Search

With increasing numbers of pharmacists working in general practices and undertaking patient-facing roles, it has been recognised that they must have the necessary clinical skills. However, previous studies have highlighted that practice-based pharmacists (PBPs) do not feel confident regarding their clinical skills, and it is unclear what skills are needed. To develop a core set of clinical skills (CSs) required for pharmacists who intend to practise as independent prescribers working in general practice/family medicine. Based on a previous study, 18 CSs were selected for inclusion in a three-round Delphi consensus questionnaire. These skills were rated by a Delphi panel on a 9-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = limited importance to 9 = critical). The Delphi panel comprised designated leads of pharmacist independent prescribing programmes in each United Kingdom educational provider listed on the General Pharmaceutical Council website. A CS was included in the core set if 80% or more of participants scored between 7 and 9, and 15% or less scored between 1 and 3. Following Round 1, seven CSs met the criteria for inclusion: 'Measuring heart rate (radial pulse)', 'Assessing respiratory rate', 'Measuring blood pressure (manual, e.g. with aneroid sphygmomanometer)', 'Measuring blood pressure (automated, i.e. electronic blood pressure monitor)', 'Measuring peripheral oxygen saturation (using pulse oximeter)', 'Measuring temperature', 'Measuring Peak Expiratory Flow Rate'. After two further rounds, a further four CSs were included consisting of 'Undertaking a urinalysis', 'Respiratory examination (includes inspection, palpation, percussion and listening to breath sounds)', 'Screening for/assessment of depression and anxiety using a validated questionnaire (e.g. Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9] scoring)', and 'Patient assessment via National Early Warning Score (NEWS)'. No consensus was reached on nine CSs. This study has produced a core set of CSs for prescribing pharmacists. This study may contribute to standardisation of training and assessment for pharmacist prescribers working in general practice/family medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Objectives To identify studies that delivered an intervention to frail older people to improve medicines optimisation; identify the outcomes reported in these studies; and assess the effectiveness of these interventions on chosen study outcomes. Method Eight electronic databases and four trial registries were systematically searched from the date of inception to April 2020. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies of interventions to improve medicines optimisation (including administration, adherence, deprescribing, prescribing and/or medication review) in community-dwelling older people (aged ≥65 years) with a frailty diagnosis. Only studies published in English were included. A narrative synthesis was conducted, and quality was assessed using an appropriate risk of bias tool. Key findings Searches identified 601 articles; one study met the criteria for inclusion. The single eligible study used a quasi-experimental pre-test–post-test study design to evaluate the impact of a pharmacist-led, team-based medication review for 54 frail older patients living in primary care. Improvements in the total number of medications and prescribing appropriateness were observed. The study was judged to be at an overall serious risk of bias. Conclusion There is a dearth of high-quality evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of medicines optimisation interventions for older people with frailty within primary care. Due to the strong association between patients' level of frailty and adverse outcomes, it is important that future research focuses on proactive interventions which may be beneficial to this patient population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medicines management in care homes requires significant improvement. CHIPPS was a cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of integrating pharmacist independent prescribers into care homes to assume central responsibility for medicines management. This paper reports the parallel mixed-methods process evaluation.Method: Intervention arm consisted of 25 triads: Care homes (staff and up to 24 residents), General Practitioner (GP) and Pharmacist Independent Prescriber (PIP). Data sources were pharmaceutical care plans (PCPs), pharmacist activity logs, online questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. Results were mapped to the process evaluation objectives following the Medical Research Council framework.Results: PCPs and activity logs were available from 22 PIPs. Questionnaires were returned by 16 PIPs, eight GPs, and two care home managers. Interviews were completed with 14 PIPs, eight GPs, nine care home managers, six care home staff, and one resident. All stakeholders reported some benefits from PIPs having responsibility for medicine management and identified no safety concerns. PIPs reported an increase in their knowledge and identified the value of having time to engage with care home staff and residents during reviews. The research paperwork was identified as least useful by many PIPs. PIPs conducted medication reviews on residents, recording 566 clinical interventions, many involving deprescribing; 93.8% of changes were sustained at 6 months. For 284 (50.2%) residents a medicine was stopped, and for a quarter of residents, changes involved a medicine linked to increased falls risk. Qualitative data indicated participants noted increased medication safety and improved resident quality of life. Contextual barriers to implementation were apparent in the few triads where PIP was not known previously to the GP and care home before the trial. In three triads, PIPs did not deliver the intervention.Conclusions: The intervention was generally implemented as intended, and well-received by most stakeholders. Whilst there was widespread deprescribing, contextual factors effected opportunity for PIP engagement in care homes. Implementation was most effective when communication pathways between PIP and GP had been previously well-established.Trial Registration: The definitive RCT was registered with the ISRCTN registry (registration number  ISRCTN 17847169 ). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [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]

