Search

Background: Few studies have evaluated roles of general practice-based pharmacists (PBPs), particularly in optimizing medicines management for older people with both multimorbidity and polypharmacy., Objective: To explore the types and effectiveness of services provided by PBPs, either alone or in collaboration with other primary health care professionals, that sought to optimize medicines management for older people with multimorbidity and polypharmacy., Methods: Eight electronic databases and three trial registries were searched for studies published in English until April 2020. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials and controlled before-and-after studies of services delivered by PBPs in primary care/general practice, for patients aged ≥65 years with both multimorbidity and polypharmacy that focused on a number of outcomes. The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 1) and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool were used for quality assessment. A narrative synthesis was conducted due to study heterogeneity., Results: Seven studies met inclusion criteria. All included studies employed PBP-led medication review accompanied by recommendations agreed and implemented by general practitioners. Other patient-level and practice-level interventions were described in one study. The limited available evidence suggested that PBPs, in collaboration with other practice team members, had mixed effects on outcomes focused on optimizing medicines management for older people. Most included studies were of poor quality and data to estimate the risk of bias were often missing., Conclusion: Future high-quality studies are needed to test the effects of PBP interventions on a well-defined range of medicines management-related outcomes., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The PolyPrime intervention is a theory-based intervention aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in older people (aged ≥65 years) in primary care. The intervention consists of an online video which demonstrates how general practitioners (GPs) can prescribe appropriate polypharmacy during a consultation with an older patient and a patient recall process, whereby patients are invited to scheduled medication review consultations with GPs. The aim of the process evaluation is to further examine the implementation of the PolyPrime intervention in primary care. This will involve investigating whether the PolyPrime intervention can be delivered as intended across two healthcare systems, how acceptable the intervention is to GPs, practice staff and patients, and to identify the intervention's likely mechanisms of action., Methods: The PolyPrime study is an external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) which aims to recruit 12 GP practices across Northern Ireland [NI] (n=6) and the six counties in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) that border NI (n=6). Practices have been randomised to intervention or usual care. An embedded process evaluation will assess intervention fidelity (i.e. was the intervention delivered as intended), acceptability of the intervention to GPs, practice staff and patients and potential mechanisms of action (i.e. what components of the intervention were perceived to be effective). Quantitative data will be collected from data collection forms completed by GPs and practice staff and a feedback questionnaire completed by patients from intervention arm practices, which will be analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data will be collected through semi-structured interviews with GPs and practice staff and audio-recordings of medication review appointments from the intervention arm practices which will be transcribed and analysed using the framework method. Quantitative and qualitative data will be triangulated to provide an overall assessment of intervention fidelity, intervention acceptability, and mechanisms of action., Discussion: This process evaluation will add to feasibility data from the pilot cRCT by providing evidence on the fidelity of implementing the intervention package across two healthcare systems, the acceptability of the intervention and potential mechanisms of action., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ISRCTN41009897 . Registered on 19 November 2019. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04181879 . Registered 02 December 2019., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Objectives: To develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in effectiveness trials of interventions aiming to improve the appropriateness of polypharmacy in older people in primary care., Design: Standard COS development methodology was followed, comprising identification of outcomes of studies from an update of a Cochrane systematic review and previously collected qualitative data and an online Delphi consensus exercise involving three rounds., Participants: An international panel of 160 stakeholders comprising 120 healthcare experts and a public participant panel of 40 older people., Measurements: Outcomes identified from studies included in the Cochrane review and secondary analysis of previously collected qualitative data were scored on a 9-point Likert scale using the GRADE scoring system anchored at 1 (not important) and 9 (critical). Consensus criteria for the COS were defined as 70% or more of participants scoring the outcome as critical and 15% or fewer scoring the outcome as not important., Results: Twenty-nine outcomes identified from the Cochrane review and existing qualitative data were included in the Delphi exercise. The final COS comprised 16 outcomes. The 7 highest-ranked outcomes were serious adverse drug reactions, medication appropriateness, falls, medication regimen complexity, quality of life, mortality, and medication side effects., Conclusion: A COS for interventions aiming to improve the appropriateness of polypharmacy for older people in primary care has been developed. Future work will focus on identifying appropriate tools to measure., (© 2018, Copyright the Authors Journal compilation © 2018, The American Geriatrics Society.)

