Search

Background Community pharmacists potentially have an important role to play in identification of frailty and delivery of interventions to optimise medicines use for frail older adults. However, little is known about their knowledge or views about this role. Aim To explore community pharmacists' knowledge of frailty and assessment, experiences and contact with frail older adults, and perceptions of their role in optimising medicines use for this population. Methods Semi-structured interviews conducted between March and December 2020 with 15 community pharmacists in Northern Ireland. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. Results Three broad themes were generated from the data. The first, 'awareness and understanding of frailty', highlighted gaps in community pharmacists' knowledge regarding presentation and identification of frailty and their reluctance to broach potentially challenging conversations with frail older patients. Within the second theme, 'problem-solving and supporting medication use', community pharmacists felt a large part of their role was to resolve medicines-related issues for frail older adults through collaboration with other primary healthcare professionals but feedback on the outcome was often not provided upon issue resolution. The third theme, 'seizing opportunities in primary care to enhance pharmaceutical care provision for frail older adults', identified areas for further development of the community pharmacist role. Conclusions This study has provided an understanding of the views and experiences of community pharmacists about frailty. Community pharmacists' knowledge deficits about frailty must be addressed and their communication skills enhanced so they may confidently initiate conversations about frailty and medicines use with older adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: There is concern about the use of anticholinergic medications in people living with dementia (PLWD). Such medicines may increase cognitive decline and may be associated with higher mortality in PLWD who take these medicines. The aim of this study was to analyse data from an online dementia discussion forum to explore the experiences and perspectives of PLWD and carers about the use of anticholinergic medicines in this population. Methods: Following receipt of ethical approval, archived discussions (posts) from Dementia Talking Point, a fully public online forum for anyone affected by dementia, created and maintained by the Alzheimer's Society, were searched from the date of inception to January 2022 using a range of search terms including commonly used anticholinergic medicines. Posts, including any of the search terms, were assessed for relevance and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: Five hundred and fifty unique posts were analysed, all of which had been provided by carers, with no posts attributed to PLWD. The themes that encompassed carers' experiences were (1) motivators of prescribing, (2) perspectives on the process of prescribing and (3) the outcomes of prescribing. The dominant motivator of prescribing was the management of noncognitive symptoms, pre‐ and postdiagnosis of dementia. Carers' perspectives on the process of prescribing were informed by an assessment of the risk‐benefit of starting a medication and shared decision‐making between the carer and healthcare professional to a greater or lesser degree. The outcomes of prescribing were observing the effects of the medicines, which in turn influenced whether prescribing was reviewed and continued unchanged, continued but amended, reinitiated if the medicine had been previously stopped or discontinued (the process of deprescribing). Conclusion: This study has provided unique insights into carers' experiences and perspectives about the use of anticholinergic medications in PLWD, highlighting how commonly these medications are prescribed for PLWD and carers' concerns about their use. There is a clear need for carers and PLWD to receive information about these medicines and healthcare professionals to consider how to optimise the use of these medicines to avoid adverse effects. Patient or Public Contribution: This work was informed by findings from previous research studies focusing on optimising medicine use for people with dementia in primary care, in which interviews were conducted with PLWD, their carers and primary healthcare professionals. Although not strictly patient and public involvement, we utilised the feedback provided by key stakeholders to inform the research questions and aim/objectives of this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medication review (MR) is the systematic assessment of a patient's medications for safety and effectiveness by a healthcare professional. The language used to describe MR activity, such as stopped medicine and increased dose, should be consistent across studies to assist researchers compare how different services operate and identify their mechanism of impact. Aim: To develop an international taxonomy of standardized terms and activity definitions related to medication reviews. Method: This was a three-stage Delphi-based consensus study with international medication review experts. A systematic review provided MR activity terms for the survey. Experts rated their consensus on each activity term and its definition on a Likert scale and provided written feedback. The consensus was 75% panel agreement. At each stage, consensus elements were retained, and feedback was used to revise definitions. Results: Seven experts were recruited for the study (response rate 15.2%) from four countries: the United Kingdom (n = 4), New Zealand (n = 1), Australia (n = 1), and Malaysia (n = 1). The following terms achieved consensus: the term Medication as a descriptor for MR terms; discontinue medication, start medication, dose increase, dose decrease, dosage form change, and medication safety and efficacy monitor to describe MR activity; Educate to describe the delivery of healthcare professionals and patients/carers education. Conclusion: Standardized medication review activity terms and definitions have been selected for universal adoption in all future MR research to facilitate a meaningful comparison of process evaluations within different settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]