Search

Background: Influenza (flu) vaccination rates in UK care home staff are extremely low. Less than 40% of staff in care homes are vaccinated for influenza (flu), presenting risks to the health of frail residents and potential staff absence from cross-infection. Staff often do not perceive a need for vaccination and are unaware they are entitled to free flu vaccination. The FluCare study, a cluster randomised control trial (RCT), uses behavioural interventions to address barriers. Videos, posters, and leaflets are intended to raise awareness of flu vaccination benefits and debunk myths. On-site staff vaccination clinics increase accessibility. Financial incentives to care homes for improved vaccination rates and regular monitoring influence the environment. This paper outlines the planned process evaluation which will describe the intervention's mechanisms of action, explain any changes in outcomes, identify local adaptations, and inform design of the implementation phase. Methods/design: A mixed method process evaluation to inform the interpretation of trial findings. Objectives: • Describe the intervention as delivered in terms of dose and fidelity, including adaptations and variations across care homes. • Explore the effects of individual intervention components on primary outcomes. • Investigate the mechanisms of impact. • Describe the perceived effectiveness of relevant intervention components (including videos, leaflets, posters, and flu clinics) from participant perspectives (care home manager, care home staff, flu clinic providers). • Describe the characteristics of care homes and participants to assess reach. A purposive sample of twenty care homes (ten in the intervention arm, ten in the control arm) for inclusion in the process evaluation. Data will include (1) study records including care home site profiles, (2) responses to a mechanism of action questionnaire, and (3) semi-structured interviews with care home staff and clinic providers. Quantitative data will be descriptively reported. Interview data will be thematically analysed and then categories mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework. Discussion: Adopting this systematic and comprehensive process evaluation approach will help ensure data is captured on all aspects of the trial, enabling a full understanding of the intervention implementation and RCT findings. Trial registration: ISRCTN ISRCTN22729870. Registered on 24 August 2022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The Care Home Independent Pharmacist Prescriber Study (CHIPPS) process evaluation hypothesized that contextual factors influenced the likelihood of deprescribing by pharmacist-independent prescribers. The aim of this paper is to test this hypothesis. Methods: From CHIPPS study data, medications deprescribed totalled 284 for 370 residents in UK care homes. Regression analysis was used to describe the relationship between the number of medicines stopped and contextual factors (number of residents cared for, pharmacist employment within associated medical practice, previous care home experience, hours active within trial, years’ experience as a pharmacist and as a prescriber). Results: Number of residents and pharmacist-independent prescriber employment within a medical practice were positive predictors of deprescribing. Conclusion: Previous experiences were not related to deprescribing likelihood. Increasing the number of residents increases the opportunity for deprescribing and therefore this relationship is intuitive. The location within a medical practice is an interesting finding that requires further exploration to understand its exact nature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background hospital deprescribing trials have demonstrated marginal increases in deprescribing activity that are not sustained beyond the trial period. The hospital deprescribing implementation framework (hDIF) links barriers and enablers of deprescribing in hospital with 44 potential intervention components. This study aimed to support geriatricians and pharmacists to select and characterise hDIF components according to affordability, practicability, effectiveness, acceptability, safety and equity (APEASE) to design a deprescribing intervention in the English hospital setting. Methods we convened a modified Nominal Group Technique with a panel of nine geriatricians and pharmacists representing five English hospitals. Panel members selected and characterised intervention components from the hDIF based on the APEASE criteria. We set a consensus threshold of 80% agreement per APEASE criterion in order for the intervention component to be included. Results the panel selected five intervention components supporting engagement with deprescribing: an organisational action plan to prioritise deprescribing, two training activities to address pharmacists' beliefs about negative deprescribing consequences, restructuring pharmacists' working patterns to facilitate their contribution to deprescribing decisions, and sharing experiences of successfully engaging patients/family in deprescribing conversations to support others to do the same. A sixth component was selected to sustain engagement with deprescribing through measuring and sharing deprescribing activity achieved between teams. Conclusions deprescribing interventions targeting geriatricians' and pharmacists' behaviour in the English hospital context should include the six characterised components. A component to sustain deprescribing activity is a notable omission from previously reported deprescribing interventions and may explain their failure to maintain efficacy beyond the short-term trial period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background over 50% of older people in hospital are prescribed a pre-admission medicine that is potentially inappropriate; however, deprescribing by geriatricians and pharmacists is limited. This study aimed to characterise geriatricians' and pharmacists' barriers and enablers to deprescribing in hospital. It also intended to develop a framework of intervention components to facilitate implementation of hospital deprescribing. Methods fifty-four geriatricians and pharmacists representing four UK hospitals attended eight focus groups. We designed a topic guide to invite discussions about barriers and enablers to deprescribing. After thematic analysis, themes were mapped to the theoretical domains framework (TDF), enabling prioritisation of domains for behaviour change. We then identified evidence-based intervention components for changing behaviour within prioritised TDF domains. Results geriatricians and pharmacists described several deprescribing enablers in the hospital setting including alignment with their role and generalist knowledge, and routine patient monitoring. Five prioritised TDF domains represent the key barriers and enabler: patient and caregiver attachment to medication (social influence); perceptions that deprescribing is riskier than continuing to prescribe (beliefs about consequences); pharmacists' working patterns limiting capacity to support deprescribing (environmental context and resources); deprescribing being a low hospital priority (goals) and incentives to deprescribe (reinforcement). Prioritised TDF domains aligned with 44 evidence-based intervention components to address the barriers and enabler to hospital deprescribing. Conclusion the behavioural determinants and their associated intervention components provide a hospital deprescribing implementation framework (hDIF). Intervention components should be selected from the hDIF to provide a theory and evidence-based intervention tailored to hospital contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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