Background: Polypharmacy (≥5 medications) is common in older patients and is associated with adverse outcomes. Patients' beliefs about medication can influence their expectations for medication, adherence, and willingness to deprescribe. Few studies have examined beliefs about prescribed medication among older patients with polypharmacy in primary care., Aim: To explore medication-related beliefs in older patients with polypharmacy and factors that might influence beliefs., Design and Setting: A mixed methods study utilising data from a randomised controlled trial aiming to decrease potentially inappropriate prescribing in older patients (≥70 years) in Ireland., Method: Beliefs were assessed quantitatively and qualitatively. Participants completed the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire by indicating their degree of agreement with individual statements about medicines on a 5-point Likert scale. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of participants. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and a thematic analysis conducted. Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed separately and triangulated during the interpretation stage., Results: In total, 196 patients were included (mean age 76.7 years, SD 4.9, 54% male), with a mean of 9.5 (SD 4.1) medications per patient. The majority (96.3%) believed strongly in the necessity of their medication, while 33.9% reported strong concerns. Qualitative data confirmed these coexisting positive and negative attitudes to medications and suggested the importance of patients' trust in GPs in establishing positive beliefs and potential willingness to deprescribe., Conclusion: Participants reported strong beliefs in medications with coexisting positive and negative attitudes. The doctor-patient relationship may have influenced beliefs and attitudes towards medicines, highlighting the importance of strong doctor-patient relationships, which need to be considered in the context of deprescribing., (© British Journal of General Practice 2017.)

Background: Previous interventions have shown limited success in improving medication adherence in older adults, and this may be due to the lack of a theoretical underpinning., Objective: This review sought to determine the effectiveness of theory-based interventions aimed at improving medication adherence in older adults prescribed polypharmacy and to explore the extent to which psychological theory informed their development., Data Sources: Eight electronic databases were searched from inception to March 2015, and extensive hand-searching was conducted., Eligibility Criteria: Interventions delivered to older adults (populations with a mean/median age of ≥65 years) prescribed polypharmacy (four or more regular oral/non-oral medicines) were eligible. Studies had to report an underpinning theory and measure at least one adherence and one clinical/humanistic outcome., Review Methods: Data were extracted independently by two reviewers and included details of intervention content, delivery, providers, participants, outcomes and theories used. The theory coding scheme (TCS) was used to assess the extent of theory use., Results: Five studies cited theory as the basis for intervention development (social cognitive theory, health belief model, transtheoretical model, self-regulation model). The extent of theory use and intervention effectiveness in terms of adherence and clinical/humanistic outcomes varied across studies. No study made optimal use of theory as recommended in the TCS., Conclusions: The heterogeneity observed and inclusion of pilot designs mean conclusions regarding effectiveness of theory-based interventions targeting older adults prescribed polypharmacy could not be drawn. Further primary research involving theory as a central component of intervention development is required. The review findings will help inform the design of future theory-based adherence interventions., Competing Interests: Compliance with Ethical StandardsFundingThis work was supported by The Dunhill Medical Trust (Grant Number: R298/0513). The funding body was not involved in the design of the review, data collection, analysis and interpretation of findings or in writing the manuscript.Conflict of interestDeborah Patton, Carmel Hughes, Cathal Cadogan and Cristín Ryan have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this review.

