Search

Objectives: To explore the barriers and enablers to providing and receiving primary care for osteoarthritis (OA) in Ireland from the perspectives of primary care healthcare professionals (HCPs) and individuals with OA., Design: Descriptive qualitative study incorporating an inductive thematic analysis to identify key barrier and enabler themes and subsequent deductive mapping to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)., Setting: Primary care in Ireland., Participants: HCPs, including 6 general practitioners, 5 physiotherapists, 1 occupational therapist and 1 practice nurse, and 13 individuals with OA were interviewed., Results: Identified barriers and enablers related to nine domains of the TDF. Key barriers identified by HCPs included limited and delayed access to multidisciplinary primary care services, lack of integrated care pathways specific to OA and insufficient training in musculoskeletal conditions including OA. Individuals with OA also reported poor access to health services due to long waiting lists, lack of education on OA and feelings of not being taken seriously by HCPs. There is a need for targeted HCP education and training to address the identified knowledge, skills and confidence gaps in communication, diagnosis and evidence-based management of OA. Improved management of OA through system-level changes, including integrated care pathways with multidisciplinary services to better support individuals with OA in the community, is required., Conclusions: This study identified several barriers and enablers to the management of OA. These findings highlight areas to be targeted by future interventions aimed at improving the management of OA in primary care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

When treating malnutrition, oral nutritional supplements (ONSs) are advised when optimising the diet is insufficient; however, ONS usage and user characteristics have not been previously analysed. A retrospective secondary analysis was performed on dispensed pharmacy claim data for 14,282 anonymised adult patients in primary care in Ireland in 2018. Patient sex, age, residential status, ONS volume (units) and ONS cost (EUR) were analysed. The categories of 'Moderate' (<75th centile), 'High' (75th-89th centile) and 'Very High' ONS users (≥90th centile) were created. The analyses among groups utilised t -tests, Mann-Whitney U tests and chi-squared tests. This cohort was 58.2% female, median age was 76 years, with 18.7% in residential care. The most frequently dispensed ONS type was very-high-energy sip feeds (45% of cohort). Younger males were dispensed more ONSs than females (<65 years: median units, 136 vs. 90; p < 0.01). Patients living independently were dispensed half the volume of those in residential care (112 vs. 240 units; p < 0.01). 'Moderate' ONS users were dispensed a yearly median of 84 ONS units (median cost, EUR 153), 'High' users were dispensed 420 units (EUR 806) and 'Very High' users 892 yearly units (EUR 2402; p < 0.01). Further analyses should focus on elucidating the reasons for high ONS usage in residential care patients and younger males.

Background: There is a rising prevalence of multimorbidity, particularly in older patients, and a need for evidence-based medicines management interventions for this population. The Supporting Prescribing in Older Adults with Multimorbidity in Irish Primary Care (SPPiRE) trial aimed to investigate the effect of a general practitioner (GP)-delivered, individualised medication review in reducing polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) in community-dwelling older patients with multimorbidity in primary care., Methods and Findings: We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) set in 51 GP practices throughout the Republic of Ireland. A total of 404 patients, aged ≥65 years with complex multimorbidity, defined as being prescribed ≥15 regular medicines, were recruited from April 2017 and followed up until October 2020. Furthermore, 26 intervention GP practices received access to the SPPiRE website where they completed an educational module and used a template for an individualised patient medication review that identified PIP, opportunities for deprescribing, and patient priorities for care. A total of 25 control GP practices delivered usual care. An independent blinded pharmacist assessed primary outcome measures that were the number of medicines and the proportion of patients with any PIP (from a predefined list of 34 indicators based predominantly on the STOPP/START version 2 criteria). We performed an intention-to-treat analysis using multilevel modelling. Recruited participants had substantial disease and treatment burden at baseline with a mean of 17.37 (standard deviation [SD] 3.50) medicines. At 6-month follow-up, both intervention and control groups had reductions in the numbers of medicines with a small but significantly greater reduction in the intervention group (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.899 to 0.999, p = 0.045). There was no significant effect on the odds of having at least 1 PIP in the intervention versus control group (odds ratio [OR] 0.39, 95% CI: 0.140 to 1.064, p = 0.066). Adverse events recorded included mortality, emergency department (ED) presentations, and adverse drug withdrawal events (ADWEs), and there was no evidence of harm. Less than 2% of drug withdrawals in the intervention group led to a reported ADWE. Due to the inability to electronically extract data, primary outcomes were measured at just 2 time points, and this is the main limitation of this work., Conclusions: The SPPiRE intervention resulted in a small but significant reduction in the number of medicines but no evidence of a clear effect on PIP. This reduction in significant polypharmacy may have more of an impact at a population rather than individual patient level., Trial Registration: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN12752680., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