Aims: To assess the effectiveness of brief interventions in primary care aimed at reducing or discontinuing long‐term benzodiazepine/Z‐drug (BZRA) use. Method: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials of brief interventions in primary care settings aimed at reducing or discontinuing long‐term BZRA use in adults taking BZRAs for ≥ 3 months. Four electronic databases were searched: PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CENTRAL. The primary outcome was BZRA use, classified as discontinuation or reduction by ≥ 25%. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was used to retrospectively code behavioural determinants targeted by the interventions. The Behaviour Change Technique (BCT) Taxonomy was used to identify the interventions' active components. Study‐specific estimates were pooled, where appropriate, to yield summary risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Pearson's correlations were used to determine the relationship between intervention effect size and the results of both the TDF and BCT coding. Results: Eight studies were included (n = 2071 patients). Compared with usual care, intervention patients were more likely to have discontinued BZRA use at 6 months (eight studies, RR = 2.73, 95% CI = 1.84–4.06) and 12 months post‐intervention (two studies, RR = 3.41, 95% CI = 2.22–5.25). TDF domains 'knowledge', 'memory, attention and decision processes', 'environmental context and resources' and 'social influences' were identified as having been included in every intervention. Commonly identified BCTs included 'information about health consequences', 'credible source' and 'adding objects to the environment'. There was no detectable relationship between effect size and the results of either the TDF or BCT coding. Conclusion: Brief interventions delivered in primary care are more effective than usual care in reducing and discontinuing long‐term benzodiazepine/Z‐drug use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs) are common bacterial infections, second only to respiratory tract infections and particularly prevalent within primary care. Conventional detection of UTIs is culture, however, return of results can take between 24 and 72 hours. The introduction of a point of care (POC) test would allow for more timely identification of UTIs, facilitating improved, targeted treatment. This study aimed to obtain consensus on the criteria required for a POC UTI test, to meet patient need within primary care. Methods: Criteria for consideration were compiled by the research team. These criteria were validated through a two-round Delphi process, utilising an expert panel of healthcare professionals from across Europe and United States of America. Using web-based questionnaires, panellists recorded their level of agreement with each criterion based on a 5-point Likert Scale, with space for comments. Using median response, interquartile range and comments provided, criteria were accepted/rejected/revised depending on pre-agreed cut-off scores. Results: The first round questionnaire presented thirty-three criteria to the panel, of which 22 were accepted. Consensus was not achieved for the remaining 11 criteria. Following response review, one criterion was removed, while after revision, the remaining 10 criteria entered the second round. Of these, four were subsequently accepted, resulting in 26 criteria considered appropriate for a POC test to detect urinary infections. Conclusion: This study generated an approved set of criteria for a POC test to detect urinary infections. Criteria acceptance and comments provided by the healthcare professionals also supports the development of a multiplex point of care UTI test. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study examines the cost-effectiveness of the OPTI-SCRIPT intervention on potentially inappropriate prescribing in primary care. Methods: Economic evaluation, using incremental cost-effectiveness and cost utility analyses, conducted alongside a cluster randomized controlled trial of twenty-one general practices and 196 patients, to compare a multifaceted intervention with usual practice in primary care in Ireland. Potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) were determined by a pharmacist. Incremental costs, PIPs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at 12-month follow-up were estimated using multilevel regression. Uncertainty was explored using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results: The intervention was associated with a nonsignificant mean cost increase of €407 (95 percent CIs, −357–1170), a significant mean reduction in PIPs of 0.379 (95 percent CI, 0.092–0.666), and a nonsignificant mean increase in QALYs of 0.013 (95 percent CIs, −0.016–0.042). The incremental cost per PIP avoided was €1,269 (95 percent CI, −1400–6302) and the incremental cost per QALY gained was €30,535 (95 percent CI, −334,846–289,498). The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 0.602 at a threshold value of €45,000 per QALY gained and was at least 0.845 at threshold values of €2,500 per PIP avoided and higher. Conclusions: While the OPTI-SCRIPT intervention was effective in reducing potentially inappropriate prescribing in primary care in Ireland, our findings highlight the uncertainty with respect to its cost-effectiveness. Further studies are required to explore the health and economic implications of interventions targeting potentially inappropriate prescribing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The OPTI-SCRIPT cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) found that a three-phase multifaceted intervention including academic detailing with a pharmacist, GP-led medicines reviews, supported by web-based pharmaceutical treatment algorithms, and tailored patient information leaflets, was effective in reducing potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in Irish primary care. We report a process evaluation exploring the implementation of the intervention, the experiences of those participating in the study and lessons for future implementation.Methods: The OPTI-SCRIPT trial included 21 GP practices and 196 patients. The process evaluation used mixed methods. Quantitative data were collected from all GP practices and semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs from intervention and control groups, and a purposive sample of patients from the intervention group. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic analysis.Results: Despite receiving a standardised academic detailing session, intervention delivery varied among GP practices. Just over 70 % of practices completed medicines review as recommended with the patient present. Only single-handed practices conducted reviews without patients present, highlighting the influence of practice characteristics and resources on variation. Medications were more likely to be completely stopped or switched to another more appropriate medication when reviews were conducted with patients present. The patient information leaflets were not used by any of the intervention practices. Both GP (32 %) and patient (40 %) recruitment rates were modest. For those who did participate, overall, the experience was positively viewed, with GPs and patients referring to the value of medication reviews to improve prescribing and reduce unnecessary medications. Lack of time in busy GP practices and remuneration were identified as organisational barriers to future implementation.Conclusions: The OPTI-SCRIPT intervention was positively viewed by both GPs and patients, both of whom valued the study's objectives. Patient information leaflets were not a successful component of the intervention. Academic detailing and medication reviews are important components in changing PIP, and having patients present during the review process seems to be a more effective approach for decreasing PIP.Trial Registration: Current controlled trials ISRCTN41694007 . Registered on 21 March 2012. [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: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is common in older people and can result in increased morbidity, adverse drug events, and hospitalizations. The OPTI-SCRIPT study (Optimizing Prescribing for Older People in Primary Care, a cluster-randomized controlled trial) tested the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention for reducing PIP in primary care.Methods: We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial among 21 general practitioner practices and 196 patients with PIP. Intervention participants received a complex, multifaceted intervention incorporating academic detailing; review of medicines with web-based pharmaceutical treatment algorithms that provide recommended alternative-treatment options; and tailored patient information leaflets. Control practices delivered usual care and received simple, patient-level PIP feedback. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients with PIP and the mean number of potentially inappropriate prescriptions. We performed intention-to-treat analysis using random-effects regression.Results: All 21 practices and 190 patients were followed. At intervention completion, patients in the intervention group had significantly lower odds of having PIP than patients in the control group (adjusted odds ratio = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.15-0.70; P = .02). The mean number of PIP drugs in the intervention group was 0.70, compared with 1.18 in the control group (P = .02). The intervention group was almost one-third less likely than the control group to have PIP drugs at intervention completion, but this difference was not significant (incidence rate ratio = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.50-1.02; P = .49). The intervention was effective in reducing proton pump inhibitor prescribing (adjusted odds ratio = 0.30; 95% CI, 0.14-0.68; P = .04).Conclusions: The OPTI-SCRIPT intervention incorporating academic detailing with a pharmacist, and a review of medicines with web-based pharmaceutical treatment algorithms, was effective in reducing PIP, particularly in modifying prescribing of proton pump inhibitors, the most commonly occurring PIP drugs nationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in older people is common in primary care and can result in increased morbidity, adverse drug events, hospitalizations and mortality. The prevalence of PIP in Ireland is estimated at 36% with an associated expenditure of over €45 million in 2007. The aim of this paper is to describe the application of the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework to the development of an intervention to decrease PIP in Irish primary care. Methods: The MRC framework for the design and evaluation of complex interventions guided the development of the study intervention. In the development stage, literature was reviewed and combined