Background: It is advocated that interventions to improve clinical practice should be developed using a systematic approach and intervention development methods should be reported. However, previous interventions aimed at ensuring that older people receive appropriate polypharmacy have lacked details on their development. This study formed part of a multiphase research project which aimed to develop an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care., Methods: The target behaviours for the intervention were prescribing and dispensing of appropriate polypharmacy to older patients by general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists. Intervention development followed a systematic approach, including previous mapping of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to key domains from the Theoretical Domains Framework that were perceived by GPs and pharmacists to influence the target behaviours. Draft interventions were developed to operationalise selected BCTs through team discussion. Selection of an intervention for feasibility testing was guided by a subset of the APEASE (Affordability, Practicability, Effectiveness/cost-effectiveness, Acceptability, Side-effects/safety, Equity) criteria., Results: Three draft interventions comprising selected BCTs were developed, targeting patients, pharmacists and GPs, respectively. Following assessment of each intervention using a subset of the APEASE criteria (affordability, practicability, acceptability), the GP-targeted intervention was selected for feasibility testing. This intervention will involve a demonstration of the behaviour and will be delivered as an online video. The video demonstrating how GPs can prescribe appropriate polypharmacy during a typical consultation with an older patient will also demonstrate salience of consequences (feedback emphasising the positive outcomes of performing the behaviour). Action plans and prompts/cues will be used as complementary intervention components. The intervention is designed to facilitate the prescribing of appropriate polypharmacy in routine practice., Conclusion: A GP-targeted intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people has been developed using a systematic approach. Intervention content has been specified using an established taxonomy of BCTs and selected to maximise feasibility. The results of a future feasibility study will help to determine if the theory-based intervention requires further refinement before progressing to a larger scale randomised evaluation.

This paper focuses on the issue of polypharmacy in older people and potential pharmaceutical strategies to optimize the use of multiple medicines. Although polypharmacy has long been viewed negatively, increasing emphasis is being placed on the difference between appropriate and inappropriate polypharmacy. This is largely being driven by the increasing prevalence of multimorbidity and the use of evidence-based guidelines. In this paper, we outline a number of key considerations that are pertinent to optimizing polypharmacy, notably prescribing appropriate polypharmacy, pharmaceutical formulations, the involvement of older people in clinical trials and patient adherence., (Crown Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is common in older people in primary care, as evidenced by a significant body of quantitative research. However, relatively few qualitative studies have investigated the phenomenon of PIP and its underlying processes from the perspective of general practitioners (GPs). The aim of this paper is to explore qualitatively, GP perspectives regarding prescribing and PIP in older primary care patients., Method: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with GPs participating in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of an intervention to decrease PIP in older patients (≥70 years) in Ireland. Interviews were conducted with GP participants (both intervention and control) from the OPTI-SCRIPT cluster RCT as part of the trial process evaluation between January and July 2013. Interviews were conducted by one interviewer and audio recorded. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and a thematic analysis was conducted., Results: Seventeen semi-structured interviews were conducted (13 male; 4 female). Three main, inter-related themes emerged (complex prescribing environment, paternalistic doctor-patient relationship, and relevance of PIP concept). Patient complexity (e.g. polypharmacy, multimorbidity), as well as prescriber complexity (e.g. multiple prescribers, poor communication, restricted autonomy) were all identified as factors contributing to a complex prescribing environment where PIP could occur, as was a paternalistic-doctor patient relationship. The concept of PIP was perceived to be of variable usefulness to GPs and the criteria to measure it may be at odds with the complex processes of prescribing for this patient population., Conclusions: Several inter-related factors contributing to the occurrence of PIP were identified, some of which may be amenable to intervention. Improvement strategies focused on improved management of polypharmacy and multimorbidity, and communication across primary and secondary care could result in substantial improvements in PIP., Trial Registration: Current controlled trials ISRCTN41694007.

The use of multiple medicines (polypharmacy) is increasingly common in middle-aged and older populations. Ensuring the correct balance between the prescribing of 'many' drugs and 'too many' drugs is a significant challenge. Clinicians are tasked with ensuring that patients receive the most appropriate combinations of medications based on the best available evidence, and that medication use is optimised according to patients' clinical needs (appropriate polypharmacy). Historically, polypharmacy has been viewed negatively because of the associated medication safety risks, such as drug interactions and adverse drug events. More recently, polypharmacy has been identified as a risk factor for under-prescribing, such that patients do not receive necessary medications and this can also pose risks to patients' safety and well-being. The negative connotations that have long been associated with the term polypharmacy could potentially be acting as a driving factor for under-prescribing, whereby clinicians are reluctant to prescribe necessary medicines for patients who are already receiving 'many' medicines. It is now recognised that the prescribing of 'many' medicines can be entirely appropriate in patients with several chronic conditions and that the risks of adverse drug events that have been associated with polypharmacy may be greatly reduced when patients' clinical context is taken into consideration. In this article, we outline the current perspectives on polypharmacy and make the case for adopting the term 'appropriate polypharmacy' in differentiating between the prescribing of 'many' drugs and 'too many' drugs. We also outline the inherent challenges in doing so and provide recommendations for future clinical practice and research.

