Search

Background: People with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at high risk of polypharmacy. However, no previous study has investigated international prescribing patterns in this group. This article aims to examine prescribing and polypharmacy patterns among older people with advanced CKD across the countries involved in the European Quality (EQUAL) study., Methods: The EQUAL study is an international prospective cohort study of patients ≥65 years of age with advanced CKD. Baseline demographic, clinical and medication data were analysed and reported descriptively. Polypharmacy was defined as ≥5 medications and hyperpolypharmacy as ≥10. Univariable and multivariable linear regressions were used to determine associations between country and the number of prescribed medications. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were used to determine associations between country and hyperpolypharmacy., Results: Of the 1317 participants from five European countries, 91% were experiencing polypharmacy and 43% were experiencing hyperpolypharmacy. Cardiovascular medications were the most prescribed medications (mean 3.5 per person). There were international differences in prescribing, with significantly greater hyperpolypharmacy in Germany {odds ratio (OR) 2.75 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.73-4.37]; P < 0.001, reference group UK}, the Netherlands [OR 1.91 (95% CI 1.32-2.76); P = 0.001] and Italy [OR 1.57 (95% CI 1.15-2.15); P = 0.004]. People in Poland experienced the least hyperpolypharmacy [OR 0.39 (95% CI 0.17-0.87); P = 0.021]., Conclusions: Hyperpolypharmacy is common among older people with advanced CKD, with significant international differences in the number of medications prescribed. Practice variation may represent a lack of consensus regarding appropriate prescribing for this high-risk group for whom pharmacological treatment has great potential for harm as well as benefit., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved.)

Background: Up to 50% of medicines are not used as intended, resulting in poor health and economic outcomes. Medicines optimisation is 'a person-centred approach to safe and effective medicines use, to ensure people obtain the best possible outcomes from their medicines'. The purpose of this exercise was to co-produce a prioritised research agenda for medicines optimisation using a multi-stakeholder (patient, researcher, public and health professionals) approach., Methods: A three-stage, multiple method process was used including: generation of preliminary research questions (Stage 1) using a modified Nominal Group Technique; electronic consultation and ranking with a wider multi-stakeholder group (Stage 2); a face-to-face, one-day consensus meeting involving representatives from all stakeholder groups (Stage 3)., Results: In total, 92 research questions were identified during Stages 1 and 2 and ranked in order of priority during stage 3. Questions were categorised into four areas: 'Patient Concerns' [e.g. is there a shared decision (with patients) about using each medicine?], 'Polypharmacy' [e.g. how to design health services to cope with the challenge of multiple medicines use?], 'Non-Medical Prescribing' [e.g. how can the contribution of non-medical prescribers be optimised in primary care?], and 'Deprescribing' [e.g. what support is needed by prescribers to deprescribe?]. A significant number of the 92 questions were generated by Patient and Public Involvement representatives, which demonstrates the importance of including this stakeholder group when identifying research priorities., Conclusions: A wide range of research questions was generated reflecting concerns which affect patients, practitioners, the health service, as well the ethical and philosophical aspects of the prescribing and deprescribing of medicines. These questions should be used to set future research agendas and funding commissions.

