Search

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.

Additional file 1. SPIRIT checklist.

Objective: Hand oedema after injury or surgery is commonly encountered by hand therapists. Whilst being part of the healing process if left untreated or poorly treated it can lead to significant and long term functional difficulties. There is a lack of high quality evidence to support interventions [for full text, please go to the a.m. URL], 14th Triennial Congress of the International Federation of Societies for Surgery of the Hand (IFSSH), 11th Triennial Congress of the International Federation of Societies for Hand Therapy (IFSHT), 11th Triennial Congress of the International Federation of Societies for Hand Therapy (IFSHT)

Community-based screening and treatment of women age 70–85 years at high fracture risk reduced fractures; moreover, the screening programme of fracture risk in older women had an effect that was cost-saving. The results support a case for a screening programme of fracture risk in older women in the UK.Purpose The SCOOP (screening for prevention of fractures in older women) randomised controlled trial investigated whether community-based screening could reduce fractures in women age 70–85 years. The objective of this study was to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of screening for fracture risk in a UK primary care setting compared with usual management, based on the SCOOP study.Methods:A health economic Markov model was used to predict the life-time consequences in terms of costs and quality of life of the screening programme compared with the control arm. The model was populated with costs related to drugs, administration and screening intervention derived from the SCOOP study. Fracture risk reduction in the screening arm compared with the usual management arm was derived from SCOOP. Modelled fracture risk corresponded to the risk observed in SCOOP. Results: Screening saved 9 hip fractures and 20 non-hip fractures over the remaining lifetime (mean 14 years) of 1,000 patients compared with usual management. In total, the screening arm saved costs (£286) and gained 0.015 QALYs/patient in comparison with usual management arm. Conclusions:This analysis suggests that a screening programme of fracture risk in older women in the UK would gain quality of life and life years, and reduce fracture costs to more than offset the cost of running the programme.

Summary In the large community-based SCOOP trial, systematic fracture risk screening using FRAX® led to greater use of AOM and greater adherence, in women at high fracture risk, compared with usual care. Introduction In the SCreening of Older wOmen for Prevention of fracture (SCOOP) trial, we investigated the effect of the screening intervention on subsequent long-term self-reported adherence to anti-osteoporosis medications (AOM). Methods SCOOP was a primary care–based UK multicentre trial of screening for fracture risk. A total of 12,483 women (70–85 years) were randomised to either usual NHS care, or assessment using the FRAX® tool ± dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), with medication recommended for those found to be at high risk of hip fracture. Self-reported AOM use was obtained by postal questionnaires at 6, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months. Analysis was limited to those who initiated AOM during follow-up. Logistic regression was used to explore baseline determinants of adherence (good ≥ 80%; poor

Background Residents in care homes are often very frail, have complex medicine regimens and are at high risk of adverse drug events. It has been recommended that one healthcare professional should assume responsibility for their medicines management. We propose that this could be a pharmacist independent prescriber (PIP). This feasibility study aimed to test and refine the service specification and proposed study processes to inform the design and outcome measures of a definitive randomised controlled trial to examine the clinical and cost effectiveness of PIPs working in care homes compared to usual care. Specific objectives included testing processes for participant identification, recruitment and consent and assessing retention rates; determining suitability of outcome measures and data collection processes from care homes and GP practices to inform selection of a primary outcome measure; assessing service and research acceptability; and testing and refining the service specification. Methods Mixed methods (routine data, questionnaires and focus groups/interviews) were used in this non-randomised open feasibility study of a 3-month PIP intervention in care homes for older people. Data were collected at baseline and 3 months. One PIP, trained in service delivery, one GP practice and up to three care homes were recruited at each of four UK locations. For ten eligible residents (≥ 65 years, on at least one regular medication) in each home, the PIP undertook management of medicines, repeat prescription authorisation, referral to other healthcare professionals and staff training. Outcomes (falls, medications, resident’s quality of life and activities of daily living, mental state and adverse events) were described at baseline and follow-up and assessed for inclusion in the main study. Participants’ views post-intervention were captured in audio-recorded focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were thematically analysed. Results Across the four locations, 44 GP practices and 16 PIPs expressed interest in taking part; all care homes invited agreed to take part. Two thirds of residents approached consented to participate (53/86). Forty residents were recruited (mean age 84 years; 61% (24) were female), and 38 participants remained at 3 months (two died). All GP practices, PIPs and care homes were retained. The number of falls per participating resident was selected as the primary outcome, following assessment of the different outcome measures against predetermined criteria. The chosen secondary outcomes/outcome measures include total falls, drug burden index (DBI), hospitalisations, mortality, activities of daily living (Barthel (proxy)) and quality of life (ED-5Q-5 L (face-to-face and proxy)) and selected items from the STOPP/START guidance that could be assessed without need for clinical judgement. No adverse drug events were reported. The PIP service was generally well received by the majority of stakeholders (care home staff, GPS, residents, relatives and other health care professionals). PIPs reported feeling more confident implementing change following the training but reported challenges accommodating the new service within their existing workload. Conclusion Implementing a PIP service in care homes is feasible and acceptable to care home residents, staff and clinicians. Findings have informed refinements to the service specification, PIP training, recruitment to the future RCT and the choice of outcomes and outcome measures. The full RCT with internal pilot started in February 2016 and results are expected to be available in mid late 2020. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s40814-019-0465-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Screening for Osteoporosis in Older Women for the Prevention of Fracture (SCOOP) study was a community-based screening intervention in women aged 70 to 85 years in the United Kingdom. In the screening arm, licensed osteoporosis treatments were recommended in women identified to be at high risk of hip fracture using the FRAX risk assessment tool (including bone mineral density measurement). In the control arm, standard care was provided. Screening led to a 28% reduction in hip fractures over 5 years. In this planned post hoc analysis, we wished to examine for interactions between screening effectiveness on fracture outcome (any, osteoporotic, and hip fractures) on the one hand and baseline FRAX 10-year probability of hip fracture on the other. All analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis, based on the group to which women were randomized, irrespective of whether screening was completed. Of 12,483 eligible participants, 6233 women were randomized to screening, with treatment recommended in 898 (14.4%). No evidence of an effect or interaction was observed for the outcomes of any fracture or osteoporotic fracture. In the screening arm, 54 fewer hip fractures were observed than in the control arm (164 versus 218, 2.6% versus 3.5%), and commensurate with treatment being targeted to those at highest hip fracture risk, the effect on hip fracture increased with baseline FRAX hip fracture probability (p = 0.021 for interaction); for example, at the 10th percentile of baseline FRAX hip probability (2.6%), there was no evidence that hip fractures were reduced (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71 to 1.23), but at the 90th percentile (16.6%), there was a 33% reduction (HR = 0.67; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.84). Prior fracture and parental history of hip fracture positively influenced screening effectiveness on hip fracture risk. We conclude that women at high risk of hip fracture based on FRAX probability are responsive to appropriate osteoporosis management. © 2018 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.