Objective: To summarise the findings of an updated Cochrane review of interventions aimed at improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy in older people., Design: Cochrane systematic review. Multiple electronic databases were searched including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from inception to November 2013). Hand searching of references was also performed. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series analyses reporting on interventions targeting appropriate polypharmacy in older people in any healthcare setting were included if they used a validated measure of prescribing appropriateness. Evidence quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation)., Setting: All healthcare settings., Participants: Older people (≥ 65 years) with ≥ 1 long-term condition who were receiving polypharmacy (≥ 4 regular medicines)., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Primary outcomes were the change in prevalence of appropriate polypharmacy and hospital admissions. Medication-related problems (eg, adverse drug reactions), medication adherence and quality of life were included as secondary outcomes., Results: 12 studies were included: 8 RCTs, 2 cluster RCTs and 2 controlled before-and-after studies. 1 study involved computerised decision support and 11 comprised pharmaceutical care approaches across various settings. Appropriateness was measured using validated tools, including the Medication Appropriateness Index, Beers' criteria and Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions (STOPP)/ Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (START). The interventions demonstrated a reduction in inappropriate prescribing. Evidence of effect on hospital admissions and medication-related problems was conflicting. No differences in health-related quality of life were reported., Conclusions: The included interventions demonstrated improvements in appropriate polypharmacy based on reductions in inappropriate prescribing. However, it remains unclear if interventions resulted in clinically significant improvements (eg, in terms of hospital admissions). Future intervention studies would benefit from available guidance on intervention development, evaluation and reporting to facilitate replication in clinical practice., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Background: The use of multiple medicines (polypharmacy) is increasingly common in older people. Ensuring that patients receive the most appropriate combinations of medications (appropriate polypharmacy) is a significant challenge. The quality of evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is low. Systematic identification of mediators of behaviour change, using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), provides a theoretically robust evidence base to inform intervention design. This study aimed to (1) identify key theoretical domains that were perceived to influence the prescribing and dispensing of appropriate polypharmacy to older patients by general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists, and (2) map domains to associated behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to include as components of an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care., Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with members of each healthcare professional (HCP) group using tailored topic guides based on TDF version 1 (12 domains). Questions covering each domain explored HCPs' perceptions of barriers and facilitators to ensuring the prescribing and dispensing of appropriate polypharmacy to older people. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis involved the framework method and content analysis. Key domains were identified and mapped to BCTs based on established methods and discussion within the research team., Results: Thirty HCPs were interviewed (15 GPs, 15 pharmacists). Eight key domains were identified, perceived to influence prescribing and dispensing of appropriate polypharmacy: 'Skills', 'Beliefs about capabilities', 'Beliefs about consequences', 'Environmental context and resources', 'Memory, attention and decision processes', 'Social/professional role and identity', 'Social influences' and 'Behavioural regulation'. Following mapping, four BCTs were selected for inclusion in an intervention for GPs or pharmacists: 'Action planning', 'Prompts/cues', 'Modelling or demonstrating of behaviour' and 'Salience of consequences'. An additional BCT ('Social support or encouragement') was selected for inclusion in a community pharmacy-based intervention in order to address barriers relating to interprofessional working that were encountered by pharmacists., Conclusions: Selected BCTs will be operationalised in a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy for older people, to be delivered in GP practice and community pharmacy settings. Future research will involve development and feasibility testing of this intervention.