with information obtained from experts in the field using a consensus based methodology and patient cases to define the main components of the intervention. In the pilot stage, five GPs tested the proposed intervention. Qualitative interviews were conducted with the GPs to inform the development and implementation of the intervention for the main randomised controlled trial. Results: The literature review identified PIP criteria for inclusion in the study and two initial intervention components - academic detailing and medicines review supported by therapeutic treatment algorithms. Through patient case studies and a focus group with a group of 8 GPs, these components were refined and a third component of the intervention identified - patient information leaflets. The intervention was tested in a pilot study. In total, eight medicine reviews were conducted across five GP practices. These reviews addressed ten instances of PIP, nine of which were addressed in the form of either a dose reduction or a discontinuation of a targeted medication. Qualitative interviews highlighted that GPs were receptive to the intervention but patient preference and time needed both to prepare for and conduct the medicines review, emerged as potential barriers. Findings from the pilot study allowed further refinement to produce the finalised intervention of academic detailing with a pharmacist, medicines review with web-based therapeutic treatment algorithms and tailored patient information leaflets. Conclusions: The MRC framework was used in the development of the OPTI-SCRIPT intervention to decrease the level of PIP in primary care in Ireland. Its application ensured that the intervention was developed using the best available evidence, was acceptable to GPs and feasible to deliver in the clinical setting. The effectiveness of this intervention is currently being tested in a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial. Trial registration: Current controlled trials ISRCTN41694007 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people is common in primary care and can result in increased morbidity, adverse drug events, hospitalizations and mortality. In Ireland, 36% of those aged 70 years or over received at least one potentially inappropriate medication, with an associated expenditure of over €45 million. The main objective of this study is to determine the effectiveness and acceptability of a complex, multifaceted intervention in reducing the level of potentially inappropriate prescribing in primary care. Methods/design: This study is a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial, conducted in primary care (OPTISCRIPT trial), involving 22 practices (clusters) and 220 patients. Practices will be allocated to intervention or control arms using minimization, with intervention participants receiving a complex multifaceted intervention incorporating academic detailing, medicines review with web-based pharmaceutical treatment algorithms that provide recommended alternative treatment options, and tailored patient information leaflets. Control practices will deliver usual care and receive simple patient-level feedback on potentially inappropriate prescribing. Routinely collected national prescribing data will also be analyzed for nonparticipating practices, acting as a contemporary national control. The primary outcomes are the proportion of participant patients with potentially inappropriate prescribing and the mean number of potentially inappropriate prescriptions per patient. In addition, economic and qualitative evaluations will be conducted. Discussion: This study will establish the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention in reducing potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people in Irish primary care that is generalizable to countries with similar prescribing challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Mental disorders (MDs) are mainly treated in primary care (PC), where psychotropic drug (PSD) prescribing is highly prevalent. Prescription of PSD is associated with clinical and non-clinical factors.Purpose. To describe the patterns of PSD prescribing over a 12-month period and to determine the factors associated with this in a PC population.Methods. Cross-sectional study. Data were collected on 3815 patients, via patient interview, on sociodemographics and MDs [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV criteria)]. Computerized records provided data on PSD prescribing. Multilevel logistic regressions assessed the factors that influence prescribing.Results. Thirty-four per cent of PC patients were prescribed PSDs >12 months, with anxiolytics being the most commonly prescribed (22%). Fifty-three per cent of patients with any MD in this 12-month period were prescribed PSDs; however, 25% of patients without any of these disorders were also prescribed these medications. Higher rates of prescribing were associated with female gender, older age, presence of MD, being a househusband/housewife, consulting about psychological problems, increasing number of consultations and higher self-perceived disability. PSDs were less likely to be prescribed to patients born outside Spain and those consulting about physical conditions. PSD prescribing was higher in patients previously married and antipsychotic prescribing was higher in patients never married. No statistically significant associations were found between PSD prescription and education.Conclusions. PSD prescribing rates are high in Catalonia and are associated with a number of clinical and non-clinical factors. A significant proportion of patients are receiving these drugs in the absence of MD. These findings need to be considered when prescribing in PC. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]