Background Multimorbidity is a growing problem. The number and complexity of (non-)pharmaceutical treatments create a great burden for patients. Treatment burden refers to the perception of the weight of these treatments, and is associated with multimorbidity. Measurement of treatment burden is of great value for optimizing treatment and health-related outcomes. Objective We aim to translate and validate the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ) for use in the Dutch population with multimorbidity and explore the level of treatment burden. Methods Translating the MTBQ into Dutch included forward–backward translation, piloting, and cognitive interviewing (n = 8). Psychometric properties of the questionnaire were assessed in a cross-sectional study of patients with multimorbidity recruited from a panel in the Netherlands (n = 959). We examined item properties, dimensionality, internal consistency reliability, and construct validity. The level of treatment burden in the population was assessed. Results The mean age among 959 participants with multimorbidity was 69.9 (17–96) years. Median global NL-MTBQ score was 3.85 (interquartile range 0–9.62), representing low treatment burden. Significant floor effects were found for all 13 items of the instrument. Factor analysis supported a single-factor structure. The NL-MTBQ had high internal consistency (α = 0.845), and provided good evidence on the construct validity of the scale. Conclusion The Dutch version of the 13-item MTBQ is a single-structured, valid, and compact patient-reported outcome measure to assess treatment burden in primary care patients with multimorbidity. It could identify patients experiencing high treatment burden, with great potential to enhance shared decision-making and offer additional support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical medication reviews are a recognised strategy to address polypharmacy, a key part of general practice and positively associated with patient safety and clinical effectiveness. To date there has been little investigation of the patient perspective of medication reviews. Objective: To explore patient experiences of medication review including the processes and activities that led up to and shaped the review. Methods: Qualitative interview study within 10 general practices in Bristol. Participants were adults with polypharmacy (≥ 4 medications) and ≥ 2 long-term conditions who had a record of medication review with either a GP or pharmacist. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using a data driven approach. Co-design work was undertaken with four patient and public involvement advisers to design and develop resources to support patient preparation for medication review. Results: Twenty-one patients were interviewed (10 female, mean age 73 years, range 59–88 years). Medication review was viewed as an opportunity to assess the effectiveness and need for medications. Participants expected the review to focus upon medication related concerns, side-effects and symptoms. Those who were newer to review, were uncertain of the intended purpose, and described their review as a box-ticking exercise. Some participants were unfamiliar with the role of the pharmacist and expressed a lack of confidence in their clinical skills and knowledge. Face-to-face consultation and relationship continuity were considered important for efficient and effective medication review. Results informed co-production of a patient information leaflet to facilitate greater patient engagement and involvement in medication review. Conclusions: A lack of understanding of the rationale for medication review can limit the value patients attach to these healthcare encounters. Improved prior communication and information around the intended purpose and potential benefits of medication review may enhance patient engagement and improve patient experience and outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many UK GP practices now employ a practice pharmacist, but little is known about how GPs and pharmacists work together to optimise medications for complex patients with multimorbidity.Aim: To explore GP and pharmacist perspectives on collaborative working within the context of optimising medications for patients with multimorbidity.Design and Setting: A qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with GPs and pharmacists working in the West of England, Northern England, and Scotland.Method: Thirteen GPs and 10 pharmacists were sampled from practices enrolled in the 3D trial (a complex intervention for people with multimorbidity). Participants' views on collaborative working were explored with interviews that were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. Saturation of data was achieved with no new insights arising from later interviews.Results: GPs from surgeries that employed a pharmacist tended to value their expertise more than GPs who had not worked with one. Three key themes were identified: resources and competing priorities; responsibility; and professional boundaries. GPs valued pharmacist recommendations that were perceived to improve patient safety, as opposed to those that were technical and unlikely to benefit the patient. Pharmacists who were not known to GPs felt undervalued and wanted feedback from the GPs about their recommendations, particularly those that were not actioned.Conclusion: A good working relationship between the GP and pharmacist, where each profession understood the other's skills and expertise, was key. The importance of face-to-face meetings and feedback should be considered in future studies of interdisciplinary interventions, and by GP practices that employ pharmacists and other allied health professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medication reviews may improve the safety of prescribing and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) highlights the importance of involving patients in this process.Aim: To explore GP and pharmacist perspectives on how medication reviews were conducted in general practice in the UK.Design and Setting: Analysis of semi-structured interviews with GPs and pharmacists working in the South West of England, Northern England, and Scotland, sampled for heterogeneity. Interviews took place between January and October 2017.Method: Interviews focused on experience of medication review. Data saturation was achieved when no new insights arose from later interviews. Interviews were analysed thematically.Results: In total, 13 GPs and 10 pharmacists were interviewed. GPs and pharmacists perceived medication review as an opportunity to improve prescribing safety. Although interviewees thought patients should be involved in decisions about their medicines, high workload pressures meant that most medication reviews were conducted with limited or no patient input. For some GPs, a medication review was done 'in the quickest way possible to say that it was done'. Pharmacists were perceived by both professions as being more thorough but less time efficient than GPs, and few pharmacists were routinely involved in medication reviews even in practices employing a pharmacist. Interviewees argued that it was easier to continue medicines than it was to stop them, particularly because stopping medicines required involving the patient and this generated extra work.Conclusion: Practices tended to prioritise being efficient (getting the work done) rather than being thorough (doing it well), so that most medication reviews were carried out with little or no patient involvement, and medicines were rarely stopped or reduced. Time and resource constraints are an important barrier to implementing NICE guidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]