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: Multimorbidity, defined as the presence of at least two chronic conditions, becomes increasingly common in older people and is associated with poorer health outcomes and significant polypharmacy. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) recently published a multimorbidity guideline that advises providing an individualised medication review for all people prescribed 15 or more repeat medicines. This study incorporates this guideline and aims to assess the effectiveness of a complex intervention designed to support general practitioners (GPs) to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing and consider deprescribing in older people with multimorbidity and significant polypharmacy in Irish primary care., Methods: This study is a cluster randomised controlled trial, involving 30 general practices and 450 patients throughout Ireland. Practices will be eligible to participate if they have at least 300 patients aged 65 years and over on their patient panel and if they use either one of the two predominant practice management software systems in use in Ireland. Using a software patient finder tool, practices will identify and recruit patients aged 65 years and over, who are prescribed at least 15 repeat medicines. Once baseline data collection is complete, practices will be randomised using minimisation by an independent third party to either intervention or control. Given the nature of the intervention, it is not possible to blind participants or study personnel. GPs in intervention practices will receive login details to a website where they will access training videos and a template for conducting an individualised structured medication review, which they will undertake with each of their included patients. Control practices will deliver usual care over the 6-month study period. Primary outcome measures pertain to the individual patient level and are the proportion of patients with any PIP and the number of repeat medicines., Discussion: Disease-specific approaches in multimorbidity may be inappropriate and result in fragmented and poorly co-ordinated care. This pragmatic study is evaluating a complex intervention that is relevant across multiple conditions and addresses potential concerns around medicines safety in this vulnerable group of patients. The potential for system-wide implementation will be explored with a parallel mixed methods process evaluation., Trial Registration: ISRCTN: 12752680 , Registered 20 October 2016.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

Background: Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is common in older people in primary care and can result in increased morbidity, adverse drug events and hospitalisations. We previously demonstrated the success of a multifaceted intervention in decreasing PIP in primary care in a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT)., Objective: We sought to determine whether the improvement in PIP in the short term was sustained at 1-year follow-up., Methods: A cluster RCT was conducted with 21 GP practices and 196 patients (aged ≥70) with PIP in Irish primary care. Intervention participants received a complex multifaceted intervention incorporating academic detailing, medicine review 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 at 1-year follow-up. Intention-to-treat analysis using random effects regression was used., Results: All 21 GP practices and 186 (95 %) patients were followed up. We found that at 1-year follow-up, the significant reduction in the odds of PIP exposure achieved during the intervention was sustained after its discontinuation (adjusted OR 0.28, 95 % CI 0.11 to 0.76, P = 0.01). Intervention participants had significantly lower odds of having a potentially inappropriate proton pump inhibitor compared to controls (adjusted OR 0.40, 95 % CI 0.17 to 0.94, P = 0.04)., Conclusion: The significant reduction in the odds of PIP achieved during the intervention was sustained after its discontinuation. These results indicate that improvements in prescribing quality can be maintained over time., Trial Registration: Current controlled trials ISRCTN41694007 .

Objectives: Following appropriate validation, clinical prediction rules (CPRs) should undergo impact analysis to evaluate their effect on patient care. The aim of this systematic review is to narratively review and critically appraise CPR impact analysis studies relevant to primary care., Setting: Primary care., Participants: Adults and children., Intervention: Studies that implemented the CPR compared to usual care were included., Study Design: Randomised controlled trial (RCT), controlled before-after, and interrupted time series., Primary Outcome: Physician behaviour and/or patient outcomes., Results: A total of 18 studies, incorporating 14 unique CPRs, were included. The main study design was RCT (n=13). Overall, 10 studies reported an improvement in primary outcome with CPR implementation. Of 6 musculoskeletal studies, 5 were effective in altering targeted physician behaviour in ordering imaging for patients presenting with ankle, knee and neck musculoskeletal injuries. Of 6 cardiovascular studies, 4 implemented cardiovascular risk scores, and 3 reported no impact on physician behaviour outcomes, such as prescribing and referral, or patient outcomes, such as reduction in serum lipid levels. 2 studies examined CPRs in decision-making for patients presenting with chest pain and reduced inappropriate admissions. Of 5 respiratory studies, 2 were effective in reducing antibiotic prescribing for sore throat following CPR implementation. Overall, study methodological quality was often unclear due to incomplete reporting., Conclusions: Despite increasing interest in developing and validating CPRs relevant to primary care, relatively few have gone through impact analysis. To date, research has focused on a small number of CPRs across few clinical domains only., (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/)

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., (© 2015 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

To confront the challenges facing modern health care, experts and organizations are calling for an increase in physician leadership capabilities. In response to this need, physician leadership programs are proliferating, targeting all levels of experience at all levels of training. Many academic medical centers, major universities, and specialty societies now sponsor physician leadership training programs. To meet this need, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, as part of its Primary Care-Population Medicine (PC-PM) Program, designed a four-year integrated curriculum, Leadership in Health Care, to engage with leadership topics starting early in the preclinical stages of training. This paper describes the design and implementation of this leadership curriculum for PC-PM students.

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.

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 (OPTI-SCRIPT 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., Trial Registration: Current controlled trials ISRCTN41694007.