors e.g., previous experience in care homes. Transcripts were coded inductively for barriers and enablers to deprescribing and then mapped to Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)., Results: Eleven PIP's interviews were sampled. Factors acted as enablers and barriers were PIP relationship with General Practitioner (GP), care home staff and residents/families, awareness of the PIP role and family trust in PIPs' deprescribing activities (social influences); PIPs' independent prescribing confidence, previous experience and ability dealing with residents' medications (beliefs about capabilities); understanding of PIP role and PIP confidence in their role as an independent prescriber (Social/professional role and identity); access to residents' records, deprescribing decision support, regular follow-up from care home staff, resident difficulties with medications, teamwork, and time restraints (Environmental context and resources). One factor acted as a barrier: believing negatives of deprescribing outweigh benefits regarding certain medications (Beliefs about consequences)., Conclusion: PIPs' involvement in deprescribing within care homes is influenced by multiple barriers and enablers. Data mapped to TDF domains represent barriers that need addressing and enablers that should be highlighted to enhance PIPs' effectiveness in future interventions., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have declared no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2022 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Pharmacological Society.)

The English National Overprescribing Review identified that older people often take eight or more medicines a day. The report recommended pharmacists in primary care should take responsibility for addressing polypharmacy. Overprescribing is a safety concern in care homes as approximately half of older care home residents are prescribed at least one medicine that is unnecessary or now harmful. This predisposes them to adverse outcomes including hospitalisation and mortality. Deprescribing is the planned activity of stopping or reducing a medicine that may no longer be appropriate. Deprescribing, when performed by a pharmacist, is a multidisciplinary activity requiring close communication with general practitioners (GPs) and care home staff. A recently completed trial that integrated pharmacists with prescribing rights into older peoples' care homes found significant variation in proactive deprescribing activity. The aim of the current study was to specifically explore beliefs and practices of deprescribing in care homes. A qualitative approach was adopted to examine individual, social and contextual factors that acted as enablers and barriers to pharmacist deprescribing in care homes. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants of the previous study (16 pharmacists, 6 GPs and 7 care home staff from Northern Ireland, Scotland and England). Using thematic analysis, we identified two themes: (a) Structures and systems affecting deprescribing, that is the context in which deprescribing happened, including team involvement and routine practices in GP surgeries and care homes; (b) Balancing risks when deprescribing, that is the perception of individual risk and social barriers were mitigated by understanding the medical background of residents. This supported the clinical understanding that risks from overprescribing were greater than risks from deprescribing. While deprescribing can involve all health professionals in the primary care team, these results suggest the pharmacist is well placed to lead the process; by having both clinical competence and professional willingness to drive this activity forward., (© 2022 The Authors. Health and Social Care in the Community published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Half of older people are prescribed unnecessary/inappropriate medications that are not routinely deprescribed in hospital hence there is a need for deprescribing trials. We aimed to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for deprescribing trials for older people under the care of a geriatrician during hospital admission., Methods: We developed a list of potentially relevant outcomes from the literature. Using a two-round Delphi survey of stakeholder groups representing older people and carers, hospital clinicians, hospital managers, and ageing/deprescribing researchers, each outcome was scored according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, followed by two consensus workshops to finalise the COS., Results: Two hundred people completed Round 1 and 114 completed Round 2. Representing all stakeholder groups, 10 people participated in workshop 1 and 10 in workshop 2. Six outcomes were identified as most important, feasible and acceptable to collect in a trial: number of prescribed medicines stopped; number of prescribed medicines with dosage reduced; quality of life; mortality; adverse drug events and number of hospital stays. Three other outcomes were identified as important, but currently too burdensome to collect: number of potentially inappropriate medicines prescribed; burden from medication routine; and medication-related admissions to hospital., Conclusions: A COS represents the minimum outcomes that should be collected and reported. Whilst uncommon practice for COS development, the value of considering outcome collection feasibility is demonstrated by the removal of three potential outcomes that, if included, may have compromised COS uptake due to challenges with collecting the data., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society.)