This article discusses the concepts of deprescribing and medicines optimization as two related approaches to addressing the issue of inappropriate prescribing of medications, particularly in older adults with multiple health conditions. Deprescribing involves stopping or reducing medications that are no longer necessary or pose a greater risk than benefit, while medicines optimization focuses on ensuring safe and effective use of medications to achieve the best possible outcomes. The article highlights the need for interventions that target one or multiple medications and considers the implications for study design and outcome measurement. It emphasizes the importance of selecting outcomes that are meaningful to stakeholders and suggests the use of core outcome sets to enhance consistency across trials. The article concludes by emphasizing the need for careful consideration of the target and scope of deprescribing interventions to advance the field. [Extracted from the article]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Few studies have evaluated roles of general practice-based pharmacists (PBPs), particularly in optimizing medicines management for older people with both multimorbidity and polypharmacy.Objective: To explore the types and effectiveness of services provided by PBPs, either alone or in collaboration with other primary health care professionals, that sought to optimize medicines management for older people with multimorbidity and polypharmacy.Methods: Eight electronic databases and three trial registries were searched for studies published in English until April 2020. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials and controlled before-and-after studies of services delivered by PBPs in primary care/general practice, for patients aged ≥65 years with both multimorbidity and polypharmacy that focused on a number of outcomes. The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 1) and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool were used for quality assessment. A narrative synthesis was conducted due to study heterogeneity.Results: Seven studies met inclusion criteria. All included studies employed PBP-led medication review accompanied by recommendations agreed and implemented by general practitioners. Other patient-level and practice-level interventions were described in one study. The limited available evidence suggested that PBPs, in collaboration with other practice team members, had mixed effects on outcomes focused on optimizing medicines management for older people. Most included studies were of poor quality and data to estimate the risk of bias were often missing.Conclusion: Future high-quality studies are needed to test the effects of PBP interventions on a well-defined range of medicines management-related outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of multiple medications (polypharmacy) is a concern in older people (≥65 years) and is associated with negative health outcomes. For older populations with multimorbidity, polypharmacy is the reality and the key challenge is ensuring appropriate polypharmacy (as opposed to inappropriate polypharmacy). This external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) aims to further test a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care in two jurisdictions, Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI). Methods: Twelve GP practices across NI (n=6) and the six counties in the ROI that border NI will be randomised to either the intervention or usual care group. Members of the research team have developed an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change. The intervention consists of two components: (1) an online video which demonstrates how a GP may prescribe appropriate polypharmacy during a consultation with an older patient and (2) a patient recall process, whereby patients are invited to scheduled medication review consultations with GPs. Ten older patients receiving polypharmacy (≥4 medications) will be recruited per GP practice (n=120). GP practices allocated to the intervention arm will be asked to watch the online video and schedule medication reviews with patients on two occasions; an initial and a 6-month follow-up appointment. GP practices allocated to the control arm will continue to provide usual care to patients. The study will assess the feasibility of recruitment, retention and study procedures including collecting data on medication appropriateness (from GP records), quality of life and health service use (i.e. hospitalisations). An embedded process evaluation will assess intervention fidelity (i.e. was the intervention delivered as intended), acceptability of the intervention and potential mechanisms of action. Discussion: This pilot cRCT will provide evidence of the feasibility of a range of study parameters such as recruitment and retention, data collection procedures and the acceptability of the intervention. Pre-specified progression criteria will also be used to determine whether or not to proceed to a definitive cRCT. Trial registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN41009897. Registered 19 November 2019. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04181879. Registered 02 December 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Community pharmacists have an important role to play in providing medication adherence support (MAS) to older patients. However, research has shown that pharmacists rarely ask patients about adherence and offer limited solutions. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) can guide the selection of behaviour change techniques (BCTs), to enhance behaviours such as MAS provision.Objectives: This study aimed to: (1) explore barriers/facilitators influencing community pharmacists' provision of MAS to older patients prescribed multiple medications; (2) Identify theoretical domains to target for behaviour change; (3) Select BCTs to deliver to pharmacists to enhance MAS provision.Method: As part of a two-phase study, semi-structured interviews and a cross-sectional survey were conducted. In Phase 1, community pharmacists in Northern Ireland (NI) were recruited using purposive/snowball sampling. TDF-based interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed by two independent researchers using the framework method/content analysis. In Phase 2, a TDF-based postal survey was mailed to all community pharmacies in NI (n = 521) and analysed using descriptive statistics. Triangulated findings informed selection of target TDF domains and BCTs to deliver to enhance MAS provision.Results: Fifteen pharmacists were interviewed for Phase 1. Barriers and facilitators included inadequate remuneration, time and knowledge of solutions and professional confidence. In Phase 2, 143 (27.4%) survey responses were received. Potential barriers included inadequate training in motivational techniques and difficulties with decision-making. Based on triangulated findings, seven domains (e.g. skills, motivation/goals) were identified as targets and mapped across to 18 BCTs (e.g. behavioural practice/rehearsal, prompts/cues).Conclusions: This mixed methods study provides unique perspectives on the wide range of barriers/facilitators that are perceived to influence the provision of MAS by community pharmacists. The 18 BCTs identified to target each of the seven key target domains identified in this study will be tested in a future pilot study of a patient-targeted intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prescribing, monitoring and administration of medicines in care homes could be improved. Research has identified the need for one person to assume overall responsibility for the management of medicines within each care home. and shown that a pharmacist independent prescriber service is feasible in this context.Aims and Objectives: To conduct a cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a pharmacist-independent prescribing service in care homes compared to usual general practitioner (GP)-led care.Objectives: To perform a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) with an internal pilot to determine the intervention's effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and enable modelling beyond the end of the trial.Methods: This protocol is for a cluster RCT with a 3-month internal pilot to confirm that recruitment is achievable, and there are no safety concerns. The unit of randomisation is a triad comprising a pharmacist-independent prescriber (PIP) based in a GP practice with sufficient registered patients resident in one or more care homes to allow recruitment of an average of 20 participants. In the intervention group, the PIP will, in collaboration with the GP: assume responsibility for prescribing and managing residents' medicines including medication review and pharmaceutical care planning; support systematic ordering and administration in the care home, GP practice and supplying pharmacy; train care home and GP practice staff; communicate with GP practice, care home, supplying community pharmacy and study team. The intervention will last 6 months. The primary outcome will be resident falls at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include resident health-related quality of life, falls at 3 months, medication burden, medication appropriateness, mortality and hospitalisations. A full health economic analysis will be undertaken. The target sample size is 880 residents (440) in each arm) from 44 triads. This number is sufficient to detect a decrease in fall rate from 1.5 per individual to 1.178 (relative reduction of 21%) with 80% power and an ICC of 0.05 or less.Discussion: Recruitment is on-going and the trial should complete in early 2020. The trial results will have implications for the future management of residents in care homes and the ongoing implementation of independent pharmacist prescribing.Trial Registration: ISRCTN, ID: 17847169. Registered on 15 December 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Medication adherence is vital to ensuring optimal patient outcomes, particularly amongst multimorbid older people prescribed multiple medications. Interventions targeting adherence often lack a theoretical underpinning and this may impact on effectiveness. The theoretical domains framework ( TDF) of behaviour can aid intervention development by systematically identifying key determinants of medication adherence. Objectives This study aimed to (i) identify determinants (barriers, facilitators) of adherence to multiple medications from older people's perspectives; (ii) identify key domains to target for behaviour change; and (iii) map key domains to intervention components [behaviour change techniques ( BCTs)] that could be delivered in an intervention by community pharmacists. Method Focus groups were conducted with older people (>65 years) receiving ≥4 medications. Questions explored the 12 domains of the TDF (eg 'Knowledge,' 'Emotion'). Data were analysed using the framework method and content analysis. Identification of key domains and mapping to intervention components ( BCTs) followed established methods. Results Seven focus groups were convened (50 participants). A wide range of determinants were identified as barriers (eg forgetfulness, prioritization of medications) and facilitators (eg social support, personalized routines) of adherence to multiple medications. Eight domains were identified as key targets for behaviour change (eg 'Social influences,' 'Memory, attention and decision processes,' 'Motivation and goals') and mapped to 11 intervention components ( BCTs) to include in an intervention [eg 'Social support or encouragement (general),' 'Self-monitoring of the behaviour,' 'Goal-setting (behaviour)']. Conclusion This study used a theoretical underpinning to identify potential intervention components ( BCTs). Future work will incorporate the selected BCTs into an intervention that will undergo feasibility testing in community pharmacies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about prescribing appropriateness for community-dwelling people with dementia (PWD).Objective: To estimate potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) prevalence among PWD in primary care in Northern Ireland, and to investigate associations between PIP, polypharmacy, age, and gender.Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted, using data from the Enhanced Prescribing Database. Patients were eligible if a medicine indicated for dementia management was dispensed to them during 1 January 2013-31 December 2013. Polypharmacy was indicated by use of ≥4 repeat medications from different drug groups. A subset of the Screening Tool of Older Persons Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP) criteria, comprising 36 indicators, was applied to the dataset. Overall prevalence of PIP and the prevalence per each STOPP criterion was calculated as a proportion of all eligible persons in the dataset. Logistic regression was used to investigate associations between PIP, polypharmacy, age, and gender.Results: The study population comprised 6826 patients. Polypharmacy was observed in 81.5% (n = 5564) of patients. PIP prevalence during the study period was 64.4% (95% CI 63.2- 65.5; n = 4393). The most common instance of PIP was the use of anticholinergic/antimuscarinic medications (25.2%; 95% CI 24.2-26.2; n = 1718). In multivariable analyses, both polypharmacy and gender (being female) were associated with PIP, with odds ratios of 7.6 (95% CI 6.6-8.7) and 1.3 (95% CI 1.2-1.4), respectively. No association was observed between PIP and age, after adjustments for gender and polypharmacy.Conclusion: This study identified a high prevalence of PIP in community-dwelling PWD. Future interventions may need to focus on certain therapeutic categories and polypharmacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Whilst multimorbidity is more prevalent with increasing age, approximately 30% of middle-aged adults (45–64 years) are also affected. Several prescribing criteria have been developed to optimise medication use in older people (≥65 years) with little focus on potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in middle-aged adults. We have developed a set of explicit prescribing criteria called PROMPT (PRescribing Optimally in Middle-aged People’s Treatments) which may be applied to prescribing datasets to determine the prevalence of PIP in this age-group. Methods: A literature search was conducted to identify published prescribing criteria for all age groups, with the Project Steering Group (convened for this study) adding further criteria for consideration, all of which were reviewed for relevance to middle-aged adults. These criteria underwent a two-round Delphi process, using an expert panel consisting of general practitioners, pharmacists and clinical pharmacologists from the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. Using web-based questionnaires, 17 panellists were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each criterion via a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree) to assess the applicability to middle-aged adults in the absence of clinical information. Criteria were accepted/rejected/revised dependent on the panel’s level of agreement using the median response/interquartile range and additional comments. Results: Thirty-four criteria were rated in the first round of this exercise and consensus was achieved on 17 criteria which were accepted into the PROMPT criteria. Consensus was not reached on the remaining 17, and six criteria were removed following a review of the additional comments. The second round of this exercise focused on the remaining 11 criteria, some of which were revised following the first exercise. Five criteria were accepted from the second round, providing a final list of 22 criteria [gastro-intestinal system (n = 3), cardiovascular system (n = 4), respiratory system (n = 4), central nervous system (n = 6), infections (n = 1), endocrine system (n = 1), musculoskeletal system (n = 2), duplicates (n = 1)]. Conclusions: PROMPT is the first set of prescribing criteria developed for use in middle-aged adults. The utility of these criteria will be tested in future studies using prescribing datasets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prescribing of medication is the most common intervention experienced by older people in nursing homes. The quality and appropriateness of prescribing in this setting has often been criticized, with excessive use of certain types of medication (e.g., psychoactive drugs) that may result in adverse drug events for vulnerable residents. Research has indicated that adverse drug events in nursing home residents often arise as a result of selection of inappropriate drugs, inadequate monitoring of medication and inattention to communication, particularly between different health settings. Strategies to minimize adverse drug events should consider effective multidisciplinary working, with greater input from pharmacists, training in pharmacotherapy for older people, the development of systems that support prescribing, monitoring and care transitions, and careful consideration of the aims of drug therapy in this frail population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author discusses a study by D. Lee and colleagues on the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medication use in older people with depressive symptoms. The study found that almost half of the sample of community-dwelling older people was receiving at least one potentially inappropriate medication. Drugs which affect the central nervous system dominated the potentially inappropriate category. According to the author, the potential for adverse effects of drugs should be minimised.