Background: Deprescribing is a partnership between practitioners, patients and caregivers. External characteristics including age, comorbidities and polypharmacy are poor predictors of attitude towards deprescribing. This hospital-based study aimed to describe the desire of patients and caregivers to be involved in medicine decision-making, and identify attitudinal predictors of desire to try stopping a medicine., Methods: Patients and caregivers recruited from seven Older People's Medicine wards across two UK hospitals completed the revised Patients'Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire. Patients prescribed polypharmacy and caregivers involved in medication decision-making of such patients were eligible. A target of 150 patients and caregivers provided a 95% confidence interval of ±11.0% or smaller around rPATD item agreement. Descriptive statistics characterised participants and rPATD responses. Responses to items regarding desire to be involved in medication decision-making and desire to try stopping a medicine were used to address the aims. Binary logistic regression provided the adjusted odds ratios (OR) for predictors of desire to try stopping a medicine., Results: Patient participants (N = 75) were a median (IQ) 87.0 (83.0, 90.0) years old and the median (IQ) number of pre-admission medication was 8.0 (6.0, 10.0). Caregiver participants (N = 76) were a median (IQ) 70.0 (57.0, 83.0) years old and the majority were a spouse (63.2%). For patients and caregivers respectively, the following were reported: 58.7 and 65.8% wanted to be involved in medication decision-making; 29.3 and 43.5% reported a desire to try stopping a medicine. Attitudinal predictors of low desire to try stopping a medicine for patients and caregivers are a perception that there are no unnecessary prescribed medicines [OR = 0.179 (patients) and 0.044 (caregivers)] and no desire for dose reduction [OR = 0.199 (patients) and 0.024 (caregivers)]. A perception of not being prescribed too many medicines also predicted low patient desire to try stopping a medicine [OR = 0.195]., Conclusion: A substantial proportion of patients and caregivers did not want to be involved medication decision-making, however this should not result in practitioners dismissing deprescribing opportunities. The three diagnostic indicators for establishing desire to try stopping a medicine are perceived necessity of the medicine, appropriateness of the number prescribed medications and a desire for dose reduction.

Deprescribing is the term used to describe the discontinuation of medicines. It can be either 'reactive', for example in response to an adverse event or therapeutic failure, or 'proactive', when the prescriber and patient decide to discontinue the medicine because its future benefits no longer outweigh its potential for harm. At present, there is a limited amount of proactive deprescribing activity in primary and secondary care. This article provides the rationale for increasing proactive deprescribing activity, lists the medicines this relates to, identifies the barriers and enablers to its implementation, and describes the potential role of the nurse in this process., Competing Interests: None declared, (© 2019 RCN Publishing Company Ltd. All rights reserved. Not to be copied, transmitted or recorded in any way, in whole or part, without prior permission of the publishers.)

Background Deprescribing medication may be in response to an adverse clinical trigger (reactive) or if future gains are unlikely to outweigh future harms (proactive). A hospital admission may present an opportunity for deprescribing, however current practice is poorly understood. Objective To quantify and describe the nature of deprescribing in a UK teaching hospital. Method Prescribing and discontinuation data for admission medication from a hospital's electronic prescribing system were extracted over 4 weeks. The rationale for discontinuation of a random sample of 200 was determined using medical records. This informed categorisation of deprescribing activity by clinicians into 'proactive' or 'reactive'. Data were extrapolated to estimate the proportion of admission medications deprescribed and the proportion which were reactive and proactive. Results From 24,552 admission medicines, 977 discontinuations were recorded. Of the 200 discontinuations sampled for review, only 44 (22.0%) were confirmed deprescribing activities; categorised into 7 (15.9%) proactive and 37 (84.1%) reactive. Extrapolation yielded 0.6% (95% CI 0.5-0.7%) of all admission medications deprescribed. Conclusion Limited deprescribing activity, dominated by reactive behaviour was identified, suggesting prescribers require a clinical trigger to prompt deprescribing. There may be scope for increasing proactive deprescribing in hospital, however the extent to which this is feasible is unknown.

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]